The Outsider Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 This is potentially huge - an American president to come out in the open and make an unambiguous statement on one of the thorniest issues in world politics. Moreover, the statement is not in Israel's 'favor' and I would love to be the fly on the wall when Netanyahu and Obama meet today. Obama is showing his mettle yet again as a president who gets things done. IMO, a two state solution is the only alternative left in this long festering issue and it's good on Obama's part to transcend beyond jingoism and start working towards something practical. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/world/middleeast/20speech.html?_r=1&ref=world WASHINGTON — President Obama, seeking to capture a moment of epochal change in the Arab world, began a new effort on Thursday to break the stalemate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, setting out a new starting point for negotiations on the region’s most intractable problem. A day before the arrival in Washington of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, Mr. Obama declared that the prevailing borders before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war — adjusted to some degree to account for Israeli settlements in the West Bank — should be the basis of a deal. While the 1967 borders have long been viewed as the foundation for a peace agreement, Mr. Obama’s formula of land swaps to compensate for disputed territory created a new benchmark for a diplomatic solution. Mr. Obama’s statement represented a subtle, but significant shift, in American policy. And it thrust him back into the region’s most nettlesome dispute at a time when conditions would seem to make reaching a deal especially difficult. The Israeli government immediately protested, saying that for Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders would leave it “indefensible.†Mr. Netanyahu held an angry phone conversation with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday before the speech, officials said, in which he demanded that the president’s reference to 1967 borders be cut. Israeli officials continued to lobby the administration until right before Mr. Obama arrived at the State Department for the address. White House officials said he did not alter anything under Israeli pressure, though the president made changes in the text that delayed his appearance by 35 minutes. Mr. Obama’s reference to Israel’s borders came toward the end of a somber, 45-minute address that sought to articulate an overarching framework for the disparate American responses to the Arab Spring, which has taken a dark turn as the euphoria of popular revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt has given way to violent crackdowns in Bahrain and Syria, a civil war in Libya and political stalemate in Yemen. The president offered a blunt critique of Arab governments and, without promising any changes in policy to confront repressive ones more aggressively, sought to assure protesters that they were squarely aligned with democratic American values in a region where the strategic interests of the United States have routinely trumped its values. Those issues are delicate enough, but the diplomatic row with Israel highlighted the acute sensitivities that Mr. Obama faces as he seeks to link the changes in the Middle East with the conflict at the region’s heart. “At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever,†he said. At one level, by putting the United States on record as supporting the 1967 borders as the starting point for negotiations over a Palestinian state, Mr. Obama was simply endorsing reality: Middle East analysts say a new state would inevitably be drawn on the basis of Israel’s boundaries before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, which created the contours of today’s Middle East. Israel’s victory over Egypt and other Arab neighbors in that war expanded its control over territory in the West Bank and Gaza inhabited by millions of Palestinians, creating a greater Israel — including all of the capital, Jerusalem — but one that oversees a resentful occupied population. Mr. Obama also noted that Israel and the Palestinians would have to swap territory on either side of that border to account for large Jewish settlements that have taken root in the West Bank since 1967. But the shift moves the United States a step closer to the position of the Palestinians, and is viewed as vital to them because it means the Americans implicitly back their view that new Israeli settlement construction will have to be reversed, or compensated for, in talks over the borders for a new Palestinian state. Some analysts said Mr. Obama’s shift was less strategic than tactical, seeking to lure the Palestinians back to the negotiating table, as a way of heading off their campaign to seek international recognition of a Palestinian state at the United Nations General Assembly in September. “He’s moving into a crisis-management mode, laying out principles to preserve the two-state solution and to prevent a U.N. resolution on a Palestinian state,†said Martin S. Indyk, the director of foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. Mr. Obama expressed opposition to the Palestinian statehood effort, saying, “Symbolic efforts to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state.†He also made several other gestures to Mr. Netanyahu, highlighting the security threats to Israel. Mr. Obama’s reference to a “nonmilitarized†Palestinian state is likely to dismay Palestinians, who have long said that such matters should be decided in negotiations. The president also said that the recent unity agreement between the two main Palestinian factions, Fatah and Hamas, raised “profound and legitimate questions for Israel.†“How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist?†he said, referring to Hamas, which the United States has designated as a terrorist organization. “In the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question.†Mr. Obama’s emphasis on territory and security seemed calculated to segregate the issues on which the United States believes the Israelis and Palestinians can bargain. He said they should leave aside for now more deeply emotional questions like the status of Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees, which he suggested could be dealt with after border and security issues. But Mr. Obama spoke with palpable frustration that his peacemaking efforts so far had failed. “The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome,†he said to an audience that included George J. Mitchell, who was his special envoy to the Middle East until resigning last week. Beyond the stalled peace process, Mr. Obama celebrated “a moment of opportunity†after six months of political upheaval that has at times left the administration scrambling to keep up. Mr. Obama bluntly warned President Bashar al-Assad of Syria that he would face increasing isolation if he did not respond to demands for a transition to democracy. “President Assad now has a choice,†Mr. Obama said. “He can lead that transition, or get out of the way.†He was no less blunt in the case of Bahrain, a close ally that has brutally cracked down on protests there. “The only way forward is for the government and opposition to engage in a dialogue, and you can’t have real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail,†he said in one of the few phrases that drew applause from an audience that included diplomats from a dozen Arab countries. While he conceded that the United States had not been a central actor in the uprisings, he sought to cast America’s role in a new context now that the war in Iraq is winding down and Osama bin Laden has been killed. In such a world, Mr. Obama said, strategic interests must not trump values. “We must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind,†Mr. Obama said.
