Whenever I think that Barack Obama has had his worst week ever...he finds a way to make it worse. This week began with more Solyndra revelations tying the failed Solar Panel firm's federal loan to politics directed by the Obama White House and it ended at the United Nations where President Abbas made a disastrous application for a unilateral declaration of Palestinian Statehood, which more than anything was a result of Barack Obama's disastrous Middle East policy.
According to Bob Beckel on Friday's The Five Obama's policies had nothing to do with the UN disaster, nothing to do with the fact that Abbas refuses to negotiate, and nothing to do with the fact that Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel as the Jewish State, its all the fault of the settlements, the settlements, the settlements. To be hones I can't remember if he repeated the words "the settlements" three or four times but Beckel certainly made his point. He also proved that he is either too partisan to admit the truth, or too lazy to research recent history, but either way he is wrong.
Allow me to explain the facts and for brevity's sake I will start with the Obama Administration.
While the Palestinian's have never accepted Israeli settlements, secession of all settlement building has never been a precondition to talks. Israel had long ago agreed not to build new communities in Judea and Samaria but would continue to add housing units to existing communities.
During the government of PM Ehud Barak, there were direct talks and construction continued in existing communities.
It was the Obama administration's naiveté that made the settlements an issue. Hillary Clinton first demanded the freeze in 2009 and was quickly backed up by Obama. What the President and his advisers perceived as a minor concession (a settlement freeze including no new housing units in existing communities) was for Israel a grave sacrifice. From their point of view Obama was telling Adult Israelis that their children could no longer live near their parents. He was also saying that a policy not accepted in the United States (allowing people of a certain faith to live anywhere they want) was OK as long as it appeased the Arab world.
It is interesting that the man who pushed for Muslims to build a mosque on Ground Zero, and for Illegal immigrants to live in Arizona, believes that Jews should be banned from living on the West Bank of the Jordan River.
Making the Settlement a cornerstone of the new administration's Middle East policy, was a major naivete-driven error by the Obama administration which was compounded by their inclusion of Jerusalem in the mix and their constant public berating of the Jewish State. This turned the Israeli population against Obama, especially the Israeli left who would be more inclined to support a settlement freeze demand. A May 2011 Smith Poll conducted for the Jerusalem Post showed that only 12% of Israelis believe Obama is pro-Israel, 40% believe he is pro-Palestinian.
Obama's demand for a freeze of natural community growth broke a US/Israel agreement made during the Bush administration.
Obama, through his Secretary of State Ms Clinton, said there was never an agreement between Israel and the US about natural expansion of existing settlements. Elliot Abrams who negotiated the agreement for the United States says that the Administration is lying.
Immediately the Palestinians seized upon the Obama-created issue. Seeing an opportunity to avoid talking, they used Obama’s demands to make a settlement freeze a precondition to further talks, even though there were negotiations and construction going on simultaneously before Obama became president.
In August 2009 Prime Minister Netanyahu announced a ten month settlement building freeze in Judea and Samaria. It was approved by the Knesset and implemented on November 25, 2009 and ran till September 25, 2010. Despite pressure from the United States, the Palestinians wasted the first 9 months of the freeze and would not come to the negotiation table till September 2010, three weeks before the freeze ended. A fact lost on Mr. Beckel.
After the freeze ended, Abbas once again hid behind Obama's naivete, another fact that Beckel forgets. With the end of the freeze pressure was put on Jewish State to extend it indefinitely. No one questioned the Palestinian Authority’s refusal talk for the first nine months of a ten month freeze.
The US began to negotiate with the Israel to extend the freeze. And the two sides came close to a deal. Based on their experience with Obama and the deal negotiated by Elliot Abrams during the Bush Administration, Israel demanded that any proposal be presented in writing as any oral deal with the Obama administration was worth the paper it was printed on.
The written offer never came and worse yet, the Secretary of State wasn’t negotiating in good faith. Instead Ms Clinton was playing "Bait and Switch."
As Israel waited for a letter clarifying America's guarantees in exchange for a proposed building ban for Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria, a diplomatic source has come forward saying that no such letter is on its way. United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton misled Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, and contrary to reports, the U.S. did not guarantee an end to the freeze, the source said.
The source, a senior diplomat with inside knowledge of Netanyahu's recent meetings in Washington, said Clinton made commitments when talking to Netanyahu, but later slipped out of them by claiming that she had not been speaking on behalf of U.S. President Obama – who, she said in the end, did not give his approval.
Despite the Obama administration's bait and switch, Netanyahu tried to give the Palestinian side an "out." In early October 2010 he made a very simple offer to the PA. If you were to recognize Israel as the Jewish State, we will extend the freeze. As reported by Al Jazeera the answer was a resounding no:
Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, has offered to renew a partial settlement construction freeze in exchange for Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.
He announced the offer on Monday, just three days after the Palestinians and Arab states gave the US a month to persuade Israel to renew a 10-month moratorium on settlement housing starts that expired on September 26.
Netanyahu's proposal met with swift rejection from senior Palestinian officials.
"The whole world holds Netanyahu responsible for what is happening in the region, after he chose to push ahead with the settlement project at the expense of an advance in the peace process. Settlement freeze is a commitment Netanyahu should respect," Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, told Al Jazeera.
Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior official of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, described the settlement issue as "an aggression on Palestinian rights and land".
"What Israel calls itself is an Israeli matter that does not concern us. The two issues are not related," he told Al Jazeera in reference to Netanyahu's condition that Palestinians recognise Israel as a Jewish state.
Nabil Abu Rudainah, the spokesman for Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, said a return to peace talks required a freeze on settlement building by Israel.
"The issue of the Jewishness of the state has nothing to do with the matter," he told the Reuters news agency.
The Palestinian side still refuses to take that first step toward peace, recognizing the Jewish State of Israel. And while Barack Obama was willing to destroy the prospects for negotiations by making the settlements an issue the way it never had before, he has avoided upsetting the Palestinians by demanding that they recognize the Jewish State of Israel. Something Obama tap danced around the issue as recently as his speech in front of the General Assembly last week. Those, Mr. Beckel is what are called facts.
Its not just Bob Beckel, he is just the most annoying. The real story of a settlement freeze has been ignored by the mainstream media, Earlier this week Gretchen Carlson of Fox and Friends reported that the Administration was trying to get Israel to return to the table, despite the fact that Israel never left the table, the Palestinians did. Israel offered a ten month freeze to help the US out of a problem caused by our President's naiveté, the Palestinians ignored the freeze until it was too late, an extension of the freeze was first sabotaged by Hilary Clinton's bait and switch tactics and a refusal to put things in writing, then by PA President Abbas because he didn't want to recognize Israel.
Whether Beckel is ignoring the truth because he desperately wants to turn around the progressive Obama's fortunes, or because he is too lazy to investigate the truth it doesn't really matter.What matters is that there is a dearth of truth coming out of the main stream media, even on Fox News. I guess bias and or/laziness is bipartisan.
They say a leopard doesn't change his spots, well neither does this President. Those who though that the NY-9 election and recent polls would cause Obama to temper his one-sided policy regarding the Israeli/Palestinian dispute were very disappointing. It's not what he said that should be alarming to friends of Israel, its what he didn't say, namely that Israel needed to be recognized as the Jewish State. Oh he flirted around it sometimes, but carefully negotiated around stating it, an act of appeasement to those who would destroy Israel. It is that one recognition which keeps this 40 year dispute alive (remember before 1967 Judea, Samaria were part of Jordan and Gaza was part of Egypt).
This is what the President actually said about recognition of Israel at the UN Today.
