Perhaps begin this consideration by thinking about this comment from an Obama classmate while he was attending Harvard. The comment was made by a woman discussing the question of how Obama was considered for the Harvard Law Review, and what people were discussing about him at the time. It was reported in the New York Times:
“Obama cast himself as an eager listener,” the New York Times reported, “sometimes giving warring classmates the impression that he agreed with all of them at once.” ——- 1990
This has been one of the consistently valid charges against Obama, he is the ultimate ‘fencesitter/windtester/politician’ and tries to position himself on both sides of any argument or point of opposition. Considering President Obama’s AIPAC speech today it is obvious that Obama is trying, however poorly, to clean up a mess he created with his previous “historic” speech about a new direction in Mid-East affairs specifically targeting comments made about Israel and the 1967 borders. However, there are two “key” phrases within his “clarification” that make the intent even that much more confusing.
First, as Doug Ross quickly points out Obama’s use of the word “contiguous” regarding the Palistinian State is troubling by itself: Speaking at AIPAC this morning, President Barack Obama reiterated his call for a “sovereign, contiguous Palestinian state” using “1967 borders with mutually-agreed upon swaps”. He also claimed his comments on Thursday were “misrepresented.”
Forget the ’67 borders for a moment. Consider the implications of a “contiguous Palestinian state“.
This current map illustrates the idiocy of such a plan. To join Gaza with the
West Bank (contiguous) would require splitting Israel into two pieces.
That ain’t gonna happen. So President Obama just doubled-down on an absolutely nonsensical proposal. Israel tried this before: it gave Gaza to the
Palestinian people. And it quickly became an armed camp, a launchpad for
non-stop terror attacks. Any hope for peace with these barbaric
throwbacks is delusional. There can’t be peace with those who want you dead.
Secondly consider this next statement which is even more alarming when you think about the quintessential need for trust and confidence when discussing impacts upon allies:
[My controversial remarks] discussed a border that is different than one negotiated on June 4, 1967. That is what “mutually agreed-upon swaps” means. […] The ultimate goal is two states for two peoples […] Each state enjoying mutual recognition, self-determination and peace. If there is a controversy then, it’s not based in substance […] I said publicly what has long-been discussed privately.
Think about that last sentence for a minute. “I said publicly what has long-been discussed privately”. How it can motivate Netanyahu to make “peace” with a Hamas-PLO “state” defies common sense. If every “private” conversation between Israel and the Arabs (whose substance is rejected by the Arabs) becomes part of Obama’s “basis” for a solution to the conflict, and then used against Israel to justify more concessions, Netanyahu should be read his Miranda rights before sitting down with the Arabs… Hey Jew! Everything you say can and will be used against you by the White House, the State Dept and your enemies. Better still, it should warn Bibi to avoid Obama’s trap altogether and just stay away.
The Washington Examiner also picked up on the Obama “DoubleSpeak” in this article:
(WashingtonExaminer) President Obama in a Sunday speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee tried to clear up what he said was a “controversy” stemming from his recent speech on the Middle East, but the result was an address that was shrouded in contradictions, especially on the issue of negotiating with the terrorist group Hamas.
Obama was received by standing ovations, though not overwhelming ones. The pro-Israel crowd was mostly quiet when he mentioned the 1967 borders, and there were even some scattered boos.
“If there’s a controversy, then, it’s not based in substance,” Obama said. On the issue of the 1967 borders, he reassured the audience that, “By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two peoples.”
However, the most alarming aspect of the speech was when Obama managed to completely contradict himself within just two paragraphs. In one, he said that Israel couldn’t be expected to negotiate with a government that includes Hamas, while in the very next paragraph he said not negotiating wasn’t an option.
Here are the relevant paragraphs (emphasis mine):
Now, I have said repeatedly that core issues can only be negotiated in direct talks between the parties. And I indicated on Thursday that the recent agreement between Fatah and Hamas poses an enormous obstacle to peace. No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction. We will continue to demand that Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace: recognizing Israel’s right to exist, rejecting violence, and adhering to all existing agreements. And we once again call on Hamas to release Gilad Shalit, who has been kept from his family for five long years.
And yet, no matter how hard it may be to start meaningful negotiations under the current circumstances, we must acknowledge that a failure to try is not an option. The status quo is unsustainable. That is why, on Thursday, I stated publicly the principles that the United States believes can provide a foundation for negotiations toward an agreement to end the conflict and all claims – the broad outlines of which have been known for many years, and have been the template for discussions between the United States, Israelis, and Palestinians since at least the Clinton Administration.
Going into the speech, I wrote that Obama could go a long way in fixing the diplomatic dust up with Israel by vowing to cut off aid to any government that includes Hamas. But not only did he not do that, Obama now seems to be suggesting that Israel must negotiate with the terrorist group dedicated to its destruction. (read more)
Again we remember the astute observation from his days in college:
“Obama cast himself as an eager listener,” “sometimes giving warring classmates the impression that he agreed with all of them at once.”