saneindian Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 This may very well stoke the fire once again in the debate about Obama's religion. Will not gain him much popularity in USA as the media there is heavily pro-Israel. I would expect a climb down soon from the US govt.
ganeshran Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 Nothing will happen. Israel-Palestine is a problem that US cannot solve.
Sachin=GOD Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 Not gonna happen. If the solution was simple, the problem wouldn't have risen to such proportions.
The Outsider Posted May 20, 2011 Author Posted May 20, 2011 This may very well stoke the fire once again in the debate about Obama's religion. Will not gain him much popularity in USA as the media there is heavily pro-Israel. I would expect a climb down soon from the US govt. I don't think Obama is worried about his popularity or next years' elections anymore - it's a forgiven conclusion that he will win the elections next year (I might have a biased view given that I am from NYC, one of the most liberal places in the US). I feel he is reaching a point in his presidency which other presidents reach 2 years before the end of their final term - the point where they want to leave that 'legacy'. With this sort of an unfettered approach he can really make a difference - he has pulled off the miracle of Health Care reforms and if he can resolve the Palestine issue he will be remembered forever. The thing which struck me is that this is the first time in recent history a US president has openly stated a two state solution (which is the only practical solution), and makes me think that the guy is serious about getting things done.
EnterTheVoid Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 Try getting past the nutter evangelical christians in America's bible belt first. These guys are an absolute pain in the ass with their bullshit of the jews being gods "chosen people" Obama will pretty much be bombarded with accusations of being an anti semite. Standard response to hide behind the holocaust if any body raises any legitimate criticisms of the states policies.
The Outsider Posted May 20, 2011 Author Posted May 20, 2011 Try getting past the nutter evangelical christians in America's bible belt first. These guys are an absolute pain in the ass with their bullshit of the jews being gods "chosen people" Obama will pretty much be bombarded with accusations of being an anti semite. Standard response to hide behind the holocaust if any body raises any legitimate criticisms of the states policies. :omg::omg: sree_israel - I thought you would have been devastated by Obama's statement and got yourself a bottle of Vodka.
ravishingravi Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 Absolutely OP, it is only possible solution to the crisis. I am glad Obama had the balls to say it
EnterTheVoid Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 Here you go: Christian Zionism is a belief among some Christians that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, is in accordance with Biblical prophecy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism
EnterTheVoid Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 sree_israel - I thought you would have been devastated by Obama's statement and got yourself a bottle of Vodka. I am still up for that Vodka. Drinking Time !!!!
The Outsider Posted May 20, 2011 Author Posted May 20, 2011 Try getting past the nutter evangelical christians in America's bible belt first. These guys are an absolute pain in the ass with their bullshit of the jews being gods "chosen people" Obama will pretty much be bombarded with accusations of being an anti semite. Standard response to hide behind the holocaust if any body raises any legitimate criticisms of the states policies. Thing is that Obama is certain to win the next elections and does not give a damn about the nutters you are talking about. And with the Bin Laden trophy in his bag, he has earned huge political mileage in the US.
ravishingravi Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 Thing is that Obama is certain to win the next elections and does not give a damn about the nutters you are talking about. And with the Bin Laden trophy in his bag' date= he has earned huge political mileage in the US. I wouldn't be so sure. An year is a long time in politics. If it were a "normal" white republican president, would say yes. But with Obama, he has to get almost everything right. But he doesn't have good enough opponents at this point which works in his favour
EnterTheVoid Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 Thing is that Obama is certain to win the next elections and does not give a damn about the nutters you are talking about. And with the Bin Laden trophy in his bag' date=' he has earned huge political mileage in the US.[/quote'] Agree but can the settlers be forced out of the territories? Some will probably leave but what about lunatics like these and their sympathizers in the Israel government/army? Thats what it ultimately boils down to, right? These guys have to go for the Palestinian state to be created and for my money, these guys would rather kill themselves and many others before they leave their homes.