Let us be honest with ourselves: Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it. Israel’s citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. Israel’s children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them. Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, look out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map. The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile and persecution, and fresh memories of knowing that six million people were killed simply because of who they are. Those are facts. They cannot be denied.
The Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland. Israel deserves recognition. It deserves normal relations with its neighbors.
Some will say "see he talked about the Jewish people, you can assume that's what he meant." Sadly in diplomacy as well as "Odd Couple" reruns, when you assume you make an ass of u and me.
The avoidance of calling Israel the Jewish State was no accident. As recently as last month the President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas declared that he would never accept Israel as a Jewish State
For the naysayers who say why should the PA have to recognize the nature of the Israel. One reason is the UN who defines it that way. The original partition resolution passed by the UN in November 1947, UN Resolution 181 calls for dividing Palestine into Independent Arab and Jewish States.
Israeli Prime Minister outlined it brilliantly in his speech before Congress at the end of May. He talked about how Israel has been ready to establish a Palestinian State for decades, but there has been one hold-up.
“You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state. This is what this conflict is about....
They were simply unwilling to end the conflict. And I regret to say this: They continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to name public squares after terrorists. And worst of all, they continue to perpetuate the fantasy that Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of Palestinian refugees.”
My friends, this must come to an end. President Abbas must do what I have done. I stood before my people, and I told you it wasn’t easy for me, and I said… "I will accept a Palestinian state." It is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say… "I will accept a Jewish state."
A few days before Netanyahu made his speech in the halls of Congress, President Obama gave his big Mid East peace speech. He spent much time telling Israel what she had to do, and included the controversial call for negotiations to start with recognition of Israel's return to the 1949 Armistice lines, but he didn’t address the fact that neither Palestinian President Abbas’ Fatah party and the Hamas party refuse to recognize Israel as the Jewish State.
Today in front of the UN General Assembly he made the same mistake.
I put forward a new basis for negotiations in May of this year. That basis is clear. It’s well known to all of us here. Israelis must know that any agreement provides assurances for their security. Palestinians deserve to know the territorial basis of their state.
....We seek a future where Palestinians live in a sovereign state of their own, with no limit to what they can achieve. There’s no question that the Palestinians have seen that vision delayed for too long. It is precisely because we believe so strongly in the aspirations of the Palestinian people that America has invested so much time and so much effort in the building of a Palestinian state, and the negotiations that can deliver a Palestinian state.
Again he fails to mention that the reason it has taken so long is the Palestinian refusal to accept the fact that the Jewish State of Israel has the basic right to exist. The simple truth is that with seven words, President Abbas can get what he wants "We Accept a Jewish State of Israel." Once he says that all the other issues will become much easier.
But President Abbas will not make that declaration, and President Obama is satisfied with making demands of Israel while refusing to demand that the Palestinian side make the most basic of statements. Israel cannot negotiate with someone who does not believe that it should exist. And President Obama will never regain the trust of voters who support Israel as long as he continues to appease the Palestinians lack of this basic recognition.
Rick Perry came to New York today to give a foreign policy speech. He focused on Israel and the Middle East. His criticism of Obama was taken by some as over-the-top.
“Simply put, we would not be here today at the very precipice of such a dangerous move if the Obama policy in the Middle East wasn’t naive, arrogant, misguided, and dangerous,” said Perry, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination.
He continued: “The Obama policy of moral equivalency, which gives equal standing to the grievances of Israelis and Palestinians, including the orchestrators of terrorism, is a very dangerous insult.”
Perry accused the Obama administration of encouraging the Palestinians to abandon direct talks with Israel, in a “policy of appeasement.”
Let's breakdown Perry's statement and see if he was being accurate or exaggerating.
Has Obama's Policy Been Naive?YES! What the President and his advisers perceived as a minor concession, a settlement freeze, was not perceived by Israel as a minor one. This was a major error by Obama. And when he added Jerusalem to his demands it just compounded the situation. His insistence for a freeze and the constant public berating of the Jewish State has turned the Israeli population against Obama, and increased the support of Prime Minister Netanyahu even with the Israeli left, no fans of Bibi, but who the President would look to for support.
At the same time the President's demands have given the Palestinians an excuse to avoid negotiations and the other Arab nations an excuse to avoid making the "gestures" for which the President is looking.
The President's "rookie" mistake has not only hurt his own strategy, but damaged our relations with the only real democracy in the Middle East.
Has Obama's Middle East Policy Been Arrogant? Yes! Let me count the ways, when he left the Prime Minister stewing in a conference room for a few hours while he went up to the White House residence to have dinner with his wife and children (who were in NY at the time) that was arrogance.
He displayed even more arrogance last year at the UN when he said he would like to see a Palestinian State at the UN in 12 months; he said it was really possible (because he could succeed in 12 months what others couldn't do in 40 years). That last little display of arrogance certainly helped the Palestinians work up the nerve to attempt what he promised on their own.
Has Obama's Middle East Policy Been Misguided? If by Misguided Rick Perry meant wrong, well the answer is yes. Lets look at it this way, at the end of the Bush administration the two sides were talking. Now almost three years later, the Palestinians have used Obama's words about settlements as an excuse to avoid negotiations. Yes Obama's Middle East policies have been misguided.
Has Obama's Middle East Policy been dangerous? Yes! Since the beginning of the Arab Spring, President Obama's policy has been all over the place. Sometimes bashing our friends while supporting our enemies. In Libya it seems as if he helped establish a new regime that is loaded with people from al Qaeda. Obama's waste of time, reaching his hand out to Iran, while the Islamic state continued with its nuclear bomb program was certainly another example of Obama's policies being dangerous, in this case to both Israel and the United States.
Has Obama's Policies drawn a moral equivalence between terrorism and Israel's defense against terror? Yes! Remember the Guerrilla Flotilla? That ship load of terrorists from Greece that attack Israeli soldiers boarding the boat to get it to turn around? Just a few days after the incident tonight Barack Obama advanced his sellout of Israel by sending Hillary Clinton in front of the cameras to condemn Israel. As if Israel was wrong for trying to defend herself.
Has the Obama administration waged a policy of appeasement, encouraging the Palestinians to abandon direct talks with Israel? Yes! When Obama's settlement talk caused the Palestinians to follow the president's lead and abandon talks until Israel stopped adding units to existing communities, Obama did not press them on it. Heck even when Netanyahu offered to continue the building freeze if the PA would recognize Israel as the Jewish State, Obama was silent.
When Obama made his big Middle East speech in May he made demands if Israel, to begin negotiations with an agreement to return to 1947 Armistice Lines, but didn't make any demands on the Palestinians, like demanding they recognize Israel as a Jewish State. That is appeasement!
So where does that leave us? Everything that Rick Perry said today is true and can be justified by Obama's actions. Which means that anybody who says that Rick Perry was over the top today is 100% wrong.
Palestinian President "the moderate terrorist" Mahmoud Abbas says he will seek full membership to the United Nations next Friday. The United States has promised to veto the move making the bid unsuccessful. Keep in mind however, that it was the misguided policies of the Obama administration that helped bring us to this point.
The Obama administration's call for a settlement freeze that gave the Palestinians an excuse to avoid talks. And it was the President's pressure on only the Israeli side that provided the PA with the confidence to bring this resolution to the United States.
Abbas is not a man of a peace, as recently as three weeks ago he bloviated about his refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish State.
For the naysayers who say why should the PA have to recognize the nature of the Israel. One reason is that its the UN who defines it that way. The original partition resolution passed by the UN in November 1947, UN Resolution 181 calls for dividing Palestine into Independent Arab and Jewish States.
