Jump to 2011 and Obama makes another speech where he demands that Israel's future borders with a Palestinian state "should be based on the 1967 lines," and Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, very publicly rejected that and additionally told Obama, while sitting in the White House in front of the press, that absorbing Palestinians (reference to the so-called "right to return") into the Jewish state was "not going to happen" as he schooled Obama on the history and expressed his total refusal to leave Israel "indefensible."
As well he should. The last time Israel was in a completely indefensible position they were attacked ruthlessly from all sides.
Quick History on 1967 Six Day War:
Egypt, the largest Arab state with a population of 31 million, massed troops on its border with Israel and imposed a naval blockade of Israel’s southern port, an act of war. Confronted with these aggressive moves, and the Arab leaders' promises to destroy the Jewish state, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike against the Egyptian army and airforce. Egypt’s air force was quickly crippled, and a well-executed Israeli ground offensive routed the Egyptian forces in Gaza and the Sinai peninsula in four days.
Buoyed by false reports of Egyptian success, Jordan initiated offensive actions against Israel from the eastern portion of Jerusalem and from lands it occupied west of the Jordan river (the West Bank). Israeli forces responded by attacking Jordanian military positions. After a three days of fierce fighting, especially in and around Jerusalem, Israeli forces defeated the Jordanians and gained control of all of Jerusalem as well as the West Bank, the historical heartland of the Jewish people known to Israelis as Judea and Samaria.
Following an air attack by the Syrians on the first day of the war, Israel dealt a shattering blow to the Syrian air force. Hostilites continued in the days that followed, and on fifth day of the war, the Israelis mustered enough forces to remove the Syrian threat from the Golan Heights. This difficult operation was completed the following day, bringing the active phase of the war to a close.
In six days Israel had managed to defend itself against acts of war from three fronts.
The backlash against Barack Obama now is coming form multiple fronts, Democratic and Republican lawmakers are speaking out against Obama's new position which is far different from what he stated to the Jewish community in April 2008.
Prominent Jewish Americans are now rethinking their support for Obama in his bid for reelection in 2012, resulting in New York Mayor Ed Koch actually condemning Obama for his speech.
Ottawa is refusing to back Obama’s Mideast peace proposal as well.
Others who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 are speaking up against him, such as famous Israeli born KISS rock star Gene Simomons who publicly states that Obama has "no fucking idea what the world is like because he doesn't have to live there." (Video at that link)
Even the Washington Post editorial board is taking Obama to task:
The renewed peace process that Mr. Obama seeks could, at best, have the effect of curbing the Palestinian campaign against Israel or at least depriving it of major European support. The idea that it could lead to a peace settlement under the current Israeli and Palestinian leaders strikes us as unrealistic. This president likes to portray himself as a pragmatist in foreign policy. In this case, pragmatism would suggest that restoring trust with Israel, rather than courting a feckless Palestinian leader, would be the precondition to any diplomatic success.
In Obama's AIPAC speech (speaking again to an audience of American Jews), which is seeing much Twitter reaction, Obama claims his words were "misrepresented" and manages to yet again speak from both sides of his mouth as he reaffirms his peace proposal while at the same time backpedaling to explain that the 1967 lines are really different from the 1967 lines.
That is what I said. Now, it was my reference to the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps that received the lion's share of the attention. And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what "1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps" means.
By definition, it means that the parties themselves - Israelis and Palestinians - will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.
Nice doublespeak huh?
Obama did say one thing that many American Jews can agree with as well as Israel as a whole can agree with :
"Ultimately, however, it is the right and responsibility of the Israeli government to make the hard choices that are necessary to protect a Jewish and democratic state for which so many generations have sacrificed"-- Barack Obama AIPAC 2011
In blogospheric tradition, now would be the time to say "Indeed."
(Additions made to this post)