So What Was All That '67 Excitement About, Anyway?

By Jeffrey Goldberg

Two Andrew Sullivan notes. The first: Andrew criticizes Howard Kohr, the director of AIPAC, for asserting his view that U.S. Middle East policy shouldn't be "evenhanded" (which has always been a euphemism for "more anti-Israel"). Andrew treats this is as unique, but have you ever met a lobbyist in Washington who argues against his own professional interest? Or for "balance" in the way his issue is discussed? They're lobbyists.

Second: Andrew links to a statement (same link as above) issued last November 11 from the Israeli Foreign Ministry that fairly definitively proves that the whole contretemps over Obama's radical new analysis of the Middle East crisis was ridiculous:

"The Prime Minister and the Secretary (of State) agreed on the importance of continuing direct negotiations to achieve our goals. The Secretary reiterated that "the United States believes that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements."

The statement can be found here.

This article available online at:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/05/so-what-was-all-that-67-excitement-about-anyway/239352/