During his big Middle East speech in May, President spent much time telling Israel what she had to do, but he didn’t address the fact that neither Palestinian President Abbas’ Fatah party and the Hamas party refuse to recognize Israel as the Jewish State. During a press conference with British PM Cameron just a few days later, Obama repeated his omission.
“I believe that Hamas, in its own description of its agenda, has not renounced violence and has not recognized the state of Israel. And until they do, it is very difficult to expect Israelis to have a serious conversation, because ultimately they have to have confidence that a Palestinian state is one that is going to stick to its — to whatever bargain is struck.”
Recognizing Israel as a Jewish State is a larger issue than how to describe a particular nation. Once Israel is recognized as a Jewish State the Palestinian demand for a right of return for the descendants of the original refugees within the borders of Israel is resolved also. Being a democracy, if Israel allows herself to be flooded with millions of the descendants of those 1948 refugees, she will cease to be the Jewish State. Instead Israel will be just another Muslim country in the Middle East.
In October when negotiations were going on to convince PM Netanyahu to extend the Judea and Samaria building freeze, he made the offer to President Abbas to extend the settlement building freeze if the Palestinians agreed to recognize Israel as the Jewish State. Abbas replied almost imminently with a resounding no.
These omissions by President Obama are no accident. If he overtly called for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish State he would be negating the Palestinian demand for a right to return, which is why he said the “Right of Return” is something to be left to negotiation (but according to Obama the 67 borders aren't.
“These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I know that these steps alone will not resolve this conflict. Two wrenching and emotional issues remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians.”
This Friday the United States is going to veto the unilateral Statehood Bid of the Palestinians. The veto will probably be followed up with a speech by Secretary of State Clinton apologizing for the veto. "Wishy-washy is the Obama way. Its why the Palestinian Authority has been able to take advantage of the US at every turn, be it their refusal to negotiate because if Obama's criticism of Israel's settlement building, or their refusal to recognize Israel as the Jewish state, based on Obama's refusal to make it an issue.
The Palestinians see this American Government as weak which has given them the confidence to embarrass the US in the security counsel this coming Friday.
Nabil Shaath has given a fascinating and insightful interview that is well worth analyzing. But first let’s take a look at who Shaath is.
Supposedly, he is the archetypal Palestinian moderate. There was a time when the Western media ridiculed the Israeli declaration that he was a secret Fatah member. When Israel agreed to negotiate with non-PLO Palestinians, the PLO put his name forward although it knew, of course, that he was no such thing. Peace processors ridiculed Israel’s refusal to accept him.
Since 1994, he has held several high positions. He has been credibly accused, by Fatah militants who criticized Yasir Arafat’s corruption, of taking a lot of Palestinian Authority money for himself and his family.
Nevertheless, it is reasonable to call Shaath as moderate as anyone in the PA’s leadership, more moderate than the Fatah leadership. And what does Shaath say in an interview on July 13, 2011:
Nabil Shaath: The recognition of a [Palestinian] state…will make many things possible in the future. Eventually, we will be able to sign bilateral agreements with states, and this will enable us to exert pressure on Israel. At the end of the day, we want to exert pressure on Israel, in order to force it to recognize us and to leave our country. This is our long-term goal.”
In other words, the goal is not to come to a deal with Israel but to gain recognition from other countries which will pressure Israel and force it to give the PA what it wants. (Incidentally, this is pretty much Yasir Arafat’s strategy from 30 years ago, though he was using a higher level of violence in that process.)
But what does the phrase “leave our country” mean as a “long-term goal?” Does “leave our country” mean just the West Bank and east Jerusalem (pre-1967 borders without mutually agreed swaps) or wiping Israel off the map and replacing it with an Arab Muslim state? It’s ambiguous, isn’t it? So perhaps Shaath is a moderate (as advertised in the Western media? In this case, though, Shaath gives us an answer.
“[The recent French proposal, quite friendly to the Palestinians generally] reshaped the issue of the “Jewish state” into a formula that is also unacceptable to us-–two states for two peoples. They can describe Israel itself as a state for two peoples, but we will be a state for one people. The story of `two states for two peoples’ means that there will be a Jewish people over there and a Palestinian people here. We will never accept this….We will not sacrifice the 1.5 million Palestinians with Israeli citizenship who live within the 1948 borders, and we will never agree to a clause preventing the Palestinian refugees from returning to their country.”
In other words, Shaath, one of the most important and relatively moderate Palestinian Authority leaders, is against a two-state solution. First, there will be a Palestinian state “for one people,” that is an Arab, Muslim state. But there can be no recognition of Israel as a Jewish state because that implies a permanent peace. Shaath and the Palestinian leadership almost unanimously seek a second stage in which the “Palestinians with Israeli citizenship” plus the “returning…to their country” of Palestinian refugees will turn Israel into an Arab Muslim Palestinian part of Palestine.
This is merely a restatement of the “two-stage” solution of the PLO adopted forty years ago. No real progress in 40 years, despite all the disasters and potential lessons seen by the Palestinians! I have been very skeptical about the peace process, especially for the last 15 years, but I don’t think I’ve ever read anything that has so brought home to me why this is such a mirage because Shaath is so open about it and if anyone could be expected to support a real two-state solution it would be him.
Will anyone read and understand what Shaath is saying who believes that peace is at hand and that the Palestinian leadership is eager for a two-state solution?
Incidentally, Shaath also accurately reflected what many Arabs—including relatively moderate ones—think about U.S. policy. He sees Obama as weak: “President Obama will not make his presence felt in the coming 14 months….In practical terms, the US does not play a role any more in the Middle East, although it does not want to acknowledge or accept this….The US has no real presence.”
This observation is equally devastating. And again will it penetrate at all into much of the mass media? Guess you should be congratulating yourself that you read other sources.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and Middle East editor and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His articles published originally in places other than PajamasMedia can be found at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
My article, “The Unbearable Lightness of Mainstream Thinking on Israel-Palestinian Issues,” came out too early to include this howler from Tom Friedman. We should remember that Friedman is highly regarded in certain circles. Yet his columns are often laughable in terms of the actual Middle East. Consider this passage giving his proposal for a compromise at the UN:
“Each side would get something vital provided it gives the other what it wants. The Palestinians would gain recognition of statehood and U.N. membership, within provisional boundaries, with Israel and America voting in favor. And the Israelis would get formal U.N. recognition as a Jewish state — with the Palestinians and Arabs voting in favor.”
Now, can Friedman deliver the Palestinian, Arab, (and Muslim-majority state) votes for formal UN recognition of Israel as a Jewish state? Of course not. It reminds me of how President Barack Obama promised Israel in 2009 that in exchange for Israeli concessions he would deliver Arab ones. He totally failed, getting turned down by every Arab country.
They wouldn’t vote for recognition of Israel as a Jewish state because a Jewish state is not to be allowed in the Middle East since this is supposed to be exclusively Muslim and/or Arab territory. Some are totally against Israel’s existence, others could accept it in practice but not with their official approval of its existence and its definition as Jewish. And of course the Palestinian Authority and Fatah–obviously not Hamas–would never accept the idea of Israel as a Jewish state even in exchange for a West Bank-Gaza Strip state with its capital in east Jerusalem and its borders those of the pre-1967 variety.
Friedman could not get the leader of a single Arab state to pledge such a deal. So when he presents this to his readers as a way of solving the conflict he is lying. Yet this is the daily diet served up in terms of Middle East analysis.
