“Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s,” Mr. Obama said. “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.”
Full speech here.
No comment yet Boo?
Does this selected portion mean that Obama is affirming Bush’s secret settlement agreement but Israel is in partial violation of this agreement?
I just finished reading the whole speech. I think it might be the best speech I’ve ever read, by anyone.
Yeah? I wouldn’t normally read or listen to it (talk is cheap) but maybe I’ll give it a gander.
What is with this “talk is cheap” bit? What exactly is it that you think starts and ends every war, inspires every revolution, justifies every outrage, and excuses every betrayal? What do you think is left of democracy minus talk? Does it bother you at all that you’re aligning yourself with all the very worst murderous autocrats in the history of the world, all of whom hated talk above all things?
I’m not ignoring the importance of talk. Diplomacy is an art and I think this could be one of Obama’s strengths. I’m just pointing out the reality that when someone is trying to sell you something it’s important to look at actions, at the facts, rather than the spin.
Look. Two weeks ago Obama gave a speech that expressed a sentiment that was directly at odds with his actions. He claimed to be supporting human rights and civil liberties as he announced policies that did the opposite. He’s done this in other areas as well–mainly on economic matters. All politicians do sell their policies by telling people what they want to hear. I’m not applying a standard to Obama that I don’t apply to every other politician.
I’m all for reaching out to the Muslim/Arab World. I’m all for diplomacy. But if it’s simply PR with no action then it can and probably will backfire. Obama has a habit of doing this domestically. My guess is the Muslim/Arab World is probably more like me (hopefully suspicous) and less prone to self-delusion as Americans are–especially Democrats.
You see this already in Obama’s poll numbers in the Middle East (as well as opinion about the U.S.). His diplomacy/PR/sales pitch/talk has given hope to many in the Middle East. Except for two countries–Lebanon and Palestine–where their opinion has ebbed. Is this because they are not liking his actions? I don’t know. We’ll see.
And please spare me the charge that I’m “aligning myself with the worst murderous autocrats in history”. Are you serious? That’s ridonculous. Requesting honesty and transparency is hardly supporting murderous autocrats. You’re reaching.
And as an example, my first comment on this thread I wondered if Obama was couching an unpleasant fact (affirming Bush’s secret settlement agreements) with a PR spin (affirming Palestinian right to exist). I don’t know if that’s what he was doing. That’s why I was asking.
Maybe I’m still having PTSD from the previous 8 years, but it seems to me a giant step forward to have somebody in power even SAYING stuff that paints a path to hope for improvement, and defines goals that are sane and intelligent. Of course it’s just a first step and could crumble to just more of the usual bullshit. We’ll see. For the first time in a long time I think there’s some realistic chance that good things — actions — will follow. Like you, I’d be happier with a less cautious and deliberate president. But Ombama is as close to that as we’re gonna get in the real world.
I have no problem with wondering whether the good intentions will be followed with appropriate actions, but dismissing everything he says as “cheap talk” only undercuts the value of the words. I see no reason to think he’s plotting to lull us into biz as usual in the ME when he’s put his credibility on the line with the strongest statement on settlements in memory. If you disagree, fine — but give some arguments for what’s wrong with what he’s saying instead of just tossing off “talk is cheap” like he should be driving a tractor or something if he was really any good. This isn’t about not criticizing Obama — there have been lots of disappointments already, as expected. It’s the preemptive assumption that he’s secretly selling us out that pushes my buttons.
As to the dictator thing, I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that you are among them — that would be difficult since I generally agree with about 95 percent of your posts. It’s more that it just seems beneath you to fall back on a cheap and corrosive cliche like “talk is cheap”.
Good points. I didn’t mean to use that term “cheap talk” to be a pejorative necessarily. I meant it in a more literal sense: it’s easy to say things but it’s harder to do thing. I’m all for saying nice things. From what I see Obama has done a good job changing the tone and reaching out.
But nice words can backfire if one gets the sense nice things are being said simply to enable an injustice or assuage righteous anger.
Remember. Bush was the first U.S. president to acknowledge the Palestinian right to their own state. But his actions did not follow that rhetoric.
When Obama gives people hope he is setting expectations for action.
