Obama and Palestine
While the US presidential elections are being followed closely around the world, Palestinian appetite about the upcoming poll is insatiable. The feelings of Palestinians in the streets of Ramallah or the Gaza refugee camp is that the policies carried out by the resident of the White House will have a direct effect on their lives.
Republican nominee John McCain's foreign policy doesn't seem to be different from the current Bush administration's unilateral military action, the continuation so called war on terror and boycotting the leaders of Syria and Iran. Senator Hillary Clinton who had the courage to call for a Palestinian state during her days as the first lady has become a pro Israeli hawk ever since she ran for the senate seat for the state of New York in 2000.
Senator Barack Obama, however, is seen differently. Not that he has made any major deviation from the standard US policy towards Israel, he hasn't. But many believe that his background, candidacy, and his recent public discussion to members of the Jewish community in Cleveland Ohio, reveal a politically different kind of political candidate.
It is clear that Barack Obama personal narrative reflects a much more global candidate than the US presidential roster has ever experienced. At a time when the US world supremacy is uncontested, the world community feels shortchanged when only American issues dominate the elections of what in fact has become a global presidency. Unlike McCain's single dimensional approach to the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, Barack Obama is seen as a candidate who understands and empathizes with Muslims even while willing to militarily take on Bin Laden and his like with or without the ok of a US ally in Pakistan. Obama's willingness to go after al Qaeda without badmouthing Muslims (even as McCain and company repeatedly use the word radical Islam) reflects properly targeting America's enemy for their actions and not for the religion that they belong to.
As presented on his web site and in his talks, Obama's multilateralism is very refreshing. His call for talking with your enemies rather than boycotting them gives genuine priority to diplomacy to war, truly leaving the latter as a last resort. Ironically the Obama campaign has avoided to apply their own concept to the issue of talking to the Islamic Hamas movement in Palestine. Their argument that Hamas is a movement and not a state doesn't hold water considering that Palestinians have been yearning for a state decades and pro Hamas leaders where elected in a free and fair elections. If Obama was running for president a decade ago he surely would not have made that justification regarding talking to Mandela and the ANC (who also were not a state).
Obama supporters note that although he has refused to talk directly to Hamas, it is clear that his willingness to talk to the Syrian and Iranian leaders would provide a group like Hamas (whose leaders are supported by these countries) an opportunity to be heard, albeit, indirectly.
More specifically on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the Obama campaign has been very clear on supporting the two-state solution but has been vague on how to reach that. Ironically, Obama was the most forthcoming when speaking to 100 members of Cleveland's Jewish Community transcripts of which were published in the NY Sun on February 25, 2008.
The junior senator from Illinois was not afraid of challenging hard line American Jewish leaders even while supporting Israeli security. "This is where I get to be honest and I hope I'm not out of school here. I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you're anti-Israel and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel," he said. Obama listed his overall plans by stating: " My goal then would be to solicit as many practical opinions as possible in terms of how we're going to move forward on the improvement of [Palestinian-Israeli] relations and a sustainable peace.
The mixed race American candidate also said that he has consistently urged Palestinians when he was in Ramallah that they must "relinquish the right of return as it has been understood in the past. And that doesn't mean that there may not be conversations about compensation issues " Obama noted the irony that "one of the things that struck me when I went to Israel was how much more open the debate was around these issues in Israel than they are sometimes here in the United States. It's very ironic." Obama concluded by saying "I want practical, hardheaded, unromantic advice about how we're going to achieve that."
Unfortunately, however, and in response the statements of his pastor which included criticism of US support of Israeli "state sponsored terrorism against Palestinians," Obama discounted all the national struggles of Palestinians (that included secular Palestinians, moderate Muslim and Christian Palestinians) by attacking Pastor Wright's sermon as "a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam."
Despite all of that, for Palestinian clutching on the thinnest of straws to stay afloat, the Obama candidacy is for some a source of optimism. His consistent rejection of the war on Iraq and his willingness to withdraw and solve it diplomatically gives some hope that he will need to seriously deal with the Palestine issue if he wants to win the hearts and minds of Arabs and Muslims. They argue that if diplomacy will trump military in resolving the US problems in Iraq and the dispute with Iran, a practical solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will be necessary. Contrasted with the quickly fading promises of George Bush for a peace treaty in 2008, some are pinning some hope on the possibility of an Obama presidency.
