Where Do You Draw the Line?

It's interesting and insightful to observe the outrage of pro-Israel friends in reaction to President Obama's suggestion that an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal would be based on the June 4, 1967 lines - especially from those friends who favor (at least rhetorically) a two state solution to the conflict. 

On one hand, the instant reaction of outrage over the suggestion that Israelis will live in Israel and Palestinians will live in Palestine is proper and expected.  After all, the Middle East peace process is the greatest and most contentious negotiation on earth.  And everyone who has taken Negotiating 101 knows that "The Flinch" is a required reaction to any first offer or bid.  Only by feigning outrage and treating the first proposal as insulting (even if it's actually within your ballpark) can one hope to improve the final offer. 

From this perspective, it makes good sense that Israel's leaders would "flinch" and react with outrage over the 1967 comment.  And by extension, that Israel's supporters abroad would echo this stance as a way to show support for Israel.  Fair enough.

But for the pro-Israel camp, is the outrage over the 1967 lines only a negotiating ploy for external consumption?  What do they think in private?


Where exactly had the Two Staters reckoned that the line between Israel and Palestine would be drawn?  And if the 1967 lines are unacceptable (no argument here), what is a constructive alternative suggestion?   In other words, for those who favor a two-state solution, where is the proposed boundary between the (proposed) two states?

My point in asking the question is that I think many pro-Israel friends have declared themselves to be supporters of a two-state solution without exploring any of the minor little details, like where the states will be.  And which territories each of the two sides will be relinquishing as part of the deal.  Of course the exact details would be pursuant to negotiations, but without having considered the most general substantive outline of this proposal, the Two State Solution is not really a solution, it's just a slogan. 

Arabs Left OBL for Dead A Long Time Ago

Frankly I'm surprised that OBL didn't die from depression.

Although he was put out of our misery only today, OBL's popularity and policies had largely been dead for many years.  al-Qaida never achieved the mass appeal that would have been required to seriously challenge, let alone overthrow Arab and Muslim governments in favor of Taliban-type rule.  In fact, the Islamic world has chosen a totally different direction.

The rallying cry at all the recent demonstrations throughout the Arab world has been "Peaceful, peaceful" -- not exactly the al-Qaida tagline.  And while the last chapter on the Arab uprisings has not been written, and may take an Islamist turn in some cases, we can state unequivocally that the impetus thus far has been a quest for greater freedom and democracy, with participation by Islamists (some of whom share those objectives) marginal at most.

As all good analyses today are noting, this is not the end of terrorism.  Unfortunately there will be additional terrorist attacks, and there is reason to believe that OBL's death could inspire a symbolic response.

While we should remain vigilant and proactive about interdicting deadly terrorist activity, we can also take some comfort in the fact that OBL's terror recipe was only symbolic - his followers have always been less involved in waging total war against our society than petty murder:

• They never got close to the Saudi royals, who have come to see peaceful rallies in tiny Bahrain as far more threatening than AQ

• The 2006 attack on Saudi's Abqaiq oil facility was a junior varsity effort - as if they hadn't even reviewed similar action movies for ideas

• While the abortive shoe and underwear attacks would have destroyed two more airplanes and killed several hundred people, they didn't threaten American vital interests  

So yes the death of OBL is a hugely important symbolic victory in a dangerous, but not existential, war. But this should not detract from the main issue of the day, which is the outcome of the Arab uprisings against dictatorship and in search of freedom.  Our security and prosperity will be far more affected by the latter than the former.