Reactions to President Obama's speech on developments in the Arab World were a striking reminder of just how deep and troubling the disconnect in the U.S.-Israel-Arab relationship, and how dysfunctional politics in the U.S. have become.
Given the historical setting: dramatic changes taking place across the Arab World; the killing of bin Laden; the floundering Arab-Israeli peace process coming up against the September deadline the president once suggested for the establishment of a Palestinian State; and the Republican Congressional leadership's invitation to Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress -- the White House calculated that this was the appropriate time for the president to deliver a speech that framed a comprehensive vision of his administration's Middle East policy.
It was an impressive effort, but the questions that gnawed at me as I sat in the State Department's Benjamin Franklin room listening to the president were "who was the intended audience" and "how would this speech be received by the many audiences who would hear it"?
If directed at an American audience, it was a useful speech. The president's analysis of the Arab Spring was thoughtful and challenging, as was his resolve to "reset" relations with the broader Middle East in the wake of profound changes occurring in that region. By embracing and reframing a "democracy agenda" and focusing on the need for economic development and empowerment, Obama shoved aside the neo-conservative clap-trap and Islamophobic nonsense that has seized much of the right and infected some of the left.
Our current "slash and burn" Congress may not be inclined to act in support of the president's initiatives, dooming them before they get off the ground, but it was important for Obama to challenge them to "put their money where their mouths are". Politicians may pay lip service to democracy, but when it comes to supporting the capacity building and job creation necessary to advance societies in transition, they turn their backs.
It was also a humble speech in which the president, at times implicitly and at other times, explicitly acknowledged the limits faced by U.S. diplomacy in the region. He noted that the U.S. did not make the Arab Spring, nor can the U.S. direct its course. All we can do is help emerging democracies with resources and support.
As direct as the president was in addressing this democracy agenda, he was more oblique in his handling of the issue that drew the most post-speech attention -- the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was a valiant effort in which he tried to both lay down markers for Netanyahu while not creating a major confrontation with the pro-Israel lobby that is meeting in Washington this week (and before which both he and the Israeli P.M. are scheduled to speak).
Obama carefully parsed his words giving something to both sides. For example, he accepted the Palestinian argument that borders and territorial issues should come first, recognizing the '67 borders as the starting point, but then adding the need for "mutually agreed upon land-swaps" in deference to Israel's concern. He rejected the Palestinians' efforts to seek a United Nations' endorsement of their state, but added that the future Palestinian State should have borders with Israel, Jordan and Egypt and be "contiguous" -- a slap at Netanyahu's efforts to severe Gaza from Palestine and maintain Israeli control in the Jordan Valley.
He had, of course, much more to say, but most of it had been said before and should not have surprised or shocked anyone. But it did.
The mainstream press made much ado about the president's speech, with front page headlines and commentaries galore either heralding or denouncing the president's referencing of the "pre-67 borders". They did this despite the fact that President George W. Bush had spoken of the 1949 Armistice lines as the starting point for negotiations -- those lines being exactly what is meant by the pre-67 borders.
For their part, hardline pro-Israel groups became hysterical denouncing the president for ambushing Netanyahu, embracing a Hamas agenda, and condemning Israel to live within "Auschwitz" borders"! The 2012 Republican aspirants chimed in accusing Obama of being "irresponsible", "throwing Israel under the bus", and "betraying" or "disrespecting" our "only ally".
Meanwhile, in the Arab World, the speech fell flat. Not interested in nuance or the careful parsing of terms, the speech the Arabs heard was too tired and too careful, in no significant way advancing the discussion beyond the Cairo speech of 2009. Arabs wanted the President to do something. What they hoped for, two years after Cairo, were firm markers, a timetable for implementation and concrete steps the U.S. would take to end the now 44 year long occupation of Palestinian lands.
And herein lies the problem. What the administration saw as a necessary, though risky, step at home, ended up outraging hardline Israelis, becoming partisan fodder at home, and being seen as "too little, too late" by many Arabs.
And this is only the beginning of what will no doubt be a most troubling week for U.S Middle East diplomacy.
After their Friday White House meeting, Obama and Netanyahu each delivered remarks to the press. The president acknowledged differences between the two sides, which the Israeli prime minister then elaborated upon issuing his "No's": "No" to '67 borders because "they don't take into account... demographic changes that have taken place over the past 44 years" (A remarkably antiseptic way of describing Israel's illegal settlement expansion!); "No" to Palestinian reconciliation; and "No" to the Palestinian "right to return".
All eyes will now be on Obama as he speaks before the AIPAC (the major pro-Israel lobby) meeting on Sunday to see whether he backs away from or fine tunes the positions he outlined in his state department address. While AIPAC's leaders have cautioned their members not to boo the president, it will not be a receptive audience -- unless he walks back from his earlier positions, in which case the AIPAC crowd might cheer while an already disenchanted Arab audience will become enraged.