Daoud Kuttab, an award winning Palestinian journalist is a visiting lecturer at Princeton University.
Follow Daoud Kuttab on Twitter: www.twitter.com/daoudkuttab
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
McCain is just finishing up his guided tour of the middle east with his AIPAC guide, Sen. Lieberman. No president has been able to keep pressure on the Israelis, although Reagan and Bush 1 did try and make statements concerning the march of settlements in occupied land. Bush has totally failed in this regard. I've always wondered if the Israelis nuclear program is used to blackmail the USA into doing its bidding. The seeding of Southern Lebanon with cluster bombs (most American made) after the Israeli's knew the conflict was going to end, really took away their standard claim that they are always responding to attacks from a defensive position. They need to pull back to their 1967 borders with a security agreement through NATO or a US/Saudi force.
While I agree that Obama is most likely to act in America's best interests (as well as those of Palestinians, Arabs, Israeli Jews, Jews everywhere and the world) and pressure Israel to withdraw to its recognized pre-1967 war borders, in the near future, regardless of who is president, the US must end its "special relationship" with Israel. Surely, it is obvious that Israel (currently costing US taxpayers nearly $20 million each and every day in aid) is our number one geopolitical liability and serves no strategic purpose. As both the Pentagon and the Senate 9/11 Commission have attested, its occupation, dispossession of and brutalization of Palestinians and military expansion were the prime motives of 9/11. Washington's ME policy will also be determined by real "facts on the ground," i.e., by 2025 there will be 2.5 to 3 billion Muslims worldwide and 750 million Arabs, including about 15 million Palestinians between the Jordan River and the Med. We cannot ignore their legitimate grievances. Indeed, we will have increasing need of their resources (not just easily accessible and relatively inexpensive oil) as well as the massive emerging markets they represent. For its own and America's sake, Israel should accept the generous 2002 offer by the Arab League to establish full peace with Israel in exchange for its withdrawal to the borders of 4 June 1967 and agreement to help achieve a "just" solution to the Palestinian refugee problem. Time and demographics are not on Israel's side.
First, Israel is under no legal or moral obligation to return to the pre-1967 borders. The current borders were created by the Israeli defeat of the armies of a number of Arab armies during the defensive 1967 war. Without the strategic depth afforded by the acquired territory Israel would have been defeated and destroyed in 1973. Given Israel gained the land defending its right to exist there is no reason or argument for returning what was rightfully gained. The offer of peace and recognition offered by the Arab nations has nothing in the way of support. Israel has given a significant amount of the land back that was taken and no peace yet exists. And, to be honest, I do not believe Israel ought to trust her Arab neighbors.
Your response has no basis in history or international law. As several Israeli leaders, including , Levi Eshkol, Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Rabin and Moshe Dayan declared, the war that Israel launched on 5 June 1967 was not defensive. It was also in violation of the commitment Eshkol cabled to to President Johnson not to attack until at least June 11th in order to give him time to solve the crisis (brought on by Israel's repeated and escalating violations of the 1949 armistice agreements) through diplomacy. As requested by Johnson, the Egyptian VP was about to fly to Washington for a meeting which was to be followed by a trip to Cairo by our VP Hubert Humphrey. Unfortunately, as the US Sec. of State later revealed, upon learning of this peace initiative, Israel broke its word and attacked Egypt (and thereby Jordan and Syria who each shared a mutual defense pact with Egypt.) As a UN member, Israel is bound by the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Fourth Geneva Convention which compel it to withdraw from all lands it invaded in 1967.
It was a pre emptive attack against forces that fell almost IMMEDIATELY, relatively speaking.
The occupied territories offer absolutely 0 strategic edge to israel, rather, as the kadima party knows, they ENDANGER Israel by inflaming terrorism needlessly, for a cause that most Israelis find pointless if not actually disgusting.