Again, even in exchange for an independent Palestinian state along the 1967 borders with its capital including all of east Jerusalem, the Palestinian Authority would NOT:
–Give up a demand for a “right of return” of all Palestinians who wanted to going to live in Israel.
–Accept Israel as a Jewish state.
–Agree to end the conflict forever and formally drop all further demands on Israel.
I can think of more items to add to this list but those three are for certain. Notice by the way that all of these fantasies have the same theme: If Israel only takes more risks and makes more concessions, peace is (easily) possible. The Arabs and Palestinians are always presented as being ready to make concessions they would never dream of making. Then because Israel won’t fall for this nonsense and has already experienced several times over the fact that these things don’t work, it is presented as being against peace, intransigent, or not understanding its own true interests.
So let’s ask these people to stop lying or at least speaking from ignorance. If they refuse to do that, can’t they at least allow those who see that the emperor’s analysts have no clothes to have equal space and try (although they would fail) to answer the serious arguments to be made about these issues?
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
The reason the Palestinians give for not negotiating with Israel is that the Jewish State refuses to halt building new housing units in existing communities in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. That claim is nothing but a red herring. First of all the entire Israeli Settlement Freeze issue was a creation of the naive administration of Barack Obama, just as important is the fact that the "moderate" terrorist, Palestinian President Abbas refused a generous offer by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to continue last years 10-month-long freeze, if the Palestinians recognized Israel as the Jewish State.
While the Palestinian's have never accepted Israeli settlements,cessation of all settlement building has never been a precondition to talks. Israel had long ago agreed not to build new "settlements" in Judea and Samaria but would continue to add housing units to existing communities.
During the government of PM Ehud Barak, there were direct talks and construction continued in existing communities.
Hillary Clinton first demanded the freeze in 2009 and was quickly backed up by Obama. What the President and his advisers perceived as a minor concession (a settlement freeze including no new housing units in existing communities) was for Israel a grave sacrifice. From their point of view it was if they were telling adults that their children could not purchase a home in their neighborhood.
This was a major error by the Obama administration and it was compounded by their inclusion of Jerusalem in the mix and their constant public berating of the Jewish State turned the Israeli population against Obama. In fact the only thing that Obama's public berating of Israel accomplished is to unite the Israeli populace against him.
Additionally Obama's demand for a freeze broke a US/Israel agreement made during the Bush administration. Obama, through his Secretary of State Ms Clinton, said there was never an agreement between Israel and the US about natural expansion of existing settlements. Elliot Abrams who negotiated the agreement for the United States says Obama's contention is simply not true (diplo-speak for he they are lying).
The Palestinians seized upon the Obama-created issue. Seeing an opportunity to avoid talking, they used Obama’s demands to make a settlement freeze a precondition to further talks, even there were negotiations and construction going on simultaneously before Obama became president.
In August 2009 Prime Minister Netanyahu announced a ten month settlement freeze. It was approved and implemented on November 25, 2009 and ran till September 25, 2010. Despite pressure from the United States, the Palestinians wasted the first 9+ months of the freeze and would not come to the negotiation table till September 2010, three weeks before the freeze ended. A fact lost on the liberal media.
Yet the onus was put on the Jewish State to extend the freeze, the administration did not question the Palestinian Authority’s refusal talk for the first nine months of a ten month freeze.
As the end of the construction halt approached, the US began to negotiate with the Israel to extend the freeze via Hilary Clinton. Based on their experience with the Obama Administration, they demanded that any proposal be presented in writing. In other words, as any oral deal with the Obama administration was worth the paper it was printed on.
The written offer never came and worse yet, the Secretary of State wasn’t negotiating in good faith. Ms Clinton was playing "Bait and Switch."
As Israel waits for a letter clarifying America's guarantees in exchange for a proposed building ban for Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria, a diplomatic source has come forward saying that no such letter is on its way. United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton misled Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, and contrary to reports, the U.S. does not guarantee an end to the freeze, the source said.
The source, a senior diplomat with inside knowledge of Netanyahu's recent meetings in Washington, said Clinton made commitments when talking to Netanyahu, but later slipped out of them by claiming that she had not been speaking on behalf of U.S. President Obama – who, she said in the end, did not give his approval.
That didn't stop Netanyahu from trying to give the Palestinian side an "out." In early October he made a very simple offer to the PA. If you were to recognize Israel as the Jewish State, we will extend the freeze. As reported by Al Jazeera the answer was a resounding no:
Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, has offered to renew a partial settlement construction freeze in exchange for Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. He announced the offer on Monday, just three days after the Palestinians and Arab states gave the US a month to persuade Israel to renew a 10-month moratorium on settlement housing starts that expired on September 26.
Netanyahu's proposal met with swift rejection from senior Palestinian officials.
"The whole world holds Netanyahu responsible for what is happening in the region, after he chose to push ahead with the settlement project at the expense of an advance in the peace process. Settlement freeze is a commitment Netanyahu should respect," Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, told Al Jazeera.
Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior official of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, described the settlement issue as "an aggression on Palestinian rights and land".
"What Israel calls itself is an Israeli matter that does not concern us. The two issues are not related," he told Al Jazeera in reference to Netanyahu's condition that Palestinians recognise Israel as a Jewish state.
Nabil Abu Rudainah, the spokesman for Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, said a return to peace talks required a freeze on settlement building by Israel.
"The issue of the Jewishness of the state has nothing to do with the matter," he told the Reuters news agency.
President Obama believes that the unrest in the Middle East, the so called Arab Spring is the perfect opportunity for crafting a peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. But how can he try and make peace if he does not recognize the fact that the Palestinian side refuses to make the most basic of acknowledgments, that Israel is the Jewish State. Until they recognize that fact, it is clear that the Palestinians have no desire to make peace.
President Obama’s Middle East speech of last week created much controversy surrounding his call for the 1949 armistice lines (commonly called the pre-June 1967 borders) to be the starting point of any territorial negotiations.
While that controversy was justified, the President was deficient in a much bigger issue, one that neither the press nor the majority of the pro-Israel community has picked up on yet.
“You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state. This is what this conflict is about....
They were simply unwilling to end the conflict. And I regret to say this: They continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to name public squares after terrorists. And worst of all, they continue to perpetuate the fantasy that Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of Palestinian refugees.”
My friends, this must come to an end. President Abbas must do what I have done. I stood before my people, and I told you it wasn’t easy for me, and I said… "I will accept a Palestinian state." It is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say… "I will accept a Jewish state."
“The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation…. 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
“Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table. In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel – how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist. In the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question.”
…but he didn’t address the fact that both Palestinian President Abbas’ Fatah party and the Hamas party refuse to recognize Israel as the Jewish State.
During a press conference today with British PM Cameron the President repeated his omission.
“I believe that Hamas, in its own description of its agenda, has not renounced violence and has not recognized the state of Israel. And until they do, it is very difficult to expect Israelis to have a serious conversation, because ultimately they have to have confidence that a Palestinian state is one that is going to stick to its — to whatever bargain is struck.”
Recognizing Israel as a Jewish State is a larger issue than how to describe a particular nation. Once Israel is recognized as a Jewish State the Palestinian demand for a right of return for the descendants of the original refugees within the borders of Israel is resolved also. Being a democracy, if Israel allows herself to be flooded with millions of the descendants of those 1948 refugees, she will cease to be the Jewish State. Instead Israel will be just another Muslim country in the Middle East.
That is why the original partition resolution passed by the UN in November 1947, UN Resolution 181 calls for dividing Palestine into Independent Arab and Jewish States.
