|
Trending Topics
|
Experts Weigh In on Obama's Middle East Speech
(Washington Post) Jennifer Rubin - Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator, said throwing out the reference to 1967 borders with no explanation or background was an error, especially since Obama violated the "cardinal rule" in dealing with Israel: no surprises. Elliott Abrams, a veteran Middle East negotiator, told me, "The 'borders and security first' idea will not work. For one thing, the far northern and southern borders are easy and the security fence runs pretty much along the Green Line. The hard part is near Jerusalem - meaning that without discussing Jerusalem, you can't do much on borders. For another, 'security' requires detailed discussions but at bottom means knowing who is across the line and what their intentions are. A security agreement with a joint Fatah-Hamas government is a non-starter." Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies e-mailed me: "The Palestinians have made it clear that they are committed to the unilateral track regardless of what the Israelis offer up, which will be a deterrent for the Israelis to come to the table." He added: "I think that Camp David 2 [with President Clinton] and Taba showed the world that you can't make a deal by tackling borders and security without first tackling Jerusalem and refugees...[which] cut to the core of [the Palestinians'] long-standing rejection of Israel's very existence. If anything, they should be tackled first."