President Obama delivered an innovative, comprehensive, visionary speech about the Middle East, but the reactions from official Palestinian circles as well as from some of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's political allies indicate the usual total disconnect. So, how are we to interpret the speech?
One way is to engage in a detailed textual analysis, which is bound to be burdensome, hence not recommended. I venture to offer another approach, taken directly from the world of sports: let's break the part of the speech relating to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, or lack thereof, and see which side can claim more points in its favor, and then come with the final score.
Starting with Israel, they can be very happy with the fact that in this important speech, the leader of the free world made it very clear that the problems of the Middle East are dictatorship, poverty, corruption and deprivation caused by the Arab regimes which in turn try to put the blame on the US and Israel. For over 60 years, the Israelis tried, in vain, to explain it to the rest of the world. They can feel vindicated.
The president criticized the settlements, but in a much more muted language than usual, did not demand a freeze and refrained from defining them as illegal. Mr. Obama dismissed the Palestinian Reconciliation Agreement and strongly attacked Hamas for all the obvious reasons. One is left to wonder how can Abbas and Fayyad, the natural partners of the US and Israel, square the circle now, and have a government including the terrorists, while claiming their commitment to the peace process? They will need to use more than words, as actions are expected of them, and chief among them an unconditional readiness to resume talks with Israel, something which they resisted recently, conditioning it on an Israeli freeze on settlements, which the president did not demand.
Alongside that, the president ridiculed the Palestinian plan to go to the UN and get there a recognition for their state. The speech made it clear that the thorny issues of Jerusalem and refugees are to be discussed at a later stage and the Israelis are obviously happy about that. There was no word about the partition of Jerusalem and its final status, contrary to the expectations of the Palestinians.
Then the president was very concrete and firm in his call for protecting Israel's security interests, including a specific reference to the demilitarization of a future Palestinian state. With all that, the Israelis can claim satisfaction with regard to six important points.
And what about the Palestinians? The president expressed his strong conviction that the occupation needs to end with the inevitable suffering and humiliation inflicted on the Palestinians. Referring to refugees, the president mentioned only Palestinians and not Jewish. Clearly, the Palestinians liked to hear that. Then the president dropped the so-called bombshell: the support for final demarcation of borders based on the 1967 status quo, while advocating a swap of lands.
The very mention of 1967 is always a nice music in the ears of the Palestinians and not so for a majority of the Israeli people. No doubt a Palestinian achievement, and with it they can claim satisfaction with regard to three points. The interim score therefore is still in favor of Israel, something that may raise eyebrows judging by some of the immediate initial reactions there, which focus on the reference to the pre-1967 borders.
Here is a challenge to Netanyahu, as he prepares for his impending meeting with the president. He can succumb to the rhetoric of some of the hawks in his own party and those from his coalition partners and criticize the president for his position, but he can also act differently. Just few days ago, the PM declared in the Knesset that Israel should maintain the main settlements blocks under its jurisdiction in any final peace agreement. With positive and creative thinking, he can bridge the gaps.
As for the Palestinians, Abbas and Fayyad will have to reconsider the rapprochement with Hamas and give up on the September UN resolution about Palestinian statehood. So scoring points may be useful as an intellectual exercise; but one speech, even great as this one, cannot and will not bring the much desired peace. The president himself recognized it by stating that the people involved are the ones that could and should resolve the conflict. He could not be more right.
Amb. Marc Ginsberg: Cairo: Part Deux
Rabbi Samuel April: The Rebuke
When you come to the 1967 borders (old city Jerusalem, French Hill and the northwestern suburbs notwithstanding), it is clear to every Israeli that they are leaving Israel. Nothing past this point seems Israeli or looks like Israel. People don't speak Hebrew. There are no Israeli chain stores. You don't feel welcome or wanted.
The right wing in Israel, and the mainstream Jewish communities in the diaspora try to pretend that there's an Israel in the West Bank. There most certainly is not.
But yes, even with that, most Israeli Arabs have no desire to have Palestinian citizenship. There are lots of benefits to Israeli citizenship including a functional democracy, health care, social security, and many rights.
Fan'ed & fav'ed.
Obama can do nothing on his own ---he has to wait for it to run through the UN --and then they give him the position to take and what to say.....this man is no leader, his arrival in the WH was for one purpose ---to shore up the international banking cartel power and to allow the UN to use our military at our expense to do what the UN wants....Congress has been completely removed the action --UN is calling the shots and Obama only follows orders from them.....and the banking cartel
The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that the world will become more dependent on OPEC oil beginning in 2011 as the combined non-OPEC oil output from countries outside of the producer group begins to decline.
In 2018, Mexico could become a net oil importer.
In 2025, Norway and Russia could stop exporting oil.
Oil tanker traffic through the Straits of Hormuz will rise to about 60 percent of global oil exports by 2025. It's far more than in 1973.
These people have been in revolution so long that it's become an important part of their lives and they really don't know how to do anything else.
Peace would put them out of a job ! What would they do then ? Move to Afghanistan ?
Mr. Netanyahu, please calm down and watch the show..........
But IMO, you missed the most important part of Obama’s message to Arabs & Israelis:
“[…] what America and the international community can do is state frankly what everyone knows: a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.”
It is recognition of the Jewish people’s right to a state of their own in part of their ancestral homelands that is the CORE ISSUE of the conflict; NOT the borders, 1967 or otherwise.
After all, the conflict did NOT start in 1967. It did NOT even start with “the Nakhba”. The Arabs rejected the idea of a State of the Jews in 1947 (as well as before that), before “the Nakhba” & long before the “occupation” of the West Bank, “settlements” & all the rest.
What the speech does is bury “the one-state solution”, “the right of return” & all other euphemisms invented by haters to “whitewash” their ignoble desire to rob the Jews of their natural right to national self-determination. "Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people". THAT is the key point, not whether Palestine will include 98% or 99.5% of the West Bank!
Now with this " Arab Spring" our President and advisors are being lulled into believing that the democracy movement in Egypt, Tunisia, and Syria will morf into some great movement that will finally establish peace in the region. I don't believe this for one minute. If you ask any pro democracy activist in Cairo or in Tunisia or Syria if the democratic movement will blunt the distrust and hatred felt toward Israel and the Jews most of the responses will be to the contrary leaving Israel surrounded by more agressive enemies than before.
Hamas will never agree to the Israeli right to exist, Israel will never agree to Palestinian demands for the right of return.
What the US needs to do is to lower our influence in the region,
In the old terms our sphere of influence in the middle east is strictly limited and we should deal with this reality.
But why would that be the case?
Imo it's perfectly normal that sooner or later, people living in totalitarian states, as was the case in the Arab world, refuse to continue to live in this way and throw their dictators out.
That the West has supported those same dictators for decades clearly doesn't help us. But on the other hand, I do think that these movements were only possible because today it's clear that Obama will NOT invade Arab countries and try to benefit from the political unstability during a transition period. On the contraryn he has clearly invited the Arab world to start their own democratic movement, and promised to NOT meddle with it.
Isn't it interesting that prior to the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, there was no serious movement for a Palestinian homeland?
In the Six-Day War, Israel captured Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem. But they didn't capture these territories from Yasser Arafat. They captured them from Jordan's King Hussein. I can't help but wonder why all these Palestinians suddenly discovered their national identity after Israel won the war.
60% of Jordanian population identify as "Palestinians"
Right on target!
Where is the Palestinian plight in the Sinai peninsula!!!