Now, DavidW, you do have the knack of going off the deep end. Yes, we have nothing else but talk to achieve goals, but talk, just talk, for the sake of talk is indeed cheap in the long run, and we must wait and see exactly what the talk leads to. Domestically and internationally, crunch-time is fast approaching on more and more fronts, and Obama is going to have give us the walk if we’re going to keep believing his talk. A tinge of cognative dissonance is beginning to set in.
Of course we’re going to need followup. That’s no reason to assume in advance that he’s just another windbag.
Needless to say, the Right is in full-blown Obama Bin Laden mode.
Like anything else was expected of them? Somehow, Obama could have said we should obliterate the whole Middle East, and Faux Noise and Co. would have still found a reason to complain. Nothing will ever please them. Nothing. Ever.
This is the observation I’ve been making:
The speech was utterly predictable in the sense that anyone who has been paying attention to Obama knew what his core message would be. But even though he mostly – though not entirely – relied on common sense and truisms which should have been obvious for a long time, the speech still counts as momentous: for the fact is that Obama’s message has NOT been said before, at least not by an American president so forcefully and not at such a venue.
I expect that future generations will wonder why this speech was such a big deal; but that’s an indictment of our past, not Obama.
And I think most would agree that there is no one on the planet who was better suited — as a result of his biography, position and abilities – to deliver such a speech.
I haven’t had a chance to hear the pundits pontificate, but I will make one observation: Joe Scarborough, of all people, said afterwards, in so many words, that Obama is Bin Laden’s worst nightmare.
I haven’t had a chance to hear the pundits pontificate, but I will make one observation: Joe Scarborough, of all people, said afterwards, in so many words, that Obama is Bin Laden’s worst nightmare.
Stopped clocks and all that. I know, I know, it is harsh but also in JoeScar’s case, very true.
Here is the video of speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BlqLwCKkeY
that he is not signing his own death warrant.
Let us pray.
AG
Oh, Arthur, you are so conspiratorial!
No conspiracy required here. The code-speak has been signaling the vigilante bat-signal for some time.
AG
I thought it was a good speech. Mentioning the holocaust and the 6 millions Jews killed was probably a bit of necessary truth-telling. I wish though that he had mentioned the men, women, and children of Gaza/WB who have lost their lives as collateral damage even as recently as January. i doubt it would have cost much to mention their sacrifice.
No, Ishmael, it would have been much too much. You are not allowed to remember or commemorate any human suffering or tragedy in the same breath with the holocaust because the holocaust is unique and eminently disastrous. Don’t get me wrong (you always need to add some sort of caveat when criticizing the uses the holocaust is put to), every time I think of it I still can’t believe that such a horrid event could ever have happened. All those people were slaughtered and Europe destroyed a good part of its intellectual and social base for almost a half century. But this in no way excuses the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians basically by European Jews and the continued occupation and theft of their lands and property. At this moment there is all this chatter about the U.S. getting involved in Israeli domestic politics. Let’s be clear, the Occupied Territories (Gaza is under siege) are not part of Israel. The U.S. is instead only getting more deeply involved in an international dispute (largely of its own making, like Iraq, Gitmo, increasingly Afghanistan, etc.). Why did Obama go to Cairo: to clarify or obfuscate? We’ll reserve judgment on that one.
Mentioning the Holocaust and the 6 million Jews killed was gratuitous pandering. The Holocaust and the 6 million dead Jews were not and are not the responsibility of Palestinians, or Arabs, or Muslims, and the fact of the Holocaust and the 6 million dead Jews did not and does not in any way obligate the Palestinians go give up their rights or any part of their homeland for a Jewish state.
sorry, but bullshit. The Holocaust is denied by many and it is necessary to call Holocaust deniers out for the assholes that they are and to educated those that have been miseducated. You should praise him for saying that, not begrudge him for a second.
There is no reason in this context to bring up the Holocaust when the Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims bear absolutely none of the responsibility for it, and the Palestinians have been forced to pay a price for it that is second only to the price paid by the Jews. In fact, the Palestinians themselves are very much victims of the Holocaust along with the Jews.
If you want to educate someone about the Holocaust, do it in the right context.
Here is what he said:
He is saying that America’s deep and unbreakable commitment to Israel is rooted in our recognition of the tragic fate of the Jews in the West, and that there is no shaking that commitment because it derives from that history as well as our cultural ties. He is not saying that the Palestinians are in any way responsible for the Holocaust. He is saying the educators that teach their children that the Holocaust never happened and leaders that express those views and call Israel a “cancerous tumor in the heart” of the Islamic world, are part of the problem.