The Outsider Posted May 20, 2011 Author Posted May 20, 2011 I wouldn't be so sure. An year is a long time in politics. If it were a "normal" white republican president' date=' would say yes. But with Obama, he has to get almost everything right.[b'] But he doesn't have good enough opponents at this point which works in his favour That's the largest factor - the Republican party candidates are jokes. Either they don't have a mass base (like Ron Paul) or they would be absolutely slaughtered by Obama in the campaign and debates (like Pailin).
Sachin=GOD Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 I wouldn't be so sure. An year is a long time in politics. If it were a "normal" white republican president' date=' would say yes. But with Obama, he has to get almost everything right. But he doesn't have good enough opponents at this point which works in his favour[/quote'] I think you could safely say at this point of time that his re-election is almost certain. He has no major opponents and with the killing of Osama, his ratings have improved tremendously.
The Outsider Posted May 20, 2011 Author Posted May 20, 2011 Agree but can the settlers be forced out of the territories? Some will probably leave but what about lunatics like these and their sympathizers in the Israel government/army? Thats what it ultimately boils down to, right? These guys have to go for the Palestinian state to be created and for my money, these guys would rather kill themselves and many others before they leave their homes. It might take years to implement, but at least one US president (and it means a lot, since Israel is completely dependent on the US) has come out and openly said that there cannot be a solution till people living on that land for years are given some right of self determination. I see that as a huge step in the process. Till now, there were lunatics on one side from Palestine and equal lunatics from Israel - someone in a position of authority has finally openly stated that both the lunatics are wrong and the answer lies 'somewhere' in between. That 'somewhere' might and probably will take years to implement.
ravishingravi Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 Agree but can the settlers be forced out of the territories? Some will probably leave but what about lunatics like these and their sympathizers in the Israel government/army? Thats what it ultimately boils down to, right? These guys have to go for the Palestinian state to be created and for my money, these guys would rather kill themselves and many others before they leave their homes. Plus as soon as Obama said this, new constructions were started in the area. This wont go anywhere
EnterTheVoid Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 It might take years to implement' date=' but at least one US president (and it means a lot, since Israel is completely dependent on the US) has come out and openly said that there cannot be a solution till people living on that land for years are given some right of self determination. I see that as a huge step in the process. Till now, there were lunatics on one side from Palestine and equal lunatics from Israel - someone in a position of authority has finally openly stated that both the lunatics are wrong and the answer lies 'somewhere' in between. That 'somewhere' might and probably will take years to implement.[/quote'] Obama parroted the same two state solution at the Cairo speech when he won his presidency. Than, not only did Israel not freeze the settlements but they approved new ones in East Jerusalem ! Than there was the forging of foreign nationals in that Dubai assassination followed by the attack on that Turkish aid ship. Yea there was tensions publicly but later it was same, "we are allies, we disagree from time to time etc". Things were than pretty much swept under the carpet. At least with Bush, you knew what you were getting. Bush Jr was a grade A dumbass but we knew he would support Israel no matter what. Obama seems to be getting peoples hopes up only to make a U turn sometime later.
The Outsider Posted May 20, 2011 Author Posted May 20, 2011 Obama parroted the same two state solution at the Cairo speech when he won his presidency. Than, not only did Israel not freeze the settlements but they approved new ones in East Jerusalem ! Than there was the forging of foreign nationals in that Dubai assassination followed by the attack on that Turkish aid ship. Yea there was tensions publicly but later it was same, "we are allies, we disagree from time to time etc". Things were than pretty much swept under the carpet. At least with Bush, you knew what you were getting. Bush Jr was a grade A dumbass but we knew he would support Israel no matter what. Obama seems to be getting peoples hopes up only to make a U turn sometime later. As I see it these kind of issues are not an overnight medicine or solution. In fact, this is one the most important issues of global politics. Don't expect overnight solutions or magic from Obama, but the start of a process which will culminate into two states of Palestine and Israel down the line, years from now. In that process it is pretty natural and understandable for Obama to make these supposed U turns for political expediency.
yoda Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 I don't understand how Israel is an US ally? All I see is a one way street where the US keeps sending double digit billions in aid, keeps making enemies in the Islamic world due to the unwavering support of Israel (which means you can't side with the Palestinians). In return, the Israelis will never stop the settlement ignoring all American requests to do so and now won't even let Obama re-start the process. It is time the US got tougher on Israel and get a mid-east peace done. That itself will remove half the world's terrorists from America's enemy list. There are problems on the Palestinian side ofc. They have no credible leadership which can talk peace and not terror. Hamas is a moronic entity which would rather die fighting than make peace.
Recommended Posts