This is from the Times of London. Obama is endorsing the Geneva initiative of 2002, privately. So Dan Kurtzer may be the real wheel in the swiss watch we call Obama's brain. Obama is getting Peres on board. And presumably Rahm Emanuel too. Brzezinski is already there. Baker and Scowcroft, ditto. Limited right of return. East Jerusalem: Arab.
This is what we have said all along. The election was about this, at one level: neocons versus realists on Israel/Palestine. And Obama would triangulate Jeffrey Goldberg and John Mearsheimer.
What if everything really is different? What if all the old assumptions are on their head? What if Obama doesn't wait till the second term but acts in the first term? What if unlike Clinton he negotiates everything behind closed doors in advance? What if he lined up Sarkozy last summer? Last July, visiting the Middle East, Obama reportedly said that Israel would be "crazy" to not take this deal. What if the talk-to-Iran hammer is about this too? Sheldon Adelson knew it all along. So did David Frum and the neocons. A great transformation is taking place before our eyes.
Thanks to Rupa Shah for the tip.
just looking at that Times story, I find this implausible, factually:
a plan … involving the recognition of Israel by the Arab world in exchange for its withdrawal to pre-1967 borders … backed by Tzipi Livni …
when did she ever undertake to withdraw to pre-1967 borders?
Perhaps you or one of the other journalists who post here can explain why this appears in the Times of London, rather than one of the US papers? Perhaps one of our papers could shine a light on our own journalism, and tell us why Walt, who was clairvoyant on Iraq, is banned from the NYTimes, but William Kristol, who sold Iraq and Sarah Palin, gets a weekly column?
One advantage of this story appearing in London – you have to go Mondoweiss to see what the day's news is.
He and Israel should do it.
The devil is in the details. The Arab World has subsequently "interpreted" their proposal.
Even with the Arab League offer, even a changing ground, the ball is largely in Hamas' court. If they accept it, and not just accept 67 borders as Palestine, but 67 borders as ISRAEL as well, then it is likely to result in a unified Palestinian government, capable of negotiating THAT deal with Israel.
If Hamas rejects it, then the prerequisites of Palestinian coherence, and actual prospect (thereby marginalizing the Israeli fanatics), fail, and we're back where we started, for another generation.
Every step is a dare to, and then later BY, the fanatics that prefer conflict over reconciliation.
To say that its in Israel's court is a falsehood, even as there are things that they definitely could do to affect Palestinian attitude.
But, maybe Hamas will in fact be marginalized, if they don't compromise.
For fanatics, its more convenient to have enemies in office, than sympathizers.
What are you kidding Phil? If this happens the 67 war, 9/11, the war in Iraq,endless West Bank land thievery and the apartheid wall would have been all for naught. Talk like this will get Obama snuffed quicker than JFK. With "Mega" back in the White House a certain foreign intelligence service will know his movements before our own Secret Service.
The leak was by an Obama representative to the London Times.
HAMAS's acceptance would be de facto:
In 2006 letter to Bush, Haniyeh offered compromise with Israel
By: Barak Ravid
Haaretz
14 November 2008
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1037258.html
A few months after Hamas` 2006 election victory, leader Ismail Haniyeh tried to start a dialogue with U.S. President George W. Bush.
Haaretz has obtained a written message from Haniyeh sent to Bush via an American professor who met with Haniyeh in the Gaza Strip. Haniyeh asked Bush to lift the boycott of the Hamas government and pressure Israel to maintain stability in the region.
On June 6, 2006, Haniyeh met Dr. Jerome Segal of the University of Maryland in the Gaza Strip.
Segal had been involved in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process for many years and was one of the first Americans to meet Palestine Liberation Organization leaders in the late 1980s, even passing messages from senior PLO figures to then U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz. Segal`s academic work brought him in contact with senior State Department and National Security Council officials throughout the Clinton administration. However, the relationship was severed during the Bush administration.
At the time of the meeting, Hamas was trying to establish its three-month-old government under an international boycott. The Quartet for Middle East peace had called on the organization to recognize Israel, disavow terror and honor existing agreements.