.
(Haaretz) – Some 40.5 percent of Israeli Arabs believe the Holocaust never occurred, according to the results of a University of Haifa poll.
The survey shows that Holocaust denial among Israeli Arabs has become more prevalent in recent years. In 2006, 28 percent of Israeli Arabs polled denied that the Holocaust occurred.
The annual poll of Jewish-Arab relations, which was conducted by Professor Sami Samuha, also found that only 41 percent of Israel’s Arab minority recognize the country’s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state, as opposed to 65.6 percent in 2003.
Moreover, only 53.7 percent of the Israeli Arab public believe Israel has a right to exist just as an independent country, according to the poll, down from 81.1 percent in 2003.
Time is of the essence. According to Fr. Desbois, “The witnesses who I am talking to were children at the time and are now very old indeed. So far I have talked to 950.” The eyewitness accounts are harrowing:
One of his interviewees was Petrivna, a Ukrainian woman, in the village of Ternivka. The Jews, she said, were gathered in the centre of the village and taken to a large pit on the fringes of the community.
They were told to lie down, 20 at a time, and shot in the back of the head. “It’s not easy to walk on bodies,” Petrivna told the priest.
“Very calmly I asked her: `You had to walk on the bodies of the people who were shot?’ She replied: `Yes, I had to pack them down . . . after every volley of shots. We were three Ukrainian girls who, in our bare feet, had to pack them down, the bodies of the Jews, and throw a fine layer of sand on top of them so that other Jews could lay down’.”
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."This kind of thing – European-style anti-Semitism – is a relatively new phenomenon in the Arab world, and is very disturbing. Historically, this type of thinking simply did not penetrate the Arab world, despite the efforts of European missionaries to import it in a few documented cases.
However, I still do not agree that bringing up the Holocaust in a way that is even remotely connected to the Palestinians in a first address to the Muslim world.
And let me assure you that explaining the U.S.’s unquestioning support of Israel in terms of the Holocaust is not going to make a single Palestinian or Arab feel more “understanding” or sympathetic toward it. None of the Palestinians and very few of the Arabs or Muslims whom I know deny that the Holocaust occurred or that it was a devastating horror, and that does not in any way make them feel differently about Israel or the way the U.S. supports it unconditionally and helps it get away quite literally with mass murder.
education works both ways.
Sorry, your point is not clear.
As I read it, my impression was that the comparison was for Israel’s benefit, not the Arab audience. Obama wanted — I thought — to convey more or less the same message that you just stated to the Israelis, that the Holocaust does not justify its survivors going and doing much the same thing to another people.
Judging from the thoroughly hostile reaction from certain Israeli commentators, who object to anything being compared to the Holocaust, the message came through loud and clear in Jerusalem.
.
Conveyed respect to the Muslim people, put historic perspective on period of colonialism. Made amends for poor judgement in the past, can’t blame decisions solely on cold war rhetoric. Restores hope to people of the Middle East. Used quotes from the Quran. Praised the Medieval period of blooming sciences in the Middle East giving respect long overdue. The 20th century of two world wars and deaths of tens of millions eminated in Europe and the Far East due to fascism and communism.
Praise in Egypt, mixed reactions from P/I sides: the Palestinians (Hamas) and the Israelis (well, eh .. its leaders).
It’s truly a clean break from the Bush/Cheney doctrine of violence and hate. Obama didn’t use the word “terror” once!
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."thanks and thanks for links
It is about time that someone recognizes Palastinians as humans, same as Israelis, Americans, Mexicans, Russians or anybody else in the world. They want their forefathers land, just like the same land we live on. Compromise, compromise, compromise. That is what Obama does and does very well. He is the one guy that nobody could ever dislike and he is using this persona to go to an area where America is despised and is changing the face of what the world and most importantly Americans think about the United States.
I agree Viva Obama!
“Made amends for poor judgement in the past…“
Pardon me for being overly picky, but this is not the best choice of words. To make amends is to make reparations or pay compensation. While acknowledgment of a wrong can be a welcome first step to making amends, Obama has not yet made amends, nor, I imagine, will he. I do get what you were trying to say, though, even though you did not choose the correct word.
I also find “poor judgment”, if that is the term he used, to be rather self-exculpatory, though I suppose it is too much to ask for him to admit more than that.
