Jeffrey Goldberg should have an unassailable pro-Israel reputation and he’s saying that Obama didn’t say anything new by insisting that the 1967 borders should be the basis for negotiations between Israel and Palestine. If you make an exception for the city of Jerusalem, I think it’s indisputable that America has been consistent in saying that Israel must give up all the land they acquired in the 1967 and 1973 wars, and that any exceptions must be accounted for with equivalent and mutually-agreed upon swaps of land.

Now, recently Netanyahu has been saying that the 1967 borders are indefensible. I find that assertion odd. Israel defended those borders quite successfully in 1967. In the intervening years the main thing that has changed is that Israel has become hundreds of times more powerful relative to its neighbors. Israel is fully capable of defending itself. It can use nuclear weapons if it finds itself particularly hard-pressed.

Now, I noted an interesting distinction in Obama’s speech. Here it is (emphasis mine):

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat.

I have long advised that America stand willing to enter into a mutual security pact with Israel that guarantees them our protection if their sovereignty is disrespected in the aftermath of a peace agreement. Obama is saying that is not enough. He’s saying that any agreement must assure Israel that it can protect itself even in the absence of U.S. assistance. History is long and America may not always be there to back Israel up, so I understand the point. But it seems to me that the combination of Netanyahu saying that the 1967 borders are indefensible and Obama saying that Israel must be satisfied that it can defend itself by itself is going to create an obstacle to peace.

Obama told Israel an uncomfortable truth with this:

The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River. Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself. A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people – not just a few leaders – must believe peace is possible. The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.

The technology is rocket technology, and the 1967 borders have nothing to do with the threat. Israel will not be overrun by Arab infantry or out-gunned in the sky by Arab air forces. But they will find that they are powerless to prevent rocket fire into their cities. Israel’s future security depends on a combination of their nuclear deterrent, their conventional military superiority, their alliance with the United States, and, most importantly, a peace agreement that disincentivizes rocket-fire into their sovereign territory.

What America can do for Israel is to add muscle and guarantees to their security if they make difficult concessions now. Without our help and good-will, Israel simply cannot defend itself by itself in the absence of a peace agreement.