Palestinian President Abbas has always refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish State.
Last summer in an interview with German newsmagazine Der Spiegel President Abbas said,
“We recognized the State of Israel within the 1967 borders. Whether it defines itself as a Jewish state, a Hebrew state or a Zionist state is its business. As far as I'm concerned, it can call itself what it pleases. But he cannot force me to agree with this definition.”
In October when negotiations were going on to convince PM Netanyahu to extend the Judea and Samaria building freeze, he made the offer to President Abbas to extend the settlement building freeze if the Palestinians agreed to recognize Israel as the Jewish State. Abbas replied almost imminently with a resounding no.
These omissions by President Obama are no accident. If he overtly called for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish State he would be negating the Palestinian demand for a right to return, which is why he said the “Right of Return” is something to be left to negotiation.
“These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I know that these steps alone will not resolve this conflict. Two wrenching and emotional issues remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians.”
The President’s Middle East speech has been called “bold” by world leaders and American leaders; however the truth is that he intentionally ignored the most elementary of issues in this 63-year-old dispute, recognizing Israel as the Jewish State.
If the President does not have the courage to definitively call for the Palestinians to make this basic acknowledgement, can he really expect the Palestinians to do it on their own? And without that recognition, none of the other issues will be resolved.
Today Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu went to the chambers of the "people's house," speaking to a joint session of Congress, his message however was meant for a different audience, the President of the United States. Not just on the Israel/Palestinian issue, but on Iran and the War on Terror (he even identified the enemy as radical Islam.
Militant Islam threatens the world. It threatens Islam. I have no doubt that it will ultimately be defeated. It will eventually succumb to the forces of freedom and progress. But like other fanaticisms that were doomed to fail, militant Islam could exact a horrific price from all of us before its inevitable demise.
Bibi's words were strong and they were a repudiation of the Administration's positions, and they were greeted with over whelming approval by Congress. I counted 65 times where he was interrupted by applause. The largest applause was when he said President Abbas must do what I have done. I stood before my people, and I told you it wasn’t easy for me, and I said… "I will accept a Palestinian state." It is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say… "I will accept a Jewish state."
The message to the White House was simple; your program is wrong and look, I have the Representative of the American people on my side. Netanyahu was very "Marc Antony-like" (but Brutis is a man of honor) as he skewered Obama's plan at the same time as he praised him.
His basic peace plan was similar to what he told the Knesset last week, it was simply said in a more powerful manner.
Israel's right to exist
Now the threat to my country cannot be overstated. Those who dismiss it are sticking their heads in the sand. Less than seven decades after six million Jews were murdered, Iran's leaders deny the Holocaust of the Jewish people, while calling for the annihilation of the Jewish state.
Leaders who spew such venom, should be banned from every respectable forum on the planet. But there is something that makes the outrage even greater: The lack of outrage. In much of the international community, the calls for our destruction are met with utter silence. It is even worse because there are many who rush to condemn Israel for defending itself against Iran’s terror proxies.
Netanyahu agreed to make generous territorial concessions to create a Palestinian State, but there will be adjustments to the pre-1967 lines.
I am willing to make painful compromises to achieve this historic peace. As the leader of Israel, it is my responsibility to lead my people to peace.
This is not easy for me. I recognize that in a genuine peace, we will be required to give up parts of the Jewish homeland. In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers. We are not the British in India. We are not the Belgians in the Congo.
....The status of the settlements will be decided only in negotiations. But we must also be honest. So I am saying today something that should be said publicly by anyone serious about peace. In any peace agreement that ends the conflict, some settlements will end up beyond Israel’s borders. The precise delineation of those borders must be negotiated. We will be very generous on the size of a future Palestinian state. But as President Obama said, the border will be different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. Israel will not return to the indefensible lines of 1967.
Jerusalem will remain the undivided capital of Israel
As for Jerusalem, only a democratic Israel has protected freedom of worship for all faiths in the city. Jerusalem must never again be divided. Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel. I know that this is a difficult issue for Palestinians. But I believe with creativity and goodwill a solution can be found.
Israel must be recognized as a Jewish State.
If the benefits of peace with the Palestinians are so clear, why has peace eluded us? Because all six Israeli Prime Ministers since the signing of Oslo accords agreed to establish a Palestinian state. Myself included. So why has peace not been achieved? Because so far, the Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Palestinian state, if it meant accepting a Jewish state alongside it.
...You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state. This is what this conflict is about.... They were simply unwilling to end the conflict. And I regret to say this: They continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to name public squares after terrorists. And worst of all, they continue to perpetuate the fantasy that Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of Palestinian refugees.
My friends, this must come to an end. President Abbas must do what I have done. I stood before my people, and I told you it wasn’t easy for me, and I said… "I will accept a Palestinian state." It is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say… "I will accept a Jewish state."
Descendants of the 1948 Palestinian Arab refugees must be resettled inside a Palestinian state and not on Israeli territory.
We recognize that a Palestinian state must be big enough to be viable, independent and prosperous. President Obama rightly referred to Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people, just as he referred to the future Palestinian state as the homeland of the Palestinian people. Jews from around the world have a right to immigrate to the Jewish state. Palestinians from around the world should have a right to immigrate, if they so choose, to a Palestinian state. This means that the Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside the borders of Israel.
The Palestinian Unity Govt.
The Prime Minister's speech was highlighted by a number of memorable lines that resonated with the Congress and succinctly made the case to the American people.
Below is the full text of his address as delivered, but pay close attention to the words put in bold, those are the memorable lines I am talking about. I will be updating this post during the day:
I am deeply honored by your warm welcome. And I am deeply honored that you have given me the opportunity to address Congress a second time.
Mr. Vice President, do you remember the time we were the new kids in town?
And I do see a lot of old friends here. And I do see a lot of new friends of Israel here. Democrats and Republicans alike.
Israel has no better friend than America. And America has no better friend than Israel. We stand together to defend democracy. We stand together to advance peace. We stand together to fight terrorism. Congratulations America, Congratulations, Mr. President. You got bin Laden. Good riddance! In an unstable Middle East, Israel is the one anchor of stability. In a region of shifting alliances, Israel is America’s unwavering ally. Israel has always been pro-American. Israel will always be pro-American.
My friends, you don’t need to do nation building in Israel. We’re already built. You don’t need to export democracy to Israel. We’ve already got it. You don’t need to send American troops to defend Israel. We defend ourselves. You’ve been very generous in giving us tools to do the job of defending Israel on our own. Thank you all, and thank you President Obama, for your steadfast commitment to Israel’s security. I know economic times are tough. I deeply appreciate this.
Support for Israel’s security is a wise investment in our common future. For an epic battle is now unfolding in the Middle East, between tyranny and freedom. A great convulsion is shaking the earth from the Khyber Pass to the Straits of Gibraltar. The tremors have shattered states and toppled governments. And we can all see that the ground is still shifting. Now this historic moment holds the promise of a new dawn of freedom and opportunity. Millions of young people are determined to change their future. We all look at them. They muster courage. They risk their lives. They demand dignity. They desire liberty.
These extraordinary scenes in Tunis and Cairo, evoke those of Berlin and Prague in 1989. Yet as we share their hopes, but we also must also remember that those hopes could be snuffed out as they were in Tehran in 1979. You remember what happened then. The brief democratic spring in Iran was cut short by a ferocious and unforgiving tyranny. This same tyranny smothered Lebanon’s democratic Cedar Revolution, and inflicted on that long-suffering country, the medieval rule of Hezbollah.