I don’t recommend holding your breath for the Americans to make reparations of any kind, nor do I think the Islamic world, whose current extent was purchased by a whole lot of armed conquest and forced conversion on pain of death, is in any position to demand it. Do you imagine some kind of tit-for-tat wherein we’ll move the Jews back to Europe if the Muslims will return Constantinople and Cairo to the West? Oh, whatever.
The best that can be expected of any people, mine or yours, is to not repeat the mistakes of the past. If, going forward, we stop killing each other and stealing each other’s stuff (and yes, I know that in recent years, it’s our side that’s been doing most of the killing and stealing), and maybe even start treating each other like human beings, that would be more useful and beneficial than spending centuries haggling over itemized debts?
Forced conversion on pain of death is a specialty of Christians, not Muslims. In fact, the Qur’an explicitly disallows forced conversions.
2:256
“Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.“
yanno…i was underwhelmed by the speech….i mean i see all the break with the past stuff and yes its progress…but i also am wondering why no condemnation about the way muslims treat women, and i dont just mean making them cover their hair or not allow them an education….i think he could have and should have gone further…but im also thinking the muslims and the arab world have a lot of shit to answer for….as much shit as the west and as much shit as israel…i want to see everyone called on their shit..
So, as a first step to mending relations with the Muslim world, you would have had Obama give a finger-wagging lecture about what you think is wrong with Muslims or Islam?
Way to mend relations!
By the way, Anna, in addition to wondering how you think delivering a paternalistic, finger-wagging lecture about everything that, according to you, is wrong with Muslims would help in improving relations, I am sorry to see that you entertain a lot of misconceptions and mistaken ideas.
Have you ever visited a Muslim country? Do you even know any Muslims?
How many Muslim women have you ever had any kind of interaction with? And how many of them covered their hair? Have you ever discussed with a Muslim woman what the hair covering means to her, and why she does it? Do you really believe that every Muslim woman who covers her hair is oppressed, or that she views covering her hair as a form of oppression? Or are you just making assumptions from your own cultural framework without considering theirs?
What do you really know about the way Muslims treat women?
On what do you base your assumption that Muslim women are not allowed an education?
And finally, would you recommend that a Muslim leader should deliver a paternalistic, finger-wagging lecture to Christians? I mean, Christians sure have a lot of shit to answer for, don’t they?
wait i think you got this bass ackwards.
the covering the hair thing was about religious tolerance.
and if you think calling muslims on their treament of women, you know like the stonings and acid baths and assasinations and such is finger wagging….ok well then i think you just demeaned the whole point of a womans fate in most of the arab world.
and guess what….i do know muslim women…i am from philadelphia…..we have them there….i was best friends with one in nj….convinced her to leave her asshole abusive husband….she went back eventually….dont see many down here in florida but where i am i am about the darkest person around.
does that mean i cant empathize and fight for them? im not gay but i have fought and supported the lgbt movement for 25 years….im not in a union but i believe in them…im not a tranny but i raise hell about the way they are being left out of the movement they inspired….what does this have to do with anything?
obama is like a fluffy bunny to me. i want more fire and braver decisions. i want him to have the balls i KNOW hillary clinton has. i want it. i want it. i want it. and i dont just want sneaky backdoor stuff…i want bold in your face this is the way its gonna be.
It’s funny. I think you and Hurria come from such different perspectives and yet you are both right.
Hurria is right that it would not have advanced Obama’s purpose yesterday to lecture Muslims about any shortcomings they might have on women’s issues. You’re right that there is plenty to criticize.
Hurria made her own list of things she wanted to hear Obama say in that speech. He touched on some of them, but most of them weren’t going to be productive in this particular context and he didn’t mention them. Some of them he probably simply doesn’t agree with.
He had a job today. A mission. And he included things that advanced that mission. He was more interested in lecturing the governments of the Muslim world than the people. And I think that was the right decision.
BooMan, Anna is indulging in deeply, deeply offensive and gross stereotyping and generalization. She is indignant about the alleged treatment of Muslim women. Fine, but let’s focus that concern where it belongs instead of painting the entire Muslim world with with the same hundred-mile-wide brush.
