The "Arab Spring" may soon morph into a New York autumn of diplomats debating whether to recognize Palestine as an independent state.

If the United Nations General Assembly passes such a measure this September, it will further isolate Israel internationally, and make it that much harder to arrive at an eventual negotiated settlement.

America is the only country that has the influence to slow, or stop, recognition of Palestine. President Obama will discuss diplomatic options during his trip to Europe this week.

But to convince world leaders to let negotiations play out, the peace process must progress.

That's partly what was behind Obama's formal endorsement in his speech last week on the Middle East that, "The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu -- as well as declared and probable presidential candidates, including Minnesotans Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann -- reacted with fury.

But the politicians' reactions were nothing more than political posturing in the battle for air time.

Obama never suggested the exact map of 1967 be redrawn, only that the proportion of land be the starting point, with subsequent "swaps" recognizing the realities of decades of Israeli settlement construction.

The president's policy is consistent with the negotiating approach applied by his two most recent presidential predecessors, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, as well as Netanyahu's predecessor, former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

University of Minnesota political science professor Ronald Krebs agrees. Speaking from Israel, Krebs characterized Obama's proposal as "controversial purely as a matter of symbolism" and not surprising.

"It has been a presumption of every negotiation that the baseline will be the 1967 borders and that there would be mutually agreed land swaps."

Obama put Palestinian negotiators on the spot, too, by demanding they answer the fundamental question of how Hamas, which the United States rightly considers a terrorist organization, can be a legitimate partner for peace when it refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist.

Netanyahu will address Congress Tuesday at the invitation of GOP leaders. He's likely to receive a warm, bipartisan reception, which is fitting for our stalwart ally.

But if Netanyahu is trying to drive a wedge between Obama and GOP congressional leaders, it may backfire. Foreign policy remains predominantly a presidential purview.

Republicans trying to ease pressure on Netanyahu, and score points against Obama, aren't doing Israel any long-term favors.

Beyond the upcoming U.N. vote, there is a burgeoning movement among some Palestinians to begin a "third intifada," which could trigger another cycle of violence.

And embattled Mideast leaders, trying to divert attention from their Arab Springs, will be tempted to turn their protesters loose on Israel, as we saw a week ago in clashes along the Syrian, Lebanese, Gazan and West Bank borders.

"We cannot afford to wait another decade, or another two decades, or another three decades to achieve peace" in a world that "is moving too fast," Obama told AIPAC.

He's right. And Netanyahu would be wise to realize Obama's plea to "make the hard choices" is in Israel's, and America's, best interests.

To offer an opinion considered for publication as a letter to the editor, please fill out this form. Follow us on Twitter @StribOpinion and Facebook at facebook.com/StribOpinion.