Concerning Obama's now infamous '67 borders speech of last week - people are not paying enough attention to fact that Netanyahu was informed of contents of speech day before it was given, complained bitterly, and yet the speech wasn't changed - this means the '67 borders phrasing was not a mistake of sloppy writing or other shortcomings but was indeed the message Obama intended - so the question becomes, what was that message? There have been various interpretations of whether or not Obama actually changed the game and threw Israel under the bus by subtly stepping away from the default American position on negotiations - to me the phrasing indeed seems somewhat intentionally ambiguous [which in and of itself could concern the Israelis] and of course if Obama ingnored Bibi's complaints the ambiguity must therefore be deliberate - but it was the context though, what Obama didn't say, the things not included or clearly defined relative to the central statement, that gives the impression that indeed Obama was trying to telegraph a pro-Palestinian intent - certainly, the Palestinians interpreted it that way, as did some high profile 'Israel haters' in American punditry, as did essentially everyone in Israel, both peaceniks and hardliners - so, whatever Obama's intentions, the result is clear.
Still, what Obama's intentions were matters - and it seems, given that he knew of Netanyahu's fierce objections beforehand, only two possibilities look likely: one, Obama sincerely believed this was the best way to appease European concerns and get them on board in opposition to Palestinian UN statehood tactic; or two, Obama was once again, as he did with the settlements issue, channeling the anti-Israel sentiments of American left wing academia, where the default position is Palestinians are the victims here and must be rescued from evil aggressor and American imperialist proxy Israel by forcing the Zionists into making deep concessions to that end. I find the former simplistic, naive, and therefore possibly not plausible - although, possibly entirely plausible for the same reasons [see Libya]; I find the latter disturbingly believable. It could also be both in this sense: the speech was intended to say to the Europeans 'Look, I hate Israel as much as you guys do, and I'm working to back them into a corner so as they have no choice but to make concessions - but we can't let this Palestinian UN nonsense go forward cause it'd be disastrous'. There's several problems with this plan if it was the plan, chief of which you've merely increased attractiveness of UN appeal for Palestinians because any vague language that appears to justify Palestinian claims while further isolating Israel renders negotiations impossible and therefore makes the UN appeal not only seem like an increasingly good option to the Palestinians, but indeed the only option from their point of view [although I suppose one can argue that if the UN gambit is a fait accompli then all that remains is trying to convince the Europeans to oppose it - but again all you've managed to do is make things worse by seeming to justify Palestinian claims and all that does is strengthen their hand regardless of what Europe does since the goal here is all theatrical - with real consequences of course - knowing that in the end the US will, as a matter of mere law, kill the resolution with their veto, even if they stand alone in doing so - this is why in my opinion it wasn't the mention of '67 borders per se that bothered Israel, it was the ambiguous phrasing and context that lent itself to abuse by Israel's enemies that worried them and the unavoidable conclusion that this undermining of their position was deliberate - and I suppose by thought that this deliberate undermining followed closely on the heels of the Hamas/Fatah alliance forming - ie it sent the message to Palestinians that militancy was a winning option for them with a guy in the White House who either was at worst not a resolute believer in American power or at best actually on their side in the dispute - in short, the Israelis saw the speech as inviting bad behavior and therefore augmenting likelihood of war - but of course it would be absurd to think someone tempting war here - so if you're Israel there'd be only two conclusions to draw: the Obama administration is incompetent or delusional - but regardless of which, whether willfully or not, as a consequence of this incompetence or spiteful delusion, a looming threat to Israel].
[over at Jerusalem Post Caroline Glick speculates that Obama is desperate to get Europeans on board in opposing the Palestinian UN ploy not as a means to delegitimize it but rather because he's so loathe to be left standing alone on the world stage defending something that so offends his sensibilities. Hard to know how much truth there is in that - like I said, hatred of Israel and by association hatred of that part of American culture that rushes to its defense is the status quo philosophical sweet spot in the left wing academic faculty lounges that hatched Obama - but if true would set up interesting scenario should war break out and he's required to send troops in - not that he'd have a choice of course, he'll have to play with vigor the part of arch defender of the Jews - but his ability to dissemble shamelessly in speeches, which I think is his greatest skill - he's an excellent con man - will certainly be put to the test]
