Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another


Obama, Annotated

The subtext of his United Nations address

Print Email
President Obama addressing the U.N. General Assembly today.(Don Emmert/AFP/Getty Images)

Now I know that for many in this hall, one issue stands as a test for these principles— and for American foreign policy: the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians.1

1 Is the problem that everyone around the world is fixated on the Mideast conflict, or that the U.S. president invariably is? Or both?

One year ago, I stood at this podium and called for an independent Palestine. I believed then—and I believe now—that the Palestinian people deserve a state of their own. But what I also said is that genuine peace can only be realized between Israelis and Palestinians themselves. One year later, despite extensive efforts by America and others, the parties have not bridged their differences. Faced with this stalemate, I put forward a new basis for negotiations in May. That basis is clear, and well known to all of us here.2 Israelis must know that any agreement provides assurances for their security. Palestinians deserve to know the territorial basis of their state.

2 The 1967 borders that dare not speak their name.

I know that many are frustrated by the lack of progress. So am I. But the question isn’t the goal we seek—the question is how to reach it. And I am convinced that there is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades.3 Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the U.N.—if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is Israelis and Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately, it is Israelis and Palestinians—not us—who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and security; on refugees and Jerusalem.4

3 Read my lips: no Palestinian resolution.
4 Note that he is separating those two parallel issues into two distinct questions: borders and security; Jerusalem and refugees. Note also that he is
not calling for, say, an undivided Jerusalem, as some no doubt would like him to.

Peace depends upon compromise among peoples who must live together long after our speeches are over, and our votes have been counted. That is the lesson of Northern Ireland, where ancient antagonists bridged their differences.5 That is the lesson of Sudan, where a negotiated settlement led to an independent state. And that is the path to a Palestinian state.

5 George Mitchell was appointed the administration’s first Mideast envoy for his work in Northern Ireland. It didn’t go nearly as well this time around.

We seek a future where Palestinians live in a sovereign state of their own, with no limit to what they can achieve.6 There is no question that the Palestinians have seen that vision delayed for too long. And it is precisely because we believe so strongly in the aspirations of the Palestinian people that America has invested so much time and effort in the building of a Palestinian state, and the negotiations that can achieve one.

6 Unless you count not having an army as a limitation. Just saying!

America’s commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable, and our friendship with Israel is deep and enduring. And so we believe that any lasting peace must acknowledge the very real security concerns that Israel faces every single day.7 Let’s be honest: Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it. Israel’s citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. Israel’s children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them. Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, looks out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map. The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile, persecution, and the fresh memory of knowing that six million people were killed simply because of who they were.8

7 Boilerplate.
8 More than boilerplate! This is the part where as a Jew (or as an Israeli) you feel that maybe Obama does understand you. He will need to continue to communicate on this more gut level if he has any hopes of beating back the narrative that Jews and Israelis are abandoning him.

These facts cannot be denied. The Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland. Israel deserves recognition.9 It deserves normal relations with its neighbors. And friends of the Palestinians do them no favors by ignoring this truth, just as friends of Israel must recognize the need to pursue a two state solution with a secure Israel next to an independent Palestine.

9 As a Jewish state? The U.S. tends to think so; other members of the so-called Quartet don’t, and the Palestinian Authority refuses to.

That truth—that each side has legitimate aspirations—is what makes peace so hard. And the deadlock will only be broken when each side learns to stand in each other’s shoes. That’s what we should be encouraging. This body—founded, as it was, out of the ashes of war and genocide; dedicated, as it is, to the dignity of every person10—must recognize the reality that is lived by both the Palestinians and the Israelis. The measure of our actions must always be whether they advance the right of Israeli and Palestinian children to live in peace and security, with dignity and opportunity. We will only succeed in that effort if we can encourage the parties to sit down together, to listen to each other, and to understand each other’s hopes and fears. That is the project to which America is committed. And that is what the United Nations should be focused on in the weeks and months11 to come.

10 False! See Samuel Moyn’s article in Tablet Magazine today!
11 “Weeks and months.” Because if you thought this was going to be tidied up this week with either a resolution’s passage or veto, you’ve got another thing coming.

Remarks of President Barack Obama [NYT]
Related: Face the Nations [Tablet Magazine]
The Acrobat [Tablet Magazine]

Print Email

Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180

Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.

Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.

We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.

Steve Bachenheimer says:

I heard the president give full-throated support to Israel. I also heard an admonishment to both the Israelis and the Palestinians that they must fundamentally change their negotiation stances and start by first listening to each other (ie, have an adult conversation). Didn’t work with Congress, let’s see how these two parties respond.

“I put forward a new basis for negotiations in May.”

Marc, I drink a lot, so I’m not sure I trust my memory completely.

That said, haven’t you argued over and over and over and over that Obama’s May speech regarding 1967 lines (with mutually agreed upon swaps!) was nothing new?

Who am I to believe, you or the president?

I believe the ’67 borders with mutually agreed swaps was not actually new. But Netanyahu scuppered all previous negotiation milestones reached that the parties had reached before he returned to the scene. Therefore, in effect, the setting of the “’67 border with swaps” benchmark was “new.”

“The Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland.”
Marc glossed over this (last paragraph), but this was clearly to make up for the flack Obama took for not mentioning the historical connection of Jews to the land in his Cairo speech.

win123 says:

I am so glad this internet thing works and your article really helped
me.Might take you up on that home advice you!At same time,you can visit
my website: 


Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

Obama, Annotated

The subtext of his United Nations address

More on Tablet:

Obama: Denying Israel’s Right to Exist as a Jewish Homeland is Anti-Semitic

By Yair Rosenberg — The president draws a line in the sand in his latest interview