At the end of the meeting, Haniyeh dictated a short message he asked Segal to transmit to President Bush. Haniyeh spoke Arabic and Youssuf translated his words into English. Segal took down the letter in his notebook and Haniyeh and Youssuf both signed it.
Haniyeh wrote in the missive, `We are an elected government which came through a democratic process.`
In the second paragraph, Haniyeh laid out the political platform he maintains to this day. `We are so concerned about stability and security in the area that we don`t mind having a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders and offering a truce for many years,` he wrote.
Haniyeh called on Bush to launch a dialogue with the Hamas government.
`We are not warmongers, we are peace makers and we call on the American government to have direct negotiations with the elected government,` he wrote. Haniyeh also urged the American government to act to end the international boycott `because the continuation of this situation will encourage violence and chaos in the whole region.`
Upon his return to the U.S. several days later, Segal gave State Department and NSC officials the original letter.
In his own letter, Segal emphasized that a state within the 1967 borders and a truce for many years could be considered Hamas` de facto recognition of Israel. He noted that in a separate meeting, Youssuf suggested that the Palestinian Authority and Israel might exchange ambassadors during that truce period. This was not the only covert message from Hamas to senior Bush administration officials. However, Washington did not reply to these messages and maintained its boycott of the Hamas government.
Under the Arab Union plan 1048 refugee return would be subject to Israel veto.
Oops: 1048=1948
I hope this is accurate and true about Obama.
But even if it is he will have a fight on his hands. Maybe he is already familiar with the Israeli tactics in destroying any movements on a peace plan, if not maybe he will get fed up and 'impose' a plan.
Israel will fight this tooth and nail for many reasons. A peace deal between Isr and Pal and the ME in general will lessen the Lobby's rationale for massive US aid to Israel. Saving the US taxpayers 30 billion in Israeli aid over the next ten years would a good goal for us to say the least.
Steve Clemons at the Washington Note recently suggested that a plan would have "to be imposed" on Israel. Even Clemons finally sees the light. Some real sticks are going to have be applied to Israel to get them to give up Greater Israel.
I do think Obama has enough public support to do what Bush I tried to do in conditioning US aid on Israel giving up the settlements. Congress and the "Lobby made Bush I back off his threat but pressuring Obama that way might not work.
Obama could use his campaign machine on the public on this issue. The public is going to be watching this President as they have never watched one before so any issue he is on the public will be all over. Linking the fact that a peace deal would do away with taxpayers forking over billions every year to Israel..especially in light of our current economic condition when we are already being told finances will prevent the dems from doing what they promised the voters on a lot of domestic issues would up the ante even more for the public.
Maybe the leak was intended to sway the impending election in Israeli? If N is elected, end of plan.
Plan may also be intended by Obama to isolate Iran, gain leverage
for Iran to negotiate no nukes. If Syria gets GH back, less partnering with Syria behind the scenes. Arab nations afraid of Iran, and popularity of Iran with Arab Street. Also might be floating plan to
isolate Iran from Russia–perhaps the Obama carrot for Putin would be killing the US-backed missile system at his borders? Put could walk away a winner in his own people's eyes…
I have a conviction that has been growing in strength for several years, to the effect that a goodly proportion of the 'hilltop youth' are no more religious than your average Sheinkin Street rock'n'roller. This may be why the NRP had its split and effectively seems to have gotten taken over by the hardalim (who actually are religious).
Perhaps we should interpret Israel's recent attempts to sabatoge the truce (four more killed last night) as not just the normal open season on Palies associated with all Israeli elections, but an attempt to foreclose any Obama initiative.
American, I agree with you that in the current state of USA economy
Obama is stronger than Bush I was when he tried to use our annual
welfare payments to Israel as a stick to kill the settlements. Bush 2
could now do that, especially as a lame duck, but listening to Candy
Rice interview this morning on C-SPAN, he won't, the dumb ass. I guess he really doesn't care about his place in history. He's been out to lunch for at least 7 months, even more than he was before. Must spend nights pretending to be a rancher splitting wood at his homestead, where he soon will be–thank G-D.