She makes statements about “most of the Arab world” without ever setting foot anywhere in the Arab world. Sure, she saw some Muslims in Philly, and had one as her best friend, and from this she draws general conclusions about Arabs and Muslims? Well, I LIVED in the Arab world as a member of an Arab Muslim family and Arab society, now I am part of the Arab-American community. I travel regularly in the Arab and Muslim world where I spend most of my time hanging out with the people who live there. I have a large family in Pakistan with whom I have spent very intimate time. I know for a fact that you can no more make these kinds of stereotypical generalization about the Arab and Muslim worlds than you can about the United States.
Just as in the United States, how women are treated varies enormously in the Muslim world, and depends on many different factors. There are plenty of Muslim men who are absolutely lovely and respectful to women in every way, and there are plenty of non-Muslim, non-Arab men who are horribly abusive to women. And sometimes the awful abusive ones and the lovely, respectful ones occur in the same family (I know a few sets of brothers like that), so as everywhere else one of the factors is individual temperament. In Arab-Muslim society just as in non-Muslim, non-Arab society, most men are somewhere in between the two extremes.
As for not allowing women to have educations, how does Anna explain the fact that women at times outnumber men in colleges and universities in some Arab/Muslim countries? How does she explain that college and university campuses all over the Arab and Muslim worlds are filled with women as well as men? And how does she explain the fact that until recently women in Arab and Muslim countries made up a higher percentage of the physicians there than they did in the United States (the U.S. finally caught up about 10-15 years ago)? And how does she explain the fact that even to this day in most of the Arab/Muslim world women are more accepted in fields such as engineering, architecture, and dentistry than they have traditionally been in the U.S. (e.g. the chief architect in Iran was a woman, and as far as I know she still holds that position)? Does Anna know how many Arab and Muslim countries have, in the last few decades, instituted programs to improve women’s literacy?
And how does she explain that Pakistan, a country with a deeply religious Muslim population, has had a female PM, and might have one today had she not been murdered (for political, not gender reasons)? And to the best of my knowledge no one ever made snide comments about her menstrual cycles – at least not publicly.
Yes, women are horrifically treated in some parts of Afghanistan (interestingly, Bush’s “in your face, this is how it’s gonna be” approach has only made life worse for Afghan women overall, so I’m not sure how Obama’s using that tactic is likely to help them). The status of women in Sa`udi Arabia is completely unacceptable, and makes a lot of Arabs feel ashamed. There is a lot of room for improvement in most of the Gulf, too, though it is not as bad there as in Sa`udia. And there are small segments of Muslim society in many if not most countries where the status and treatment of women is cause for great concern, just as there are such segments in every society. But none of that excuses the kind of broad-brush generalization Anna has indulged in. Nor does it justify giving a very public finger-wagging lecture to the entire Muslim world.
As for the headscarf thing, give me a break! Nearly all the women and girls I know who cover their heads do so completely willingly, and they often cover against the wishes of their fathers, brothers, and husbands. I also know a lot of families in which some of the women choose to cover and others do not. For example, the mother and one or more of her daughters will cover, the others will not, or the mother does (or doesn’t) while her daughters do not (or do). So, who is forcing anyone?
These days in the Arab world the headscarf is as much a fashion statement as anything else, as Anna might have noticed had she ever been there and seen it for herself. Oh, and the customs for head covering, including the style, and when or even whether it is expected, vary enormously from one region to another. And contrary to the common stereotype held by Americans, women who cover are not oppressed and meek. In fact, some of the most lively, active, friendly, assertive – and yes, feminist – women I have ever known have been covered women.
And for the record, I do not cover, and never have except when entering a mosque. Oh – and when in Pakistan I dress in Pakistani clothes, which are beautiful, wonderfully comfortable, and include a long matching shawl, called a dupata which is used to cover the head, but is usually worn draped around the shoulders. And I refuse to pass judgment on my sisters who do cover.
And finally, anyone familiar with human nature should intuitively understand that Obama publicly “calling Muslims on their treatment of women” would not only do nothing to help the women who really do need help, it would have the exact opposite effect.
Anna, you have not explained exactly how delivering a paternalistic, finger-wagging lecture to the entire Muslim world will help to mend relations between the U.S. and Muslims. Please explain that to me.
“the covering the hair thing was about religious tolerance.“
You’re going to have to explain to me how your remark about Muslims supposedly forcing women to cover their hair was about religious tolerance.
