Not being an expert on Israel or the Middle East in general I reached out to Dr. Ken Hanson to get his take on the situation but before we get to Dr. Hanson’s insightful reactions and responses I wanted to make a observation about the accusation that using the word “expects” is somehow disrespectful of the president. I think Jeff Goldberg is being a bit hypersensitive here and parsing, either for his own agenda or to earn a paycheck,  for I don’t see how expecting the US to continue its relatively unchanged policies toward Israel, two days after our president publicly delegitimized Israel is in anyway disrespectful… but I see the Obama speech and it’s impact much the same as Caroline Glick does.

As to the charge, by Tobin, that Obama’s position is essentially the Israeli position is not quite accurate… although many in Israel may view this as correct it’s by no means the consensus and I believe that may be more of a minority position than Tobin understands or lets on.

Image via Wikipedia

I asked Dr. Hanson for his input, his responses follow:

Q. Dr. Hanson I’ve heard you talk about the 1967 boarders and  that really meant 1949 boundaries… could you elaborate on that for our readers and tell us what that means?

A.When Obama talks about the 1967 borders, he certainly doesn’t mean the post-Six Day War borders! After being attacked by Egypt, Syria and Jordan, in a “war of annihilation,” Israel responded with a brilliant counter-offensive that pushed all the way to the Suez Canal in the south, the Golan Heights in the north, and the Jordan River on the east. That included of course the whole of Jerusalem. The position Obama has now staked out attempts to force Israel to the pre-Six Day War borders, established by the armistice (there was never any formal recognition) at the end of Israel’s War of Independence in 1949. Obama has taken the maximum demand of the Palestinian “terrorist” Authority and made them his own. Even if it involved (in Obama’s words) “land swaps,” Israel would still be indefensible, according to any strategic analysis, with a divided Jerusalem. Indeed, the city holy to three world faiths (all respected under Israeli sovereignty) would become the Berlin of the Middle East — ugly, partitioned and a catalyst for more war.

“Specifically, Netanyahu said he “expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004 [when George W. Bush was president], which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress.”

A. Has Netanyahu disrespected the American president? Only if by disrespect we mean Israel’s leadership’s refusal to be bullied into a suicidal abrogation of its vital security interests so that Obama — and the world — will think well of it. Indeed, George W. Bush did issue a letter in 2004 (which Congress heartily endorsed), declaring that Israel must not be expected to return to the 1967/ 1949 borders. What Netanyahu expects is that U.S. foreign policy be consistent and that the sitting president live up to the assurances made legitimately by previous administrations and by Congress. Unfortunately, we must at this point wonder how much Obama’s assurances about anything can be trusted.

I want to thank Dr. Hanson for taking time to speak with us…. we really appreciate his input.

(Dr. Ken Hanson is one of the foremost scholars in the field of Judaic studies. Dr. Hanson has authored books on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Kabbalah and lost books of the Bible. He is a regular contributor on the History Channel and teaches at the University of Central Florida)