Rebuttal on Obama Speech …

8 Comments

1. 

   Oui on May 20, 2011 at 4:30 am

   .

   Obama speech illustrates lack of commitment on Israeli-Palestinian conflict

   (Guardian) – My Arab interlocutors made clear that the US is still paying a price for Bush era policies, and that President Obama is still suffering from a “post Cairo” letdown. That speech raised expectations that were not fulfilled, shaking confidence in US leadership. So, they uniformly cautioned against another “big speech” that promised a lot and delivered too little. And because the 2009 Cairo University speech ramped up expectations about the president’s commitment to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, failure to address this issue now, or to address it only in generalities or with more vague promises “to advance the peace process”, risks either deepening mistrust or provoking scorn or rage.

   In recent days, the Palestinian issue has been foregrounded by the resignation of former Senator George Mitchell and by what is expected to be Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s triumphal appearance before the US Congress. While Mitchell’s much-heralded appointment as special envoy raised hopes among some in the Middle East, his tenure was disappointing. His departure now is being viewed as an admission of collapse in the process – in which he and the president had invested a great deal of political capital. So, with Netanyahu and Congress in agreement on the need to block the recently concluded Palestinian reconciliation pact and the Palestinian leadership’s efforts to seek United Nations recognition of their state in September, the speech’s failure to address these deeply felt Arab concerns constitutes a glaring omission and a lack of serious commitment.  

   • Saudis call Obama speech meaningless drivel

   "But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

2. 

   Oui on May 20, 2011 at 5:41 am

   .

   The Expected Pro-Israeli Policy…

   Mitchell resigned “amid growing frustration over the impasse in peace talks.” He surely felt the negotiations were intractable. Well, of course they were. He had to operate within a very rigid constraint: unreserved, unwavering support for Israel and virtually everything she does. There is no viable settlement with that prerequisite.

   A glimmer of hope to those less cynical among us is an expected UN Security Council Resolution for a Palestinian state existing within the pre-1967 borders in September. That deal has been accepted unanimously by the Arab League and even by Hamas. Israel has rejected it. George Mitchell lent credence to it, but he is no longer in the picture. The last resolution which gave a glimmer of hope – to call for the end of settlements – the Obama administration vetoed, so make of that what you will.

   Obstinacy and aggression has been the protocol for U.S. policy in Israel-Palestine. September shall prove that position ongoing policy, or a fleeting fad.

   "But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

   • 

     Oui on May 20, 2011 at 4:07 pm

     .
     Netanyahu rejects any Israelis return to the 1967 lines

     "But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

3. 

   shergald on May 20, 2011 at 9:53 am

   Reflections by Juan Cole:

   Obama was also honest and searing in his implicit criticism of the government of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, whose government has obstructed peace talks with the Palestinians and pursued an inexorable and wide-ranging project of colonizing the Palestinian West Bank in hopes of ultimately creating a Greater Israel and permanently forestalling the rise of a Palestinian state. Obama had put resources and his own prestige on the line in attempting to kick-start negotiations two years ago, but the effort crashed an burned primarily because of Israeli intransigence and Obama’s special envoy on this issue, former Senator George Mitchell (who even more or less resolved the Northern Ireland conflict) has just resigned in a mixture of despair and disgust.

   Obama’s call for 1967 borders to be the basis for negotiations (which would require Israel to relinquish large amounts of territory illegally usurped from the Palestinians) marks a major turning point and elicited howls of outrage in Tel Aviv.

   Obama has been told by Israel-firsters in the US that his position on moving rapidly to a two-state solution endangers his ability to fund-raise among Jewish Americans (who provide a vastly disproportionate amount of money for political campaigns, estimated as high as 65% among Democrats) and therefore could imperil his campaign for a second term. To his credit, he has stuck to his guns, since a quick move to a two-state solution would benefit both the United States and Israel, not to mention the Palestinians.

   So his courage and vision should be recognized.

   http://www.juancole.com/

   I personally didn’t expect this much, mainly for the gamble Obama is taking with the American Jewish community. The only difference between Obama and Bush’s proposal of 2007 is Obama’s mention of the 67 border with swaps, which Bush only implied. That proposal of course was just ignored.

   • 

     Oui on May 20, 2011 at 1:05 pm

     .

     J Street, Israelis run ad urging recognition of a Palestinian state [pdf]

     New York Times ad signed by Israel Prize laureates, former Knesset members, former diplomats and former defense officials, calls to establish Palestinian state on the basis of the 1967 borders.

