Filibuster CartoonsTitle: Bowing to foreigners (click to view)
Date: May 24, 2011
Next time you're looking at some big wall map of the world, note the way Israel is depicted. Assuming it's a good, up-to-date, politically-correct map, the country will have two little dotted-line blobs inside of it, often shaded in with an entirely different color from the rest of the territory. These blobs are of course the Palestinian territories, the Gaza Strip to the west and the West Bank to the east, sometimes joined by a third blob, the Golan Heights, to the north. Map-makers use dotted lines and different colors for these areas the same reason they depict Kashmir with diagonal shading: the land is disputed.
Prior to the so-called "Six-Day War" of 1967, Israel didn't have any of the dotted-line lands; all were sized in that conflict as part of an effort to create a protective "buffer" following repeated multi-front Arab invasions. At one time it was assumed that Israel would eventually give the land back to the nations from which they were taken: Jordan, Egypt, and Syria respectively, but over the years the narrative has evolved, and it's now pretty much the established consensus — both internationally and in Israel itself — that Gaza and the West Bank should actually form a new country altogether, the nation of Palestine. For many decades now, the dotted-line places have thus been regarded as a nation-in-waiting, a legitimacy that was further solidified following the US-brokered Oslo Accords of 1993, which established a universally-recognized, interim Palestinian government in the lands now known as the "occupied territories."
I mention this background only to remind how so much of our understanding of the Palestinian-Israeli situation is based around the aftermath of the 1967 war, and the quickly-undermined borders that war established. So when President Obama
declared last week that he wants to see an independent Palestinian nation "based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps," he wasn't really saying anything particularly bold or precedent-shattering. If you support the idea that there should be a sovereign Palestinian homeland — as every presidential administration since Carter has — then obviously that homeland has to take land from somewhere. The post-'67 annexed territories are about as logical a place to start as you can get.
Nevertheless, the right-wing backlash to the President's words have been extreme to the point where it seems many conservatives are pining for a return to the days when the world was still debating whether there should even be a Palestinian state
at all. In a now much-quoted line, Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney
accused Obama of "throwing Israel under the bus," blasting the President for "disrespecting" the Jewish state and arrogantly "dictating" Israel's negotiating terms. Other Republicans ratcheted up the rhetoric even further; Newt Gingrich, for instance, called Obama's announcement "the most dangerous speech ever made by an American president for the survival of Israel," while Michelle Bachmann
dubbed it a "shocking display of betrayal."
Again, all this in response to a few lines that did little more than reaffirm a decades-long consensus of successive America
and Israeli governments.
Of course, the rhetorical center of gravity on Israeli issues has shifted markedly to the right ever since the re-election of the country's former hardline prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, in 2009. Bibi, as he is affectionately known, has forged his political career by consistently opposing each and every movement of the Palestinians towards statehood, earning the support of Orthodox and religiously conservative voters in his country who are fond of the idea of one Israel, indivisible. Though he's softened a bit since re-taking power, Netanyahu has still made very effective use his office to redefine what it means to be a "friend of Israel" under his leadership, with the new definition including far less criticism of Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories, and fewer demands for Israeli compromise in exchange for Palestinian statehood.
In his unfortunately-timed adress to Congress today, Netanyahu was thus quite eager
to harp on Obama's "1967" line, earning a standing ovation from the Republicans present. But he also downplayed other key aspects of the President's speech that were more favorable to conservatives, including a fairly firm stance against negotiating with any Palestinian government that includes an Israel's-right-to-exist denying Hamas, and a statement of opposition towards an apparently imminent Palestinian declaration of independence at the UN General Assembly.
That latter promise is key, and represents how badly isolated Israel is fast becoming in the community of nations, and why there should be a real push to get this Palestinian business resolved internally once and for all. Natanyahu seems to be pushing hard in the other direction, however, trying to solidify his most uncompromising US base at the expense of everyone else. And it may be working.
Perception is reality in politics, and regardless as to whether or not Obama is actually running a more "anti-Israel" (or whatever) administration than his predecessors, the GOP and the Prime Minister are helping keep that impression in the headlines simply by speculating about it a lot. For a sensitive, eager-to-please liberal politician like Obama, the humiliation effect (spurned by new anxieties of Jewish Democrats) may very well force him to be even more ostentatious in his support for the Netanyahu view of the world, no matter how counter-productive to the larger peace process that ends up being.
The most effective political radicals are those clever enough at spin and PR to make their far-out positions look cautious and safe, and the moderation of their opponents seem unreasonable and fanatical. In this regard, I think Netanyahu and his Republican backers clearly have Obama beat.
CKA Super Elite 
CKA Elite 