So today, the Middle East stands at a fateful crossroads. Like all of you, I pray that the peoples of the region choose the path less travelled, the path of liberty. No one knows what this path consists of better than you. This path is not paved by elections alone. It is paved when governments permit protests in town squares, when limits are placed on the powers of rulers, when judges are beholden to laws and not men, and when human rights cannot be crushed by tribal loyalties or mob rule. Israel has always embraced this path, in the Middle East has long rejected it. In a region where women are stoned, gays are hanged, Christians are persecuted, Israel stands out. It is different.
As the great English writer George Eliot predicted over a century ago, that once established, the Jewish state will "shine like a bright star of freedom amid the despotisms of the East.” Well, she was right. We have a free press, independent courts, an open economy, rambunctious parliamentary debates. You think you guys are tough on one another in Congress? Come spend a day in the Knesset. Be my guest.
Courageous Arab protesters, are now struggling to secure these very same rights for their peoples, for their societies. We're proud that over one million Arab citizens of Israel have been enjoying these rights for decades. Of the 300 million Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa, only Israel’s Arab citizens enjoy real democratic rights. I want you to stop for a second and think about that. Of those 300 million Arabs, less than one-half of one-percent are truly free, and they're all citizens of Israel!
This startling fact reveals a basic truth: Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle East. Israel is what is right about the Middle East.
Israel fully supports the desire of Arab peoples in our region to live freely. We long for the day when Israel will be one of many real democracies in the Middle East.
Fifteen years ago, I stood at this very podium, and said that democracy must start to take root in the Arab World. Well, it's begun to take root. This beginning holds the promise of a brilliant future of peace and prosperity. For I believe that a Middle East that is genuinely democratic will be a Middle East truly at peace.
But while we hope and work for the best, we must also recognize that powerful forces oppose this future. They oppose modernity. They oppose democracy. They oppose peace.
Foremost among these forces is Iran. The tyranny in Tehran brutalizes its own people. It supports attacks against American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. It subjugates Lebanon and Gaza. It sponsors terror worldwide.
When I last stood here, I spoke of the dire consequences of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Now time is running out, and the hinge of history may soon turn. For the greatest danger facing humanity could soon be upon us: A militant Islamic regime armed with nuclear weapons.
Militant Islam threatens the world. It threatens Islam. I have no doubt that it will ultimately be defeated. It will eventually succumb to the forces of freedom and progress. But like other fanaticisms that were doomed to fail, militant Islam could exact a horrific price from all of us before its inevitable demise.
A nuclear-armed Iran would ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. It would give terrorists a nuclear umbrella. It would make the nightmare of nuclear terrorism a clear and present danger throughout the world. I want you to understand what this means. They could put the bomb anywhere. They could put it on a missile. It could be on a container ship in a port, or in a suitcase on a subway.
Now the threat to my country cannot be overstated. Those who dismiss it are sticking their heads in the sand. Less than seven decades after six million Jews were murdered, Iran's leaders deny the Holocaust of the Jewish people, while calling for the annihilation of the Jewish state. Leaders who spew such venom, should be banned from every respectable forum on the planet. But there is something that makes the outrage even greater: The lack of outrage. In much of the international community, the calls for our destruction are met with utter silence. It is even worse because there are many who rush to condemn Israel for defending itself against Iran’s terror proxies.
But not you. Not America. You have acted differently. You've condemned the Iranian regime for its genocidal aims. You’ve passed tough sanctions against Iran. History will salute you America.
President Obama has said that the United States is determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. He successfully led the Security Council to adopt sanctions against Iran. You in Congress passed even tougher sanctions. These words and deeds are vitally important.
Yet the Ayatollah regime briefly suspended its nuclear program only once, in 2003, when it feared the possibility of military action. That same year, Muammar Qadaffi gave up his nuclear weapons program, and for the same reason. The more Iran believes that all options are on the table, the less the chance of confrontation. This is why I ask you to continue to send an unequivocal message: That America will never permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
As for Israel, if history has taught the Jewish people anything, it is that we must take calls for our destruction seriously. We are a nation that rose from the ashes of the Holocaust. When we say never again, we mean never again. Israel always reserves the right to defend itself.
My friends, while Israel will be ever vigilant in its defense, we will never give up on our quest for peace. I guess we’ll give it up when we achieve it. Israel wants peace. Israel needs peace. We've achieved historic peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan that have held up for decades.
I remember what it was like before we had peace. I was nearly killed in a firefight inside the Suez Canal. I mean that literally. I battled terrorists along both banks of the Jordan River. Too many Israelis have lost loved ones. I know their grief. I lost my brother.
So no one in Israel wants a return to those terrible days. The peace with Egypt and Jordan has long served as an anchor of stability and peace in the heart of the Middle East.
This peace should be bolstered by economic and political support to all those who remain committed to peace.
The peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan are vital. But they're not enough. We must also find a way to forge a lasting peace with the Palestinians. Two years ago, I publicly committed to a solution of two states for two peoples: A Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state.
I am willing to make painful compromises to achieve this historic peace. As the leader of Israel, it is my responsibility to lead my people to peace.
This is not easy for me. I recognize that in a genuine peace, we will be required to give up parts of the Jewish homeland. In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers. We are not the British in India. We are not the Belgians in the Congo.
This is the land of our forefathers, the Land of Israel, to which Abraham brought the idea of one God, where David set out to confront Goliath, and where Isaiah saw a vision of eternal peace. No distortion of history can deny the four thousand year old bond, between the Jewish people and the Jewish land.
But there is another truth: The Palestinians share this small land with us. We seek a peace in which they will be neither Israel’s subjects nor its citizens. They should enjoy a national life of dignity as a free, viable and independent people in their own state. They should enjoy a prosperous economy, where their creativity and initiative can flourish.
We've already seen the beginnings of what is possible. In the last two years, the Palestinians have begun to build a better life for themselves. Prime Minister Fayad has led this effort. I wish him a speedy recovery from his recent operation.
We've helped the Palestinian economy by removing hundreds of barriers and roadblocks to the free flow of goods and people. The results have been nothing short of remarkable. The Palestinian economy is booming. It's growing by more than 10% a year.
Palestinian cities look very different today than they did just a few years ago. They have shopping malls, movie theaters, restaurants, banks. They even have e-businesses. This is all happening without peace. Imagine what could happen with peace. Peace would herald a new day for both peoples. It would make the dream of a broader Arab-Israeli peace a realistic possibility. So now here is the question. You have to ask it. If the benefits of peace with the Palestinians are so clear, why has peace eluded us? Because all six Israeli Prime Ministers since the signing of Oslo accords agreed to establish a Palestinian state. Myself included. So why has peace not been achieved? Because so far, the Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Palestinian state, if it meant accepting a Jewish state alongside it.
You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state. This is what this conflict is about. In 1947, the United Nations voted to partition the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews said yes. The Palestinians said no. In recent years, the Palestinians twice refused generous offers by Israeli Prime Ministers, to establish a Palestinian state on virtually all the territory won by Israel in the Six Day War.
They were simply unwilling to end the conflict. And I regret to say this: They continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to name public squares after terrorists. And worst of all, they continue to perpetuate the fantasy that Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of Palestinian refugees. My friends, this must come to an end. President Abbas must do what I have done. I stood before my people, and I told you it wasn’t easy for me, and I said… "I will accept a Palestinian state." It is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say… "I will accept a Jewish state."
Those six words will change history. They will make clear to the Palestinians that this conflict must come to an end. That they are not building a state to continue the conflict with Israel, but to end it. They will convince the people of Israel that they have a true partner for peace. With such a partner, the people of Israel will be prepared to make a far reaching compromise. I will be prepared to make a far reaching compromise.
