One takeaway message from the Obama-Abbas meeting is that the realists are getting heard in the Obama administration. Much has been made of Hillary Clinton’s recent hardball approach with Israel regarding settlements. On Wednesday she told reporters that the administration “wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions.” In the press session after his meeting with Abbas, President Obama began to make clear why this urgency exists (emphasis mine),
From the first week that I arrived in
this office, I insisted that this is a critical issue to deal with, in
part because it is in the United States’ interest to achieve peace;
that the absence of peace between Palestinians and Israelis is a
impediment to a whole host of other areas of increased cooperation and
more stable security for people in the region, as well as the United
States. And so I want to see progress made, and we will work very
aggressively to achieve that.I don’t want to put an
artificial timetable, but I do share President Abbas’s feelings and I
believe that many Israelis share the same view that time is of the
essence, that we can’t continue with a (inaudible) with the increased
fear and resentments on both sides, the sense of hopelessness around
the situation that we’ve seen for many years now — we need to get this
thing back on track.
The Guardian is reporting these comments as “Obama: halt to new Israeli settlements is in America’s security interests.” I’m not sure if I see things that sharply, but it is clear that the Obama administration sees the peace process as being more central to its regional strategy, and self interest, than recent past presidents.
This idea is reinforced by Laura Rozen’s reporting on her blog The Cable who quotes an Israeli associate of Netanyahu saying his response to Clinton was, “What the hell do they want from me?” Rozen also quotes a former senior Clinton
administration official who describes the change in US policy,
“This is a sea change for Netanyahu,” a former senior Clinton
administration official who worked on Middle East issues said. The
official said that the basis of the Obama White House’s resolve is the
conviction that it is in the United States’ as well as Israel’s
interest to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “We have significant,
existential threats that Israel faces from Iran and that the U.S. faces
from this region. It is in our mutual interest to end this conflict,
and to begin to build new regional alliances.”
Rozen makes the important point that pressure is being put on Netanyahu by both the White House and Congress, whereas in the past Netanyahu had tried to play one against the other. And yet, none of this has been translated into direct pressure on Israel, yet. When Obama was asked after the Abbas meeting “if Israel keeps declining to accept the
two-state solution and to freeze the settlement activities, how the
U.S. would intervene in the peace process,” he dodged the question. Without firm pressure from the US it is doubtful that Israeli policy will change. Ali Abunimah makes this point in the New York Times article on the meeting,
“Hillary Clinton’s statement was notable because the language was stronger than we’ve heard in years,” said Ali Abunimah, the co-founder of ElectronicIntifada, a Web site that analyzes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “And clearer than we’ve heard in years. But the burden of proof is still on them. If it’s just going to be strong statements, that’s not enough.”
I agree. But I’d like to think it’s a beginning.
I hope Obama squeezes the Israelis, but the two-state solution is improbable. I think a one-state solution, but with a strong secular dictator like Hafez al-Assad, who's not afraid to kill his opponents, might conceivably work. More likely, Israel will last no longer than the Crusader states (50-200 years).
33 Senate seats are up for vote this year, GOM. Voters need to advise the present Congress that those seats shall go to individuals who will advocate for equal protection under the law for all the inhabitants of Israel and Palestine. 33 seats for …one state? What a goal! Bottom line: equal rights
RE: "…I'd like to think it's a beginning…" MY COMMENT: Yes, let's hope so!
I agree. But I'd like to think it's a beginning____Oh, don't be so modest. I knew as soon as Mondoweiss got serious about doing something everybody would fall right into line!__Just kidding. But it is great to see even the beginnings of some realistic progress. To think that some real steps toward ameliorating the suffering of the Palestinians and the isolation of the Israelis will take place while I am alive to see them makes me almost giddy.__Maybe I haven't been reading long enough, but it seems like Mondo weiss just caught fire starting at the time of the Israeli assult on Gaza, took off running and never looked back.__I'm sure that someday, maybe soon, you will look back on your contribution to the process with deseved pride and satisfaction. I should live to see it! We all should.
RE: The Guardian is reporting these comments as "Obama: halt to new Israeli settlements is in America's security interests." FROM J STREET: Following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's rejection of a full settlement freeze, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said yesterday that President Obama "wants to see a stop to settlements – not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions." This is exactly the sort of leadership we need from the President and Secretary of State if we are going to achieve a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – the only way to truly secure Israel's future as a Jewish, democratic homeland. You can bet the Obama Administration is already hearing from hawkish voices on Israel – urging him to make exceptions, allow for more settlement growth, and to go slow. No way – a freeze means a freeze. We've got to make sure the President knows pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans support his strong line on settlements, for both Israel's and America's sake and security. Please send the President a message telling him you support his "Freeze means Freeze" approach to Israeli settlements. * TO SEND MESSAGE - http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/2747/t/3251/pet...
Considering, how politics usually work. This feels like a huge step. I think the US/Israel – Israel/US love affair was difficult to watch for the rest of the world. It may be true, that Israel is far from the only source for conflict in the ME but it surely feels that pushing ahead for ever more war has a psychological basis in denial too. a) dry out the money sources for terrorism b) change the best recruiting scenario for ever more terrorists. The truth is somewhere in between.
RE: "…President Obama began to make clear why this urgency exists…" SEE: " Humanitarian Crisis Deepens in West Bank" – by Mel Frykberg, IPS, 05/29/09 (EXCERPT) "…The expropriation of Palestinian land for enlargement of settlements has proceeded at an accelerated rate since Netanyahu took office. New settlements, and the settler-only bypass roads which service them, are being built…." ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://original.antiwar.com/frykberg/2009/05/28/h...
