Today’s news:

Obama wrong in wanting 1967 borders of Israel to return

When the president spoke recently of the opportunities presented by the Arab Spring, he got a lot right. His calling out of the Arab states was long overdue and dead-on.

But he got some big things wrong.

When the president said Israel should withdraw to the 1967 lines with mutually agreed-upon swaps, he missed an opportunity to put the issue of borders in an important historical context for the world. The borders of Israel changed because then, like today, the Jewish state came under attack from all sides.

The Arabs rejected the ’67 borders with Israel by waging war. Egypt cut off Israel’s only supply route to Asia and amassed troops on its borders with the Sinai. Syria attacked from the Golan Heights. Jordan started shelling Jerusalem. Arab terrorist attacks grew more frequent, with 37 attacks in just the first four months of 1967.

For anyone to discuss the ’67 borders without mentioning this is like discussing our war with Japan without mentioning Pearl Harbor.

We saw how the ill-fated U.S. demand for a total “settlement” freeze wound up grinding peace talks to a halt when the Palestinians then demanded nothing less before they would even sit at the bargaining table. The call for a 100 percent stop to all building activity did not take into account ongoing construction of buildings in naturally growing areas, as well as several areas like Gilo that are certainly not settlements. Soon even Israel’s capital was called a settlement.

The Obama administration eventually withdrew this condition, but not before the damage was done. The Palestinians have refused to even start talking unless this impossible and unreasonable condition is met. The president has now repeated the mistake by giving the Palestinians yet another American-created precondition: 1967 borders.

We will now certainly hear a new refrain from them — that they will not talk about any “swaps” until the ’67 borders are returned.

The president expressed many important sentiments in the speech that reflected our values as a nation. For example, he rightly called Hamas a terrorist organization, but how is that fact compatible with the demand that Israel make concessions?

The sad truth is that it is no longer possible to pretend that there is a “good” and “bad” Palestinian entity. As Hamas and Fatah move closer to formalizing their reconciliation through a power-sharing agreement, the more moderate elements in Fatah are being pushed out.

Furthermore, Hamas has still yet to make any progress in moving away from its militant stand against Israel. Even the European Union calls its members terrorists, and United States law makes this clear. The merger of Hamas and Fatah must put an end to the myth that the Palestinian Authority seeks peace in the region. A “negotiated settlement” is what we all want, but it is unrealistic and unfair to demand it of Israel until Hamas is gone.

I honor the president for his desire for peace. The Israelis have demonstrated they share the same aspiration. But being correct in our history and realistic in our description of today is vital to that goal.

Anthony Weiner

U.S. Representative

(D-Forest Hills)

Pin It
Print this story Permalink

Reader Feedback

Enter your comment below

By submitting this comment, you agree to the following terms:

You agree that you, and not TimesLedger.com or its affiliates, are fully responsible for the content that you post. You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually-oriented material or any material that may violate applicable law; doing so may lead to the removal of your post and to your being permanently banned from posting to the site. You grant to TimesLedger.com the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part world-wide and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

CNG: Community Newspaper Group