President Obama's speech asking Israel to accept 1967 borders with ''give and take'' in the West Bank has created repercussions in the world. Can President Obama make Israelis accept this proposal?
The op-ed analyzes various aspects of the issue.

Up to now US Presidents had made impressive attempts to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Yet every act of good will met strong Israeli resistance blocking agreements. Just remember the last Camp David Peace Talks of 2000.Since he came to power President Obama has been trying to bring the two sides  together in search of a solution.

Israel is in a dilemma. On one hand they need peace to attain security. On the other hand, they find it impossible for domestic reasons to agree on a border line for the Israeli state.  Moderate politicians in Israel might have found a solution for this definition of the boundary problem but the constant presence in the governments of hard line Zionists impedes such a definition. As a result Israel cannot agree on a boundary with Palestinians while continuing to expand settlements into West Bank  making the life for the native Palestinians almost impossible to live in their own lands. Many Israelis believe that expansion would enhance security. But without peace, expansion creates insecurity as everyone starts looking at Israel as an invader and occupier.

Up to now the West connived with Israeli policies and  any criticism was silenced and no one dared to challenge Israelis, what they were doing was not defendable. In this resect, particularly the US Presidents provided unquestioned support to Israel even though such policy created a blow to America’s image and interests in the entire Mediterranean.

The rise of the Arab World against injustice and oppression of their leaders who could maintain their power by using Israeli expansionism as an excuse  created a completely new unpredictable environment. Now time has come with the uprising of the people to reconsider the entire situation in the Middle East. There are two roads ahead of the Arab people. One is to follow democracy and rule of law as we understand in the West or go in the way of Islamic fundamentalism. If Israeli determination to expand continues,  the Arab people will become more nationalist and will eventually constitute greater danger to Israel’s security.  The US efforts to keep the Arab leaders at bay may not be effective when the people hold power in the Arab World.

Probably because President Obama wanted to preempt further instability in the Middle East, he took the courage to invite Israeli leaders to reach at a settlement based on 1967 borders with some "give and take" as already accepted by the  Arab Peace Plan of 2002 as a step for recognition of Israel.

Palestinians wanted to break the long lasting stalemate by bringing the issue to the UN General Assembly in September in the hope of obtaining the recognition of Palestine as a state and a member of the UN. It is already known that US would object to such a deal. Than the question comes to mind, is one of Obama’s intention to urge for recognition of the 1967 borders appeal to sweeten what US will do at UN General Assembly in September? Never-the-less, if we consider the strength of Jewish bondage on US foreign policy, Obama’s statement must be regarded as a courageous attempt at course correction in US policy in the Middle East. No one may be sure that this new policy will go further than what President Obama tried to do in the Middle East when he came to power but failed.