This compromise must reflect the dramatic demographic changes that have occurred since 1967. The vast majority of the 650,000 Israelis who live beyond the 1967 lines, reside in neighborhoods and suburbs of Jerusalem and Greater Tel Aviv.
These areas are densely populated but geographically quite small. Under any realistic peace agreement, these areas, as well as other places of critical strategic and national importance, will be incorporated into the final borders of Israel.
The status of the settlements will be decided only in negotiations. But we must also be honest. So I am saying today something that should be said publicly by anyone serious about peace. In any peace agreement that ends the conflict, some settlements will end up beyond Israel’s borders. The precise delineation of those borders must be negotiated. We will be very generous on the size of a future Palestinian state. But as President Obama said, the border will be different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. Israel will not return to the indefensible lines of 1967.
We recognize that a Palestinian state must be big enough to be viable, independent and prosperous. President Obama rightly referred to Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people, just as he referred to the future Palestinian state as the homeland of the Palestinian people. Jews from around the world have a right to immigrate to the Jewish state. Palestinians from around the world should have a right to immigrate, if they so choose, to a Palestinian state. This means that the Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside the borders of Israel. As for Jerusalem, only a democratic Israel has protected freedom of worship for all faiths in the city. Jerusalem must never again be divided. Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel. I know that this is a difficult issue for Palestinians. But I believe with creativity and goodwill a solution can be found. This is the peace I plan to forge with a Palestinian partner committed to peace. But you know very well, that in the Middle East, the only peace that will hold is a peace you can defend.
So peace must be anchored in security. In recent years, Israel withdrew from South Lebanon and Gaza. But we didn't get peace. Instead, we got 12,000 thousand rockets fired from those areas on our cities, on our children, by Hezbollah and Hamas. The UN peacekeepers in Lebanon failed to prevent the smuggling of this weaponry. The European observers in Gaza evaporated overnight. So if Israel simply walked out of the territories, the flow of weapons into a future Palestinian state would be unchecked. Missiles fired from it could reach virtually every home in Israel in less than a minute. I want you to think about that too. Imagine that right now we all had less than 60 seconds to find shelter from an incoming rocket. Would you live that way? Would anyone live that way? Well, we aren’t going to live that way either.
The truth is that Israel needs unique security arrangements because of its unique size. Israel is one of the smallest countries in the world. Mr. Vice President, I'll grant you this. It’s bigger than Delaware. It’s even bigger than Rhode Island. But that’s about it. Israel on the 1967 lines would be half the width of the Washington Beltway.
Now here’s a bit of nostalgia. I first came to Washington thirty years ago as a young diplomat. It took me a while, but I finally figured it out: There is an America beyond the Beltway. But Israel on the 1967 lines would be only nine miles wide. So much for strategic depth. So it is therefore absolutely vital for Israel’s security that a Palestinian state be fully demilitarized. And it is vital that Israel maintain a long-term military presence along the Jordan River. Solid security arrangements on the ground are necessary not only to protect the peace, they are necessary to protect Israel in case the peace unravels. For in our unstable region, no one can guarantee that our peace partners today will be there tomorrow. And when I say tomorrow, I don't mean some distant time in the future. I mean -- tomorrow. Peace can be achieved only around the negotiating table. The Palestinian attempt to impose a settlement through the United Nations will not bring peace. It should be forcefully opposed by all those who want to see this conflict end. I appreciate the President’s clear position on this issue. Peace cannot be imposed. It must be negotiated. But it can only be negotiated with partners committed to peace.
And Hamas is not a partner for peace. Hamas remains committed to Israel's destruction and to terrorism. They have a charter. That charter not only calls for the obliteration of Israel, but says ‘kill the Jews wherever you find them’. Hamas’ leader condemned the killing of Osama bin Laden and praised him as a holy warrior. Now again I want to make this clear. Israel is prepared to sit down today and negotiate peace with the Palestinian Authority. I believe we can fashion a brilliant future of peace for our children. But Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian government backed by the Palestinian version of Al Qaeda.
So I say to President Abbas: Tear up your pact with Hamas! Sit down and negotiate! Make peace with the Jewish state! And if you do, I promise you this. Israel will not be the last country to welcome a Palestinian state as a new member of the United Nations. It will be the first to do so.
My friends, the momentous trials of the last century, and the unfolding events of this century, attest to the decisive role of the United States in advancing peace and defending freedom. Providence entrusted the United States to be the guardian of liberty. All peoples who cherish freedom owe a profound debt of gratitude to your great nation. Among the most grateful nations is my nation, the people of Israel, who have fought for their liberty and survival against impossible odds, in ancient and modern times alike.
I speak on behalf of the Jewish people and the Jewish state when I say to you, representatives of America, Thank you. Thank you for your unwavering support for Israel. Thank you for ensuring that the flame of freedom burns bright throughout the world. May God bless all of you. And may God forever bless the United States of America.
It was a stunning tableau, a President of the United States sitting back and glaring while the Prime Minister of Israel pushed back against the words made by the POTUS yesterday. Both parties made their presentations in friendly diplomatic words, but Netanyahu gave the President a "friendly" dressing down, his words were instructive and firm. You could tell by the body language that Bibi was letting the President know that he was not going to give in, and Obama was very angry.
Once introduced by the President, Netanyahu took the meeting over. Hereminded the President that Israel too, desperately wants peace and he personally wants peace, but any negotiated peace has to endure. "We both believe that a peace based on allusions will crash on the rocks of Middle East Reality....The only peace that will endure is ones that are based on reality...unshakable facts."
The Prime Minister proceeded to give the President a dose of reality, and the President gave the PM a dose of his unhappy glare. ...For there to be peace the Palestinians (and Obama) will have to accept some basic realities. Two of the three realities outline by Netanyahu were in direct conflict with what Obama said yesterday.
Israel cannot return to the 1967 lines because they are indefensible, and he reminded the POTUS that those old boundries led to war many times before.
Agreeing with the president, he reminded him that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with the Palestinian version of al Qaeda.
He reminded Obama that the 1948 attack on Israel resulted in two refugee problems, a Palestinian problem and a Jewish one. Tiny Israel absorbed the Jewish refugees, the Arabs refused to absorb the Palestinian ones. Any "right of return" must be implemented within the borders of a Palestinian State.
Netanyahu was firm, he told the President that its time to definitively tell the Palestinians that "It's not going to happen. Everybody knows it's not going to happen," he said. While the refugees need a place to live, he said, "It's not going to be resolved within the Jewish state."
He followed with a statesman-like reminder of the Jewish quest to reestablish a state of their own in the Holy Land and ended with "History is not going to give us another chance."
We’ve been around for almost 4,000 years. We have experienced struggle and suffering like no other people. We’ve gone through expulsions and pogroms and massacres and the murder of millions.
But I can say that even at the dearth of — even at the nadir of the valley of death, we never lost hope and we never lost our dream of re-establishing a sovereign state in our ancient homeland, the land of Israel. And now it falls on my shoulders as the prime minister of Israel at a time of extraordinary instability and uncertainty in the Middle East to work with you to fashion a peace that will ensure Israel’s security and will not jeopardize its survival.
I take this responsibility with pride but with great humility, because, as I told you in our conversation, we don’t have a lot of margin for error and because, Mr. President, history will not give the Jewish people another chance.
I think Obama got his answer and it was vintage Netanyahu.
