No, Obama Did Not Throw Israel “Under the Bus”

President Obama’s speech yesterday confirmed that the main thrust of American foreign policy in the middle east may now fairly be characterised as Obama men and Bush measures. In large part it could have been written by David Frum. Admittedly, as Frum says there’s a difference between broad statements of principle and the actual, more difficult, policy decisions that might put flesh on those bones.

Despite this, the conservative reaction to the speech appears utterly unhinged. As any member of the sanity-based community could appreciate, there was little in the address that significantly departed from long-standing American policy. Indeed, I think Jeffrey Goldberg is right to argue that the speech:

[W]as enthusiastically pro-Israel. I don’t mean pro-Israel merely in the “he’s speaking hard truths the Israelis must hear about the occupation if their country is to survive as a Jewish democracy” sort of way. I mean, it was pro-Israel in a red-meat I-heart-Israel, damn-Hamas, Iran-can-go-to-hell, Israel is the eternal Jewish state sort of way.

It seems, however, that merely mentioning “1967 borders” is enough to send some people off their rockers. Not for the first (or last) time Mitt Romney is an especially egregious offender:

President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus. He has disrespected Israel and undermined its ability to negotiate peace. He has also violated a first principle of American foreign policy, which is to stand firm by our friends.

Oh really? Yet again sensible people are forced to ask which is worse: that Romney might actually believe this or that he doesn’t but feels he must make a heel of himself for short-term political advantage? In other words, Romney’s credibility as a serious-minded candidate rests on the proposition that we should not believe anything he says. This is an interesting strategy. Is Romney a fool or just a liar?

Everyone “knows” what a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians looks like. It will be based on 1967 borders with, as Obama made clear, appropriate and compensatory land swaps that recognise ineradicable realities in terms of settlements, Jerusalem and so on. This is not a new or radical American approach. It’s been this way for at least the last decade and, broadly speaking, been shared by the last three Presidents.

Meanwhile, Obama was tough on the Palestinians too. They need, he said, to solve their Hamas problem before there can be any meaningful negotiations. They should not think they’ll get anywhere with any monkey-business at the United Nations. And while their state should be contiguous it must also be a demilitarised state. Oh, and don’t think there will be any right to return either, save (though this was left unsaid) in any tiny, token sense. Israel’s security is paramount and so is its status as a Jewish state.

I dare say Romney and Tim “Nice but Dim” Pawlenty think they must behave stupidly so they may meet domestic conservative expectations and their views might change were they to find themselves living on Pennsylvania Avenue. Nevertheless, there are times when politics is canny and times when playing to the gallery leaves you looking like a dolt. This is one such time.

Addendum: Matt Yglesias is also right: the ’67 borders are so “indefensible” Israel has successfully defended them in the past!