That is why they gave the gaza up, and that is why they are talking about giving up the Majority in the west bank and east Jerusalem. That is why Prime Minister Olmert recently said, Echoing Jimmy Carter, that Israel will end up like South Africa if they don't divest themselves of the settlements.
Please save the likudnic/AIPAC BS for more gullible places like FOX.
I think that Obama offers the first real glint of hope for moving forward on the Israeli Palestinian conflict. His actions and Rhetoric have, on balance, been oriented towards peace in the middle east.
Obama is both pro NAFTA & anti NAFTA and both anti War & pro War depending on the audience.
My guess Obama will probably be both pro Israel and pro Palestinian while also being anti Israeli and anti Palestinian.
The majority of people in the world want Obama to win. I am sure it will do the US a great deal of good, to have someone with Barack Obama's colorful background to reach out and negotiate US policies.
I am not sure how Obama will handle the Palestinian issue, but I am fed up of how the US has constantly been financing, and protecting Israel. The Israel lobby has made sure our politicians pour in millions of tax payers money into helping Israel, and all for what? The recent trip by Cheney has resulted in Israel asking the US not to take attacking Iran off the table. Why the heck should the US fight their battles with U resources and US troops? Israel has acted like a mini US. It takes advantage of its military might to bully and attack its neighbors. Why didn't the US object when they attacked Lebanon, killing many civilians, and bombing their infrastructure?
I do not have any hopes that the US will perhaps change it's policies, and be more neutral in the world.
It might perhaps win the hearts and minds of many people.
Isn't that what we really want?
First, I do not care about the feelings of the majority of the nations on this planet. What this nation does should be based on what is right, what is moral, and what is in the best interests of this nation. If our actions meet those criteria the rest of the world won't matter.
Peace will never come between the Palestinians and the Israelis -- period. The Palestinians will always resent the aggressive actions of the Zionists, who reclaimed land that their "God" promised to them in the Old Testament of the Bible, which has resulted in the current totally-screwed up situation that exists there today. We began to support them in 1948 from guilt, because we didn't do more to help the Jews before and during the Holocaust. I will repeat my argument for the Palestinians, to try to ilumunate their plight.
What if the native Americans reclaimed their land in America (which they lost to the Europeans, much like the Israelis lost their land to the Romans)? After all, Indian "Gods" or "Great Spirits" also promised their land to them forever. Consider how most of you non-Indians would feel if everything were taken from you, and you were forced to live in occupied territories. I can only imagine how many of you would become "freedom fighters' (oh, excuse me -- we now call such Palestinian counterparts "terrorists"). The bombings and killings here would become commonplace. I say that, because I saw a report that was done a few years back, when a reporter asked some European-descended residents in the Black Hills of South Dakota what they would do if the Lacota Indians (the legal owners of the land) forced them to leave their homes, because they were trespassing on Lacota land. Their arrogant and macho response? "Bring it on! We'll just fight them and beat them again, like we did before!" Those were really some diplomatic comments, I must say. More than anything, it was very revealing about the people here, and how they have become to believe that they deserve the land, regardless of its true owners, and they will fight to keep it. I see those same sentiments in Gaza and the West Bank today -- and the sooner that others begin to see similarities, the sooner that we can understand why the Palestinians will probably never accept Israel. This is just an observation.
Unfortunately men do like to own their property, don't they? Unfortunately though, the Lakota have no UN security resolutions to back up their claims to the land. And that's where this particular becomes complicated. The people who took the land from Native Americans did so by their own accord, via the rational of manifest destinty. Israel was put where it is by virture of many nations deciding this was a means of appeasing a people via Zionism after documented genocide and war. Just watch to see what happens in the after math of the issues of genocide in African! The more we try to fix things, the worse we make them!
A Palestinian homeland was created in 1922. Over 60% of the proposed Jewish Homeland was taken to create Transjordan, a homeland for those Arabs not willing to live in Israel.
