In an opinion piece written for the Jewish Journal on May 24, Robert Satloff, Executive Director of the Washington Institute of Middle East Policy, characterized President Obama’s statement that “We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states” as “a major departure from long-standing U.S. policy.” That simply is false.
First, the Congress of the United States recognizes the importance and significance of the 1967 border. Public Law 108-11, enacted in 2003 to provide among other items, $9 billion dollars in loan guarantees to Israel, states:
“That guarantees may be issued under this section only to support activities in the geographic areas which were subject to the administration of the Government of Israel before June 5, 1967: Provided further, That the amount of guarantees that may be issued shall be reduced by an amount equal to the amount extended or estimated to have been extended by the Government of Israel during the period from March 1, 2003, to the date of issue of the guarantee, for activities which the President determines are inconsistent with the objectives and understandings reached between the United States and the Government of Israel regarding the implementation of the loan guarantee program: Provided further, That the President shall submit a report to Congress no later than September 30 of each fiscal year during the pendency of the program specifying the amount calculated under the preceding proviso and that will be deducted from the amount of guarantees authorized to be issued in the next fiscal year”. According to the Congressional Research Service, “in 2003 and 2005, the United States reduced loan guarantees to Israel by an amount equal to Israel’s estimated spending on settlement construction in the West Bank and Gaza Strip”.
Second, numerous statements were made from 2009 through 2010 by government officials that made the same points that President Obama made. The following are some of those statements:
Clinton Remarks with Egyptian FM Gheit, 11/4/09:
We would not be having this discussion if we had reached a deal [in 2000], because as you remember, the parameters that were laid out would have recognized a state on the ’67 borders with some swapping of land agreeable to both sides, and it would have also established the capital for the Palestinian state in East Jerusalem, and it would have created a shared responsibility with international support to protect the holy places that are holy to all three major religions.
Clinton Remarks after meeting with Jordan FM Nasser Judeh, 1/8/10:
The United States believes that through good faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.
Clinton remarks: AIPAC, 3/22/10.
But, we believe – (applause) – we believe that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree to an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the ‘67 lines, with agreed swaps, and Israel’s goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israel’s security requirements. (Applause.)
Clinton Remarks at U.S.-Islamic Forum, 4/14/10
We believe that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.
Remarks by Ambassador Alejandro D. Wolff, U.S. Deputy Representative to the United Nations, on the Middle East, in the Security Council Chamber, April 14, 2010
Only through good-faith negotiations can the parties mutually agree on an outcome that ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.
Clinton remarks: opening of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace, 4/15/10
But as a good friend, we believe that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree to an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the ‘67 lines, with agreed swaps, and Israel’s goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israel’s security requirements.
Remarks by Andrew J. Shapiro, Assistant Secretary, Political-Military Affairs, at the Brookings Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Washington, DC, July 16, 2010
We believe that through good faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.
Clinton speech ATFP, 10/20/10
We remain convinced that if they persevere with negotiations, the parties can agree on an outcome that ends the conflict; reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps – (applause) – and Israel’s goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israel’s security requirements. (Applause.)
For Satloff to now characterize President Obama’s statement as a major departure from U.S. policy because he was the first president to say this principle, you would have to believe that our State Department and our mission to the United Nations do not speak for the government they represent. With all due respect to Mr. Satloff, such a belief is nonsense.
Michael Several co-edits the website, Settlements in Palestine.
