Washington – Every Arab-Israeli negotiation contains a fundamental asymmetry: Israel gives up land, which is tangible; the Arabs make promises, which are ephemeral. The long-standing American solution has been to nonetheless urge Israel to take risks for peace while America balances things by giving assurances of U.S. support for Israel’s security and diplomatic needs.
Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
It’s on the basis of such solemn assurances that Israel undertook, for example, the Gaza withdrawal. In order to mitigate this risk, President George W. Bush gave a written commitment that America supported Israel absorbing major settlement blocs in any peace agreement, opposed any return to the 1967 lines and stood firm against the so-called Palestinian right of return to Israel.
For 21 / 2 years, the Obama administration has refused to recognize and reaffirm these assurances. Then last week in his State Department speech, President Obama definitively trashed them. He declared that the Arab-Israeli conflict should indeed be resolved along “the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.”
Outstanding article! Thank you Charles Krauthammer for telling it exactly as it is!
As usual, Dr. Krauthammer hits the nail precisely on the head with the razor sharp analysis for which he is renowned. I consider his articles the most valuable tools for those of us seeking to fully understand the motivations and complexities behind Middle East politics. I hope VIN continues to publish future articles by this brilliant thinker and writer.
One coujld just see the tension between Charles Krauthammer and Juan Williams on Fox News the other evening, when they appeared to take opposite viewpoints concerning Israel.
If Bush’s plan was so binding, Mr. Bush should be obligated to speak out about his position. The fact that he has taken an armchair after his tenure of office speaks to the naivity and inadequacy of his suggested policies. But that said, let the criticism flow. Thats the only way that we can make progress.
Dear #5 : It’s not about fact checking. Try improving your reading comprehension and analysis skills. Krauthammer dissects the events to reveal the differences between the promises of Bush vs. Obama’s empty assurances. It’s about the asymmetry of trading tangible land for “ephemeral promises”; you have to actually read the ENTIRE article, “Leahle,” to get what he’s saying. Reading carefully – try it sometime.