Other than bin Laden, most Arabs do not support the Palestinians for any reason other than that they fight the Israelis. The Palestinians are looked down upon by most Muslims, but they like the fact that they have them to do their fighting and dying. If the Palestinians would lay down their arms, there would be peace. If the Israelis laid down their arms, there would be no more Israelis. You are fooling yourself if you think that the Palestinians will ever accept anything short of the destruction of Israel.
Osama Bin Laden does not support the Palestinians he USES them and their oppression to antagonize, recruit, validate and legitimize for Osama Bin Laden. The last thing Osama Bin Laden wants is peace between Israel and Palestine.
You are fooling yourself and oversimplifying the reality of the injustices done and NEED for Israel to obey Nato laws.
A one-sided comment, obviously you are neither objective nor reasonable. People like you perpetuate the current situation, hoping to have it all and refusing to see the real grievances of the other side. Your own blindness, greed and lack of fairness will be your downfall in the end. Go read the Greek tragedies and learn something.
If an "Palestinian homeland" was as important as you seem to believe why was one not formed from 1948 to1967 when Egypt and Jordan controlled the territories? The fact is most Arabs living in Palestine were more apt to refer to themselves as Syrians or by the birthplace of their father rather than Palestinian. This changed when it became politically expedient to do so. Propaganda was much better served by the new name. BUt that does not speak to the question, if an Palestinian homeland was so important why did Egypt and Jordan fail to create one?
In case my previous comment was not clear, the Israeli hope to have it all, and the refusal on the part of Israel to recognize the real grievances of the Palestinian people, I think will be Israels' downfall.
Your previous comment was as wrong as this one. Israel has every right, legally and ethically, to hold to the current borders. Any Arabs living in Israel are free and encouraged to move to Jordan, the homeland created in 1922 for Arabs not wishing to live in Israel.
Have no idea where you get your "facts" but there clearly wrong. Of course they may be more intended as PR to incite emotional responses and defenses for Israeli actions. Perhaps you should spend more time reading objective opinions on the matter where some would argue, quite effectively, that if Israel would return to pre-1967 borders as agreed upon in UN Resolutions 242 and 338 and combine that with non-aggression land-grabs they could live in peace.
And then, if you really want a serious solution why not a one-state solution that does not require only a Jewish relation? You, and others like yourself, like to criticize Muslim countries for there less than secular tolerance while ignoring Israels limitations to its Arabs residents; and yes there are plenty -- do your research!
Actually, Arab residents of Israel have far more rights than Arab citizens in every single Arab country.
You are basically saying that the Israelis can never and should never lay down their arms. This is an untenable position. It's untenable for Israelis, for Palestinians, and for Americans (who are party to the conflict despite their ignorance of it). It also sounds like a tacit admission that after 60 years, Israel has not figured out how to exist in any way other than a state of constant warfare. So by your own logic (the logic of permanent militarism), you're implying that the experiment of Israel as a modern democratic nation has been a complete failure. That might sound overly simplistic, but its the logical end to your line of thinking.
Israel is in a state of war, several Arba nations still are in a state of war with Israel. There are a number of Arab nations intent on the destructi0on of the Jewish state. And if the people of Israel have learned anything since 1948 it is the Arab nations on the borders of Israel cannot be trusted. Arab adventurism is never far below the surface and is likely to appear at any moment. Until all of the Arab nations agree that Israel has a right to exist within defensible borders that provide the necessary strategic depth there can be no peace. And that is not the fault of Israel.
I have some small measure of hope that despite the power of the Israeli lobby, which represents the interests of rightwingers in Israel, that Obama would be able to move towards a just peace and help end the occupation.
Kuttab:
"Unfortunately, however, and in response [to] the statements of his pastor which included criticism of US support of Israeli 'state sponsored terrorism against Palestinians,' Obama discounted all the national struggles of Palestinians (that included secular Palestinians, moderate Muslim and Christian Palestinians) by attacking Pastor Wright's sermon as 'a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.'"
I cringed when I heard that.
Thanks to AIPAC, its fellow travellers and those too cowardly to stand up to them — all of whom would be considered beneath contempt in a better informed, more honest society — anyone running for office in the United States of America has to be more than careful about what he says. To repeat, ~more~ than careful.