Normally I would object to a foreign to School the President of the United States, but in this case it was justified. This happened in response to President Obama throwing Israel under the bus. And unilaterally ripping up an agreement made between Israel and the United States. What made it even worse was that Obama's people had just assured the Israeli leader that the 1967 borders would not be brought up during the speech. Keeping that in mind perhaps Bibi was a little too soft on the POTUS.
The Democratic Party should be ashamed of themselves. Today they proved themselves to be nothing but partisan hacks who care more about party politics than doing the right thing. While President Obama's speech regarding Middle East generated much criticism from Republicans, but on the Democratic side, even amongst supporters of the Jewish State, there was either positive spin or total silence.
As you know by now the President today gave an address to the nation that for all intents and purposes threw one of our closest allies, Israel, under the proverbial bus. His public call for Israel to retreat to the 1949 armistice lines, broke existing agreements that the United States had made with Israel, probably hurt the quest for an Israeli/Palestinian deal and quite possibly moved the region closer to a new Middle East war.
That 1949 armistice line was created solely because that’s Israeli and Arab forces stopped fighting at the end of the War of Independence (with some added adjustments in certain sectors). It was if the whistle blew and everyone dropped their gear. The line people call 1967 border, is really only a military line. It was never intended for the Armistice lines to mark final borders, and there is plenty of documentation to that fact.
There is not much doubt that at the end of a deal, the two parties will exist with borders somewhere near that armistice border. In fact Israel has offered specific maps of final borders along the lines of what the President said publicly today, once under the Premierships of Ehud Barak the other under Ehud Olmert (in both of those cases the Palestinian leadership rejected the offer).
The difference is that in both of those cases, The return to those"1967 borders" was the end point of negotiations, today Obama severely damaged Israel's negotiating position by making it the staring point. Obama took it upon himself to made a unilateral concession on behalf of Israel. There was no negotiation; he gave away a bargaining chip that was not his to give. Should Israel give in Obama it will actually make negotiations more difficult because Israel will have to fight harder on other issues, some of which might otherwise had been easy concessions. If Israel fights Obama on the issue, things might get a bit dicier in the region. Israel's neighbors might see it as giving attacks on the Jewish State legitimacy.
At this point it looks as if Israel is choosing to take a stand. The Prime Minister all but threw a gauntlet down (diplomatically of course).
“Israel appreciates President Obama’s commitment to peace,” the response began, curtly. “Israel believes that for peace to endure between Israelis and Palestinians, the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state.”
“That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress.”
“Among other things,” Netanyahu reminded Obama, “those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines.”
Republicans were quick to point out that Obama's call for a retreat to the 1949 Armistice lines was dangerous to the Jewish State.
“President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus,” formerMassachusetts Gov. Mitt Romneysaid in a statement following Mr. Obama’s sweeping speech about the fundamental changes taking place in the Middle East. “He has disrespected Israel and undermined its ability to negotiate peace.”
Former Minnesota Gov.Tim Pawlenty called the president’s support for a plan that would revive borders not seen since the Six-Day War in 1967 “a mistaken and dangerous demand.“The city of Jerusalem must never be re-divided,” he said. “At this time of upheaval in the Middle East, it’s never been more important for America to stand strong for Israel and for a united Jerusalem.”
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor(R., Va.), the highest-ranking Jewish Republican, said, “The president’s habit of drawing a moral equivalence between the actions of the Palestinians and the Israelis while assessing blame for the conflict is, in and of itself, harmful to the prospect for peace.“By keeping the burden and thus the spotlight on Israel, the President is only giving the Palestinian Authority more incentive to carry on its unhelpful game of sidestepping negotiations and failing to put an end to terrorism,” Mr. Cantor said in a statement. “Creating another Palestinian terror state on Israel’s borders is something that none of us want. The White House referred to today’s speech as a ‘Moment of Opportunity,’ and I’m disappointed that the President’s remarks missed both the moment and the opportunity.”
Rep. Michele Bachmann said on her face book page that that Obama "has betrayed our friend and ally Israel.I believe Obama's call for 1967 borders will cause chaos, division, and greater aggression in the Middle East and put Israel at further risk,"
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee: "We did not hear a pledge from the President to cut off U.S. funding to a Palestinian Authority now aligned with Hamas, nor did we hear a pledge to veto the scheme to attain U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state without negotiating peace with Israel. I am also disappointed that the President failed to call on the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, and instead imposed new pressure on Israel to make concessions on its borders."
Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL): "The President's new decision to alter U.S. policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process concerns me. Palestinian calls for ‘1967 borders' should be outweighed by Israel's need for secure borders to ensure the survival of a critical U.S. ally. The President should block U.S. taxpayer assistance to Palestinian leaders who teamed up with a group his administration certified as a terrorist organization -- Hamas -- responsible for the murder of at least 26 American citizens. America has no greater ally and political supporter than the Israeli democracy."
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL): "Unfortunately, the President's reference to Israel's 1967 borders marks a step back in the peace process, as the U.S. must not pre-determine the outcome of direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Our focus should be in encouraging direct and meaningful negotiations between the sides, and to continue playing an important role as a security guarantor in the region."
Rep. Allen West (R-FL): "Today's endorsement by President Barack Obama of the creation of a Hamas-led Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders, signals the most egregious foreign policy decision his administration has made to date, and could be the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state. From the moment the modern day state of Israel declared statehood in 1948, to the end of the 1967 Six Day War, Jews were forbidden access to their holiest site, the Western Wall in Jerusalem's Old City, controlled by Jordan's Arab army. The pre-1967 borders endorsed by President Obama would deny millions of the world's Jews access to their holiest site and force Israel to return the strategically important Golan Heights to Syria, a known state-sponsor of terrorism. Resorting to the pre-1967 borders would mean a full withdrawal by the Israelis from the West Bank and the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Make no mistake, there has always been a Nation of Israel and Jerusalem has been and must always be recognized as its rightful capital."
Let see what we have found from the Democratic Party side:
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)usually a big supporter of the Jewish State, ignored Obama's unilateral declaration of the return to the "1967 borders." With his head cowardly in the sand he said,“I am glad the president has rejected any unilateral action by the UN, which has always been biased against Israel, but there can be no negotiations until Hamas, recognized as a terrorist group by the United States, renounces terror and recognizes the reality of a two-state solution,“
Congressman Steve Israel (D-NY) reaction to the President's throwing of the Jewish State was , a reaction echoed by Congressman Gary Ackerman who said and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) who added . That's right they said nothing. Harry read proclaimed that he had not yet heard the speech.
The National Democratic Jewish Coalition showed the country why their party is place in front of their religion in their name as they had the audacity to praise the speech saying that the President "demonstrated his unwavering support of Israel"
Also weighing in on the President's speech was full-time progressive activist, and part time director of the ADL, Abe Foxman who like Chuck Shumer ignored the most distasteful part of the speech.
We support the President's vision of a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian settlement with strong security provisions for Israel, and a non-militarized Palestinian state. We appreciate his direct rejection of a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and his understanding that the Hamas-Fatah agreement poses major problems for Israel.
This should serve as a red flag to anyone who supports the state of Israel. Remember what happened today when the Jewish State most needed the support of our public figures. The Republican party was quick to point out how Obama's speech put Israel in dangers. The Democrats abandoned the Jewish State to the whims of a President who publicly threw Israel under the bus.
As Edmond Burke said almost three-hundred years ago “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." In a time of great need for Israel, the Democratic Party did nothing. For that they should be ashamed of themselves.
Supporters of Israel should remember that when they enter the voting booth in 2012.
