Israelis seem to be preparing for an Obama presidency that tries to cut a Clinton-like deal early on, with Dennis Ross supervising. So better make more facts on the ground now! David Horovitz, the editor of the Jerusalem Post, whom I saw at AIPAC last month, interviewed Obama in Jerusalem, with Ross in the hallway, and tried to pin him down on “67-plus” borders, i.e., the Israeli landgrab since ’67, on security grounds. Obama comes off as oracular, vague, well-schooled. Just to the right of J Street in his answers: Jerusalem is Israel’s, and to the extent it’s the Palestinians, that depends on the negotiations. And I’m against the settlements, but don’t quote me.
I believe that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. But I think that how Israel and the Palestinians resolve this issue is a final-status issue. It needs to be left up to the two parties.
Wait: Jerusalem is the world’s business, dude. Otherwise there’ll be more violence. Now here’s the settlements answer. If you can understand what he’s saying, please write it on a note on the stationery of the King David Hotel and stick it in the western wall.
I think that Israel
should abide by previous agreements and commitments that have been
made, and aggressive settlement construction would seem to violate the
spirit at least, if not the letter, of agreements that have been made
previously.
Israel’s security
concerns, I think, have to be taken into account, via negotiation. I
think the parties in previous discussions have stated that settlement
construction doesn’t necessarily contribute to that enhanced security. I think there are those who would argue that the more settlements there are, the more Israel has to invest in protecting those settlements and the more tensions arise that may undermine Israel’s long-term security.
Ultimately, though, these are part of the
discussions that have to take place between the parties. But I think
that, based on what’s previously been said, for Israel to make sure that it is aligned with those previous statements is going to be helpful to the process… Look, I think that both sides on this equation are going to have to make some calculations. Israel may seek “67-plus” and justify it in terms of the buffer that they need for security purposes. They’ve got to consider whether getting that buffer is worth the antagonism of the other party.
The Palestinians are going to have to make
a calculation: Are we going to fight for every inch of that ’67 border
or, given the fact that 40 years have now passed, and new realities
have taken place on the ground, do we take a deal that may not perfectly align with the ’67 boundaries? My sense is that both sides recognize that there’s going to have to be some give.
No wonder Israel announced more settlements as soon as he left the country.