Then comes Netanyahu's turn. He will speak before AIPAC on Monday and Congress on Tuesday -- both audiences ready for whatever "red meat" he will throw their way.
There is a disconnect, to be sure, and a dysfunctional situation as well. All of this reminds me of Jesse Jackson's description of a complicated political bind in which anything you say "excites one side, but incites the other side".
Follow James Zogby on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AAIUSA
Rabbi Samuel April: The Rebuke
When in charge of a country, many times consensus is an abdication of leadership.
Insecure much?
Countries that succeed act in their self interest. If that means having the Chinese own our debt until we inflate their US bonds to a much smaller security of value, count me in. If it means supporting those countries who drill for oil while we try to subsidize a windmill, I'm all in as well.
There is no moral high ground in national interests.
Hope and Change=Weak leadership
Amereican Voters=Not gullible a second time around
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Dissent/Einstein_NYTimes_Israel.html
Zogby's "plagiarist memory" of the three No's from the Khartoum Conference (NO peace with Israel, NO recognition of Israel, NO negotiations with it) reveals the Arab mindset perfectly -- it's not a territorial conflict. The only issue is the Arab world does not recognize the Jewish state of Israel as a native part of the Middle East. It is why Arafat never changed the PLO charter, even after he agreed to do so in the Oslo agreements and despite pleas from President Clinton that he do it.
The world won't be fooled by the Arabs attempt to abrogate the Oslo agreements at the UN, even as it has effectively done away with by the countenancing of terrorism by the PA, and the Hamas-Fatah agreement. Most people in the US understand that from 1948 to 1993 that the Arabs wanted Israel replaced by an Arab state, and they were ready to fight to make this happen. When Arafat lied about his aims, Israelis jumped at the chance to believe him. Since then after the Arabs refused repeated peace offers and Arab terrorism having claimed more than a thousand Israeli victims, most realize that it was all a trick. Recognition is everything. Let’s accept that the root problem is the Arab refusal to accept a Jewish state in the Mideast and work on that.
When Israel was created only 10% of the total Jewish population was born their. Meaning 90% immigrated.
"On September 3, UNSCOP issued its report to the General Assembly............
"It noted that the population of Palestine at the end of 1946 was estimated to be almost 1,846,000, with 1,203,000 Arabs (65 percent) and 608,000 Jews (33 percent). Growth of the Jewish population had been mainly the result of immigration, while growth of the Arab population had been “almost entirely†due to natural increase.
(United Nations Special Committee on Palestine Report to the General Assembly, September 3, 1947)
http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/07175de9fa2de563852568d3006e10f3?OpenDocument
"In-Migration and Demographic Transformation: Palestine in 1882 had a small, native, and migrant religious Jewish community of roughly 24,000 among a Palestinian population of nearly 500,000. There were several waves of politically inspired immigration into the country."
http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/ht/d/ContentDetails/i/2963
It would seem that there are some valid reasons for the Arabs to have come to this conclusion.
The Arabs? The Arab world? Who that? Most (all?) "Arab" countries have expressly recognized Israel. So long as you and many Americans believe that this is about all people of "Arab" extraction and ethnic identity vs. the tiny little culture chosen by God, there is a problem.
If the world understands that Palestine was taken over and occupied by a new country---sponsored by the non-Arab world in 1948; then was dramatically extended and expanded in 1967 by Israel. If the world understands that international law is absolutely clear that Israel is wrongfully and illegally settling the West Bank, Golan Hts, and the Shebaa farms area, then we can get a starting point.
Why are we rejecting the Palestinian's appeal to be recognized by the UN if we are calling for a Palestinian state anyway?
If we want to cement our irrelevance in the Middle East, the quickest way to do that would be to join Israel as the only 2 countries in the WORLD who vote against recognition of what we have been calling on Israel to do since the beginning: recognize Palestine as part of the Two-State solution we are always talking about.
The starting point is that Israel is illegally occupying lands. All the world (including the U.S.) recognize this. The U.S. (for years and years) has been telling Israel to stop building on the West Bank. Israel keeps building. Netanyahu expressly promotes expansion on the West Bank. Avi Lieberman is a cheerleader for expansion...and...Netanyahu gets a rock star reception before Congress!
America just wants armageddon.
Of course it fell flat, the Arabs want Obama to force Israel to give up everything for nothing. They want title to the West bank without having to make peace with Israel or give up their dream of flooding Israel with the refugees from their failed wars in 1948-67 and then attacking Israel from the West bank. They still haven't accepted the permanence of Israel, on any land whatsoever.
Obama told them to give up that fantasy when he told the Arabs that they must accept Israel as a Jewish state (signaling them that the "right of return" scam is dead), and that their UN gambit won't fly. The failure of Arab world to grasp reality; that they will "only" have control of 99% of the land in the middle east, is undiminished. They keep thinking that someone will come along and help them to defeat Israel. The Arabs have failed to do that militarily, through terrorism and will soon fail in the UN. Time for the Arab world, and their apologists like Zogby to accept their defeat and move on. Ask the Germans and the Japanese, there is life after you accept defeat.
