1. The author, Mr. Troy, finds fault with President Obama’s explanation of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, because he summarizes Israel’s position first, and then says that this plausibly implies that Israel is the cause of the problem. That may be “a plausible interpretation”, but it is not “the” plausible, or “the only” explanation, and it is not even all that plausible. The President’s explanation is succinct, is necessarily over-simple (you can’t explain 400, 800 or 2000 years of history in a speech), and more or less on the mark. There is no implication, nor any reasonable basis for an inference, that explaining Israel’s position before explaining the Palestinian position means that Israel is the cause of the conflict. There is nothing for Jewish American voters to worry about on this point.

2. The author objects that the President did not demand that Palestinians end their bad behavior, and quotes a passage of the speech that begins, “For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure.” Yes, that is, linguistically, more of a prediction than a demand. But in diplomatic circles, that is a very plain but non-demanding statement that the US is opposed to Palestinian bad behavior. By casting the statement as something other than a demand, the President is avoiding an Arab hot button that goes off when the US makes demands, but the speech clearly sets forth the President’s expectation that the Palestinians must stop their bad behavior if they want their own state. Call it “diplomacy” if you like, but you cannot reasonably interpret it as the President’s acquiesence in Palestinian bad behavior. The balance of the quoted text makes it quite clear that the US will oppose any efforts by the UN to unilaterally recognize a State of Palestine. That’s good news for the Jews, even if it lacks the “in-your-Arab-face” bluntness that Mr. Troy would prefer.

3. The author’s comparison of a statement by President Bush in 2002 with Mr. Obama’s speech overlooks the very strong similarity between the two Presidents’ positions, anc concludes that President Obama is making a “demand” on Israel, when he should instead make a “demand” on the Palestinians. Well, a US president made a “demand” in 2002, and 9 years later, it has not borne fruit. Perhaps President Obama believes that the time for US “demands” is past, and that more diplomatic, softly worded requests and advice will help restart Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

3. President Obama did not – not – not – call for Israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 borders. This has been a persistent lie of every right-wing commentator in the hours since President Obama gave his speech. President Obama’s speech plainly says that Israel and the Palestinians must negotiate land-swaps, with the pre-’67 borders as a framework, for a negotiated geographical configuration of the State of Israel. President Obama’s proposal is not much different than the proposal of MK Danny Danon (Likud party), published this week on the New York Times op-ed page, that Israel trade the Jewish settlements in the West Bank for the Arab areas of the West Bank. That is easier said than done, but it is a framework for negotiations, and that is the end-stage (other than a more Torahic end-stage) of the process by which the State of Israel will achieve recognition and defensible borders from its Arab neighbors.

4. The foregoing three errors are all errors in interpreting a speech delivered to several audiences – the American Jewish voters, all American voters, Arab dictators, Arab Spring revolutionaries, the Arab Street, Israelis of every faction (in a land with more political parties per capital than any other modern democracy), supporters of Arabs among US allies, and several others. The President knows that he had to satisfy all these diverse audiences, and I think his speech walked that tightrope very well.

The author’s fundamental error (the mother of all errors?) is the author’s belief that the American Jewish voter, and the American Jewish political donor, cannot recognize the tightrope that the President must walk and insist on much more forceful words from the US president. We Jews must look at the last 60+ years and consider how we can break the stalemate in Arab-Israeli relations that has persisted over this period. The President has rightly recognized that the Arab Spring may signal a fundamental change in the outlook of the Arab Street – that Arabs, including Palestinians – are ready to end the stalemate that has left them behind as other parts of the world – particularly the Far East – has developed and prospered in the last 60 years. The President’s speech did not change US policy of support for a democratic Jewish state in the region formerly known as Palestine, but he has changed the message to the Arabs that their future will not get better without an end to their 60-year effort to deligitimize the State of Israel. The president’s message is good news for the Jews, and the sooner we American Jews recognize it, the better.