Patience.
How about the Palestinians en masse putting out their hands in peace. No matter who the US President is, he cannot bring peace as long as most Muslims in the world think Israel should be destroyed and support the hate for all Jews. See Bin Laden's speach, not anti Zionist, he calls for the killling Jews in general.
Brother Daoud, "they" have a saying in Jerusalem about wishing for hummus when you planted "ful"
Applies here.
America needs to get over its unwavering support of Israel. Israeli policy toward the palenstinian and its arab neighbors has always been one of hostility, disrespect for soveriengty, and a de facto desire to see its neighbors destroyed and its borders expanded.
Some of you are this board has blamed everything on the palenstinians and described israel as the peaceful dove who wants peace and offers palestine truffles on a silver platter, but this is simply not true. In fact, if anything, the Israeli government of the last 10-15 years has been increasingly pro-settlements and has done everything in its power to disrupt the possibility of peace. They have built winding roads throughout the palestiniian terrotories (that are isreali-only) to connect to the settlements, leaving behind a walled off palestine that is divided into small walled off villages which completely prevent national cohesion and has raised the poverty rate in palestine to 60%. They are doing as much as possible to seize land and natural resources until the prospect of a palestinian state cannot exist without mass jewish revolt. Their goal is colonizing palestine and destroying any possibility of a two-state solution. Its unfortunate but we must not be blinded of the facts in this situation. The palestinians deserve the right to defend themselves and be safe and stable just as much as the israelis
One thing is clear from your posting is you are not bothered with facts on the MIddle East and your posting is free of anything truthful.
rather than generally dismissing my post as untruthful, how about you describe in what ways this is so? Dont just base your view of facts and reality on your inname emotional bias to the situation.
You're dreaming. The U.S. position is locked in and Obama will not change it one little bit. He's telling the Palestinians to forget about the right of return -- how is that different? Who's going to pay the compensation? No answer, just another vaguery. Vote for the candidate who will help your neighborhood -- end of story. Obama will attack Iran if it's necessary. No President will allow the U.S. military status in the world to be diminished in any manner. Obama is no different. Carter campaigned promising to reduce the size of the military -- it never happened and he made no apologies for it. The U.S. sits on the greatest army ever assembled -- and never hesitates to use it. Non-violence is the only solution -- the gun thing is not working.
you ask who will pay compensation? thats simple you and me. a u.s. sen. will put forward a sen. bill requesting america pay compensation ..who would dare oppose? if and when the settlements are removed, who do you think will compensate the settlers and israeli govt.? you and me. as a former congressional asst., do you have any idea how many times some rep. sponsors bills requesting we waive repayment of loans? sir, you don't want to know.. to say that the white house and congress are israeli held territories would be one of the worlds greatest under statements. they have such total control you can't find more than a few members that were critical of israel using illegal cluster bombs on lebanese civilians that are still killing human beings to this day. of course many members probably don't consider that ethnic group to be part of the civilized community. i could go on and on..your much better off not knowing whats going on. once you find out and protest ,your than looked on as an anti semite whos in dire need of sensitivity training..
The "right of return" in the context of the Palestine/Israel issue concerns those land owners pushed out in 1948. The settlements in the "occupied territories" are a different issue. I have some grasp of the situation concerning the U.S. and it's interest in Asia Minor, that's why I started my post,"You're dreaming..."
McCain went to Middle East visited Israel. Not Palestine. Hillary if she is President it will be the same. Obama is the only different president. He will reach out and listen. When 2 kids are fighting and the parents only listen and talk to one and not the other. It will only increase resentment and more fighting. All these talks Cheney gave about American support for Israel without ever mentioning Palestine is a divisive technic. Peace will never happen until someone and it looks like to be the President of the United States put out a hand to both parties and have them sit down and talk. Otherwise, it will only mean more dead bodies in Israel and Palestine.
There is no question that Obama is the best hope for any improvement for a Palestinian /Israeli resolution, if there is one. This will take new ways of looking at the issues from a figure sympathetic to both sides, but not overly indebted to the American Jewish Lobby.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
