Obama's unqualified support, except when it's not, or maybe

[Mediocrates]

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/bl...richman/150621

Henry Siegman asserts in “Israel and Obama” in this morning’s New York Times that President Obama’s “unqualified commitment to Israel’s security” is real. Indeed Siegman alleges that the White House is “about to set a new record” for reassuring Israel. But Siegman opposes a campaign to ingratiate Obama with the Israeli public, because the “unprecedented Israeli hostility” springs from Israel’s “pathological” rejection of a “return to the 1967 pre-conflict borders.”
At the risk of being accused of mental illness for doubting Obama’s unqualified commitment (and Siegman’s assertion that the 1967 borders were “pre-conflict” ones), here is an easy test to determine the quality of President Obama’s commitment: Does he stand by the 2004 Bush Letter to Israel, which reiterated the following “steadfast commitment:”

The United States reiterates its steadfast commitment to Israel’s security, including secure, defensible borders, and to preserve and strengthen Israel’s capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats. [Emphasis added.]

No responsible Israeli or American military person considers the 1967 borders “defensible.” It was their indefensible nature that led Arab states to prepare for what they announced in May 1967 would be a “total war which will put an end to Israel.” Israel’s ability to deter and defend itself, by itself, also depends on preservation of its ultimate deterrent — which the words “by itself” in the Bush Letter were intended to reaffirm.
The Obama State Department has declined, no less than 21 times, to pass this test. The administration’s continued silence about it leads to a certain amount of doubt about Obama’s commitment — a doubt increased by Hillary Clinton’s BBC interview on Friday. Asked about Israel’s settlements, she said this:

We continue to have very serious questions about the legitimacy of the settlements that Israel has promoted. We understand that to a large extent, it has to do with their security needs and fears about trying to have a defensible perimeter around Israel.
But we also are committed to a two-state solution. And as President Obama said, that two-state solution will take place in the territory occupied by Israel since 1967. The question is how we get to it. And that’s what we’re trying to achieve.