“calling muslims on their treament of women, you know like the stonings and acid baths and assasinations and such“
So, what exactly are you suggesting here? Are you suggesting that the entire Muslim world treats women this way? Or are you suggesting that the entire Muslim world should be humiliated with a paternalistic, finger-wagging very public lecture from the United States President for what a very small minority of extremists do? And if it is the latter, do you maintain a single standard? Do you think that the entire Christian world should receive a paternalistic, finger-wagging lecture because some Christians use religion as an excuse to abuse, oppress, and limit women? And should the entire Jewish world receive a paternalistic, finger-wagging lecture because of the way Orthodox women are treated?
“i think you just demeaned the whole point of a womans fate in most of the arab world.“
Pardon me, but what on earth do you know about “most of the Arab world” (and by the way, not all Muslims are Arabs, and not all Arabs are Muslims, and there is less of the kind of abuse you are talking about among Muslim Arabs than among other Muslims)? Unlike you, I have lived in the Arab/Muslim world, and spend a good bit of time there every year. In fact, I am part of the Arab/Muslim world and it is part of me. Further, I have studied the Arab/Muslim world. AND I have years of experience as a woman living in the Arab/Muslim world, so I guess I know quite a bit more about the treatment of women in “most of the Arab world” than you ever will.
As for your friend, you seem to be assuming that her husband was an abusive asshole because he was a Muslim. You have never heard of an abusive asshole husband who was not a Muslim? You have never heard of a Muslim man who is decent toward women, or even (shock of shocks!) a loving, respectful, kind, supportive companion to his wife? I hate to burst your ugly bubble, but I have seen far more of those in the Arab/Muslim world than abusive assholes.
And please, please explain exactly how “bold in your face this is the way its gonna be” is going to help anyone. Do you think it will help the cause of peace, cooperation, and good relations in the world? And an even better question is, how, exactly, do you think it will help those Muslim women who ARE abused and oppressed for Obama to stand up there and “call Muslims on their treatment of women”?
how about a maternalistic wagging finger?
Pardon me, BooMan, but I think I have every right to respond to Anna’s uninformed, and very offensive remarks. If I spouted the same kinds of negative, broad-brush stereotypes about Jews, or Christians – or Americans – you and half a dozen other people would be ALL up in my face, wouldn’t you? And I’d deserve it, too.
It is absolutely useless from a practical point of view to insist upon stopping additional colony building as long as the wall construction and the associated land confiscations are allowed to continue, and the existing colonization is allowed to stand. The existing facts on the ground now are sufficient to obviate a Palestinian state, the Israelis know this, and that has been the strategy all along.
As a symbolic first step, maybe this statement is useful, but will come to nothing as long as it is not backed up by some kind of action (like, ummm, “if you lay one more brick, or pour one more cubic inch of concrete, sugar daddy will cut off your allowance”), and as long as it is not followed up by insisting upon a plan to dismantle the existing colonies.
It will come to nothing unless Israel and its neighbors come to some accomodation. The US can’t force an agreement. Obama has set the Israeli right back on their ears like no US president in memory. The hope is that this will get them off their absolutist posturings and into a mood for real negotiations. But the same has to be true for the other side. No one will or can get what they want. The best the Palestinians and their indifferent allies can hope for is a return to Israel’s ’67 borders. The best the Israelis can hope for is a reasonably secure future in a region they do not dominate or control.
I think and hope that is the long road Obama is beginning. But he sure won’t be erasing the evils of decades in his second 100 days.
The Palestinians and the Arabs have been ready for years, and have made numerous good faith efforts to resolve the conflict, not the least of which is the Arab League proposal,which was approved unanimously seven years ago, and which the Arab league has unanimously agreed to keep actively on the table for seven years despite everything Israel has done during that time. The Israelis have refused to even consider it as a basis for negotiation, despite the fact that it offers them everything they have always claimed they want, and only requires that they comply with international law and their own agreements.
The Palestinians have made countless good faith efforts, and even Hamas has stated explicitly that it is prepared to recognize Israel inside the pre-1967 borders.
Bashshar Al Asad has made a number of overtures to the Israelis since he became President of Syria.
And Israel just keeps confiscating and colonizing land, squeezing the Palestinians into ever smaller and more disconnected enclaves, not to mention wreaking havoc on the economy, making effective self-government virtually impossible at any level, interfering with education, freedom of movement, and on and on and on and on and on.
I propose this as quote of the day, albeit mainly because it’s the same sentiment I expressed myself just the other day. 😉