Uh-oh, you're citing an article by Uzi Mahnaimi? This guy is the London Times equivalent of Judith Miller. He is infamous for publishing sensationalist stories based upon questionable sources that later prove untrue or highly exaggerated.
One case in point: He's the reporter who claimed the Israelis were creating a genetically-modified biological weapon that would only kill Arabs. (That article got picked up by the global media, and was shortly thereafter debunked. Uzi never wrote the second installment of that article.) I'd take his reporting about Obama with a hefty grain of salt, until a more reliable news organization weighs in.
Oh, and it's a bit of a stretch to say that Peres is getting on board. He said that he supported the spirit of the plan, not all the details. In fact, the NYT reports: "Prince Saud said later that Mr. Peres 'chose part of the Arab peace plan and left other parts untouched,' adding that the proposal was “a package deal.'"
And, guess what? The Syrians have announced they are officially opposed to the plan, since they don't recognize the right of a "Pan-Arab" initiative to negotiate the return of the Golan Heights.
Why "Limited right of return" ? What's the problem ?
"I have a conviction that has been growing in strength for several years, to the effect that a goodly proportion of the 'hilltop youth' are no more religious than your average Sheinkin Street rock'n'roller. This may be why the NRP had its split and effectively seems to have gotten taken over by the hardalim (who actually are religious). "
The hilltop youth are one brand of religious, the neo-brand (neo means alternately "new" or "faux" – fake). They adopt the Kahanist line that the current meaning of "if you follow my commandments" is the same as the commandments to Joshua in the post-exodus immigration. ALL of the metaphors they use come from the dramas of the hero Joshua, the new vibrant youth (in contrast to the clingers to Egypt life, in contrast to the less than fanatic, in contrast to the reluctant spies).
As Burg conveyed, the stories and Torah lessons that they ridicule, are the ones that carried Jews through the Diaspora.
Its a permanent "revolutionary" consciousness.
They are REVISERS, rationalizing for their personal prejudice, which is among the greatest insults one can lay on the haredi.
Watch this:
"Aftershock" by an ex-IDF soldier and military filmmaker, interviewing former Israeli paratroopers and soldiers about what they were really doing to the Palestinians. Subtitled.
link to youtube.com
What the US should have done long ago was broker a Treaty and Allies Pact with every single country in the ME. A non agression pact that says the US will not attack any country unprovoked, will defend every country equally…as long as every country that signs on to the Pact also agrees to a non agression policy with all the other ME member countries.
There is not a single country in the ME from Syria to Iran to Saudi that would not agree to this golden carrot and stick deal from the US. Each one would have both the 'protection' of the US superpower and ME allies and the 'threat' of the US and ME allies if they strayed.
Israel would hate it but everyone else would love it.
Posted by: David | November 16, 2008 at 02:19 PM:
"He is infamous for publishing sensationalist stories based upon questionable sources that later prove untrue or highly exaggerated."
Bullshit. The right-wing and ADL went after Uzi Mahnaimi . . . for alluding to classified US-funded biological weaponry being made in Israel, and confirmed by William Cohen in the late 90s.
No less than US-based Pyjamas Media (a major carrier of the Obama-is-a-Muslim campaign among other screech fests) is one of the orgs behind the debunking of Mahnaimi
link to israelmatzav.blogspot.com
HOWEVER … Mahnaimi was not making the claim. He was reporting on a major report issued by Dr. Vivienne Nathanson of the British Medical Association who provided the research and evidence.
Biological weapons threat must be addressed: report
Interview with Dr Vivienne Nathanson from the British Medical Association.
link to abc.net.au
Biological weapons threat is real, we have to act now, say medical experts
link to medicalnewstoday.com
Victor Ostrovsky, former Mossad case officer in The Other Side of Deception
I feel emboldened to say that it all seems terribly unlikely…
(in contrast to the clingers to Egypt life, in contrast to the less than fanatic, in contrast to the reluctant spies).
clingers to Egypt?
the less than fanatic?
the reluctant spies?
congratulations MRW, I only caused italic threats so far. Your bold debut performance is much more impressing! ;)
the unclosed < /i> italic or < /b> bold thread threat.