Uh, excuse me -- that is an EXTREMELY POOR COMPARISON! Unlike Israel, the U.S. DID NOT take any German or Japanese land after the treaties that ended World War II were signed. Furthermore, through the Marshal Plan, the U.S. helped Japan and Germany rebuild their economies. It's time for Zionists like you to remember these immortal words of the late Pope Paul VI:
"If you want peace, work for justice"
'Nuff said.
As for Japan, Sakhalin Island, of much dispute for nearly a century, is currently occupied by Russia. The Japanese don't recognize Russia's sovereignty but they don't obsess about it. Nor have they forced the Japanese displaced from the island to stay in camps for 6 decades. They have moved on. The Palestinians need to accept their defeat and move on. It is the way of the world, everywhere in the world except the Arab world.
The better theory is that Israel will do their usual stall with an ever shifting criterion for sitting down to negotiate in which case the Palestinians will get seated at the United Nations and Israel will have to explain why it continues the illegal occupation of the West Bank and blockade of Gaza to a sovereign state. If Israel had honest leadership they would cut a deal asap.
It goes to show that nobody is serious about solving the outdated Psykes-Picot charade.
There is the law of citizenship in Israel which says that Palestinians who may have brothers and sisters and relatives all over the Arab world are not allowed to reunite with their families, but Jews all around the world have all the rights to come and become full citizens from the moment they are born.
Then the law of social welfare, which says that only people who have served in the army are entitled to the full welfare social system.
Arabs are not allowed to serve in the army [with few exceptions, as with the Druze], and therefore they are not allowed full social services..
One question remains: How the hell does Israel get away with all this? Why is Israel, time after time, being called the only democracy in the Middle East, while its non-Jewish Arab citizens are forbidden to live on 80% of its land?
To some extent, this is because of the image of Israel that has dominated Western media during the last 60 years.
But there's another factor that cannot be overseen: Criticizing Israel is likely to damage a journalist's career.
The power of the lobby is often ignored or underestimated. Editors are afraid of being accused of bias by the pro-Israeli lobbyists. People think it is all rubbish.
But people in the west shout too much about absolute freedom of the speech when it comes to Islamophobia or the writings of people like Rushdie.
Arab citizens of Israel are not REQUIRED to serve in the army, but they may choose to do so. Consequently, there are Arab officers (even a general, I believe) in the army.
Palestinians in Gaza and the WB are not citizens of Israel, so Israel is not forbidding "non-Jewish Arab citizens" to live in Israel. Indeed, more than twenty percent of Israeli citizens are Arab and, of course, are free to live there. Israel, like every other country in the world, does not have open borders and allow anyone who wishes to move there.
And yes, Israel is the only free democracy in the ME as evaluated by multiple organizations like Freedom House. Far from being "afraid" of that "all-powerful" Israeli lobby, newspapers around the world AND in Israel routinely print material critical of Israel. Take a look at Ha'aretz some time for a sampling of this freedom.
Every country has an absolute right to establish it's own citizenship policies. There is one Jewish state in the mideast. How many Arab states are there? 22.
National military service is mandatory for all Israeli citizens over the age of 18, although Arab (but not Druze) citizens are exempted if they so please. There are even Arab officers in the IDF. www.dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/Up_Close/10/10/1102.htm
One example regarding social services is the right to medical care.
The law in Israel states that medical treatment is to be provided to all and that neither the medical facility nor the clinician may discriminate between patients on grounds of religion, race, sex, nationality or any other criterion.
Rather than perform army service, Israeli Arab youths have the option to volunteer to perform national service and receive benefits similar to those received by discharged soldiers. The volunteers are generally allocated to Arab populations, where they assist with social and community matters. As of 2010 there are 1,473 Arabs volunteered for national service.
Unfortunately some Arab leaders are counseling youths to refrain from performing services. "For years the Arab leadership has demanded, justifiably, benefits for Arab youths similar to those received by discharged soldiers. Now, when this opportunity is available, it is precisely these leaders who reject the State's call to come and do the service, and receive these benefits".
Who's to blame? NOT ISRAEL.
A few aimless protests without strong leadership and without any clearly defined political program have ZERO chance of transforming the devolving civilization.
This is just a reshuffling of the klepto-garcy.
All that stuff about the Palestinians making a united front - all lies, including the pictures and the interviews.
Israel leadership is hard nosed while the Palestinian leadership is conciliatory.
Facts matter.
☮
Please read Jackson Diehl:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mahmoud-abbass-formula-for-war/2011/05/18/AFsdUl6G_story.html?nav=emailpage
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/04/sb-20070429swyl
:-]