The Saudis seem to me to have led the general Arab League push on this in the Obama administration. Their arguments have evidently been quite persuasive: (1) It is extremely difficult for even the most pro-US Arab or other Muslim governments to sell an alliance with the US while this continues; (2) The US needs the active support of Saudi and other Sunni regimes in any possible confrontation with Iran, Syria, Hizbollah, and Shi'ite activism generally; (3) The ongoing Iraq and Afghan conflicts are losing US support even among European allies; (4) Further conflict in Pakistan will make yet more demands; and most interestingly (5) The evidence that 9/11 was rigged is considerable and isn't going away — it appeared in a very fair presentation by Richard Gage on KMPH Fox 26 in Fresno, CA yesterday: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO2yT0uBQbM
It is a beginning, a real one. The important thing to note is that it did not come from boycott or threat of boycott, but from reason.
Yes. Yes, despite AIPAC and its congressional minions dismissing and dissing the "linkeage theory." Obama has connected the dots AIPAC has long ignored, and he actually asserted the USA's interests as not the same as those represented by Israel's new regime (as distinguished from Israel's long-term interests). There is no doubt W & M, and former President Carter have had an impact different than Bush's end-times bible. He's headed to visit Egypt with at least a small advance in his pocket, the starter message given to the public that settlements of all types must be stopped ASAP. Let's watch to see if the MSM picks up on what happens regarding the settlements– will it be a few sham uprootings of a couple of porta-potties, or the real thing? Obama is acting like a real leader with the widest perspective–encouraging!
well, no, Richard: it came from, principally, Saudi realpolitik. Threats and inducements are inextricably connected with sweet reason in realpolitik — that's what makes it real.
What's the deal with these underscores? ("…beginning____Oh") New fringe left writing style?
Hey, the "Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid?" report is out http://www.hsrc.ac.za/Document-3227.phtml
Netanyahu should freeze the settlements which would leave the real issue. The descendants of the Palestinian refugees are not "returning" to Israel and there is no Palestinian leader who could give "right of return" away and live.
I would be surprised if there is any progress this year or next from Israel. The Netanyahu government will drag their feet and it will become an issue for the White House, where they make no progress and start to focus on health care or other domestic items. The elected Israeli government is more right wing than ever and will celebrate any successful delay tactics from the Obama administration. Kind of like Cheney versus Powell. Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney celebrated when they saw Colin Powell have to tow the line on the Iraq war. They lit cigars and drank Bourbon when they knew Powell threw the towel in. Same story, only it's a foreign government.
That's a massive, 300-page, 3.5 MB pdf document, people — be aware before you click on it! It comes from the South African Human Rights Council. I suggest you go here first: http://www.hsrc.ac.za/Media_Release-378.phtml Then you will see that you have the option to download and save the whole thing by right clicking it, or just the executive summary.
Rowan, the YouTube link is "malformed" — can you post the URL?
here is an assignment for you. make the argument that if the settlers are evacuated and the west bank is turned over to the palestinians, the prime minister of israel would not live. you get extra credit if you refute the 'god gave the jews a real estate deed' argument.
Got it — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGZ3aa1lPec In 7 minutes, any skeptic can be convinced that 9/11 was a false flag operation — unless as Jack Nicholson once said, "you can't handle the truth."
Not sure about that, Paul. The real threat to bibi on the settlements is a what-if? What if the 1967 borders are restored and all the settlements become property in a Palestinian state(!) The settlers become Palestinian citizens — or they return to Israel. There would have to be a NATO peacekeeping force that would tear down the "security fence" and quell the violence among the settlers. The world is no longer buying the hasbara that the Palestinians don't want peace, or that Hamas is an existential threat, or that the world needs to focus on Iran's nuclear advances. No, man, the world has to focus on the illegal settlement activity of the Israelis that constitutes a brazen land grab in the name of a Greater Israel. Boycott, divestment, sanctions — all the things that Israel demands the world impose on Iran will now boomerang back on them if they continue to oppress the Palestinian people and steal their land. THIS is why I voted for Obama.
But a beginning that could stay just a beginning, unless the U.S. is actually going to apply some sort of pressure to achieve this freeze. The question remains: what if the Netanyahu government–and subsequent Israeli governments–simply ignore the call from the Obama adminsitration to freeze settlements? Not to mention dismantle. Not to mention withdraw to 1967 borders. What leverage will the Obama administration be willing to use? Targeted boycotts and divestments are civil society's response to the unwillingness by the U.S. government to apply any sort of actual pressure on the Israeli government. We can say we want a settlement freeze while we're blue in the face–but it's awfully tough to take us seriously as we send an FY2010 budget request to Congress that includes $2.775 billion in foreign military financing for Israel. I'd love it if we could "reason" the Israeli government-military apparatus into a two-state solution, but how long do we test that hypothesis before we deem it a failure? 20 years? 30? By the time we get around to actually DOING something about it, there won't be much of Gaza left.
Sorry, that was obviously meant to be "until we're blue in the face."
sorry — my one had an extra /a stuck on the end by mistake, but it's exactly the same clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO2yT0uBQbM
If Congress doesn't oppose the president, there might be real change on this issue. A lot of money have been invested in the housing developments in the West Bank and the Israelis, are not going to walk-away from them in the name of peace. They should, but will they?
After reading the Case for Israel, I never fucking want to hear 'the burden of proof is on them' again.
They shouldn't walk away from their property. They should accept Palestinian sovereignty exercised with equal protection under the law as in any civilized society, and become Palestinian citizens, if they desire to remain in geographic Palestine.
Accept Palestinian sovereignty "exercised with equal protection under the law". What have you been smoking? Should they also accept pigs "with wings"? The Palestinians persecute Christians in areas under their control, they would simply murder the Jews.
Assumption without any supporting evidence. Which I just gave a positive rating to by mistake! Someone please reverse that.