He's also a poet, LeaNder.
thanks, MRW. Our two basic camps again.
Links are almost as easy as bold or italic, by the way. UBM taught me this:
Using, of course, < > instead of [ ]
Took me a while to understand, why he uses [] instead of <>.
And don't forget to close, whatever html code you use. EVER. (Witty visualization) ;)
LeaNdor,
Those are Biblical references to key events and attitudes attributed to the population before entering Canaan.
The neo-religious settlers regard the first immigration to Canaan as THE authority.
When the Hebrews first left Egypt, many stated "why did you bring us to THIS, better we were back in Egypt." Then at the Golden Calf, similarly. About the fanatics, there is a story of zealous Pinchas would viciously murdered a disloyal violator of adultery law. Then before entering the promised land, spies were sent out to scope out the seen. They stated that it was impossible to settle the land, that it was already populated. Joshua replied that with God's promise, its a certainty.
All confusing stories for a moralist.
One answer to the confusion is to state that "God's will" was revised only in retrospect. That what occurred must have been "God's plan", so it must have been designed (like our plans). (That is a twist of "we were born in God's image" to "God was born in our image".)
I find the quote "we were born in God's image" to be authoritative. But, that that is of subject, not of object.
I'm sure you don't know what I mean by "of subject".
Url without quotation marks of course. But just try.
A poet? How do you know, D.?
no I am not sure, if I understand the phrase: "that is of subject, not object.
I understand the rest.
can you paraphrase?
"God's image".
Most people interpret that literally. "Humans look like God looks like".
Except that if God looks like something, then God is just another individual being, and not transcendant, not imminent, not intimate.
It creates a "spiritual materialism", a form of idol worship, a paganism attributing Holiness (an absolute) to something that is relative.
In contrast, if God is first person "I" (macro-cosmic, the SELF of the whole universe) with no qualities of "it", then it is possible that the "I" of God (the self-image of God) is the same as the "I" of individuals in a spiritual sense.
Individuals have a sense of self that contains both "I" that is independant of object, and "I" that is constructed from object.
Objective science alone concludes that "I" is only relative, that "I" is only constructed from relations to objects and other persons. Mysticism and the spiritual exercises that extract it, conclude that there is "I" that is independant of object, that existed before a sense of object emerged, that continues in the midst of sense of object, and that might continue following the sense of object.
I and i.
But in Judaism, the most emanationist metaphysics are found alongside the most anthropomorphic imagery, in kabbalah.
The most mature know the difference between what originates with individuals' projection and deep listening.
How many are those? Who knows. How much respect do they have? Who knows.
Its a certainty that as Burg referred, MANY spiritual materialists are listened to.
I differ with Burg's judgement of chabad, knowing it a little, enough to know that there is great diversity of political and theological thought within the movement.
I drove my son to a chabad event over the summer, and when I got there, there were two cars with "impeach Bush" bumper stickers, to my surprise.
It seems the settlers understand the biblical account of the invasion of "the promised land" quite well. Like Attila and Hitler, the ancient Israelites purposefully instilled terror in the hearts of those poor souls already
living in "the promised land."
The result is the same, the motivation works, whether its God IS With US or We ARE With God.
Thanks Richard, this may not have brought me closer than:
But it reminds me of my fascination with: Makom.
I don't think the Lubavitchers should be allowed to call themselves 'Chabad', as if they owned three of the sefirot!
I mean, one can't legislate against it, but it really needs some sort of kabbalistic counter-strategy to prevent it from becoming a monopoly.
Would be interesting to see a history of the Jews written by
Robbe-Grillet.
Aipac's Man in the Obama Camp
Phil Giraldi, AntiWar.com, Nov 18 2008
[...] Emanuel left the Clinton administration in 1998 and went to work for Bruce Wasserstein, a major Democratic donor and head of the Chicago investment bank Wasserstein Perella. He made $18 million in a little over two years. He was deliberately placed in a position where he could exploit his White House connections, which he did, to obtain a nest egg to finance his political career [...]
If Israel were to accept 67 borders they will have no water and die of thirst. Won't happen as once a theif, always a theif.