     “We, the citizens of Israel, call on the public to support the recognition of a democratic Palestinian state as a condition for ending the conflict, and reaching agreed borders on the basis of the 1967 borders. Recognition of such a Palestinian state is vital for Israel’s existence. It is the only way to guarantee the resolution of the conflict…”  

     • EU will not recognize any changes to the pre-1967 borders

     "But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

     • 

       shergald on May 20, 2011 at 4:22 pm

       If anyone needs any clue as to what Netanyahu thinks of Obama’s speech regarding Israeli-Palestinian peace, there is this footnote:

       Palestinian officials Friday condemned an Israeli plan to build 1,550 housing units on annexed land around Jerusalem, authorized the day Netanyahu left for the talks in Washington.

       http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43106082/ns/politics-white_house/

       This is the proverbial thumb in the eye, the fuck you Obama that everyone expects. There is no indication from Israel that it will go beyond business as usual, meaning more settlements, more stall and deflect, more delay, until the West Bank and East Jerusalem land taken will make a Palestinian state impossible. Bantustans maybe, Apartheid maybe, but no Palestinian state. This is arrogance beyond belief.

       The link also provides a summary of the Netanyahu meeting.

4. 

   Oui on May 20, 2011 at 2:45 pm

   .

   158. Telegram From the Embassy in Israel to the Department of State

   Tel Aviv, June 5, 1967, 1205Z.

   Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1967-69, POL 27 ARAB-ISR. Secret; Flash; Nodis. Received at 8:44 a.m. Walt Rostow sent a copy to the President at 10:40 a.m. with a brief memorandum stating that Eshkol "builds his case mainly on the general environment, but refers to bombardment of three Israel towns as the trigger." (Johnson Library, National Security File, NSC Histories, Middle East Crisis, Vol. III) At 11:10 a.m. Rostow sent Johnson telegram 3937 from Tel Aviv, June 5, that reported a meeting among General Amit, Barbour, and Special Counsel to the President Harry C. McPherson, Jr. Rostow's brief covering memorandum commented that Amit's argument was consistent with Eshkol's: that there had been artillery fire on three Israeli villages and UAR air incursions, and then the Israelis had "punched all the buttons." Rostow added, "At least that's his story." (Ibid.) For McPherson's report of his visit to Israel, see Document 263.

   3935. 1. Following message from Prime Minister to the President has just been handed to me for delivery:

   “Dear Mr. President: After weeks in which our peril has grown day by day, we are now engaged in repelling the aggression which Nasser has been building up against us. Israel’s existence and integrity have been endangered. The provocative troop concentrations in Sinai, now amounting to five infantry and two armored divisions: the placing of more that 900 tanks against our southern frontier; the massing of 400 tanks opposite Elath with the object of sundering the southern Negev from Israel; the illegal blockade in the Straits of Tiran; the insolent defiance of the international and maritime community; the policy of strangling encirclement of which the first stage was the intimidation of Jordan and the most recent–the placing there of Iraqi troops and Egyptian commando regiments, the imminent introduction of MIG 21 aircraft under Iraqi command in Mafraq; Nasser’s announcement of ‘total war against Israel’ and of his basic aim to annihilate Israel; the order of the day by the Egyptian Commander General Murtagi calling on his troops in Sinai to wage a war of destruction against Israel; the acts of sabotage and terrorism from Syria and Gaza; the recent air encroachments culminating in this morning’s engagements and the bombardment by Egypt of Kisufim, Nahal Oz and Tsur Maon in Israel territory–all of this amounts to an extraordinary catalogue of aggression, abhorred and condemned by world opinion and in your great country and amongst all peace loving nations.

   As you know, Mr. President, nothing effective had been done or attempted by the UN against a ruthless design to destroy the state of Israel which embodies the memories, sacrifices and hopes of an ancient people, which in this generation lost 6 million of its people brutally murdered in a tragedy without parallel in history.

   Mr. President, I am grateful for the friendship expressed in your letters; for your appreciation of our steadfastness and calm; for your policy of protecting the territorial integrity of Israel and other nations; for your undertaking to provide effective American support to preserve the peace and freedom of Israel and the Middle East; and for your undertaking to pursue vigorous measures to keep the Straits of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba open as an international waterway to ships of all nations.

   These are impressive commitments. Your letter mentions the obstacles which have so far made action difficult. We rely on the courage and determination of our soldiers and citizens. Indeed maximum self-reliance is the central aim of our national revival. My information is that our defense is reaping success. But our trials are not over and we are confident that our small nation can count on the fealty and resolution of its greatest friend.

   We seek nothing but peaceful life within our territory, and the exercise of our legitimate maritime rights.

   I hope that everything will be done by the United States to prevent the Soviet Union from exploiting and enlarging the conflict. The hour of danger can also be an hour of opportunity. It is possible to create conditions favorable to the promotion of peace and the strengthening of forces of freedom in the area.

   At this critical moment I should welcome the closest consultation between our governments at all levels.

   Israel appeals, Mr. President, to your friendship, your fidelity and your leadership.”

   Ambassador Barbour

   June 3, 1967: President Lyndon Johnson’s Letter to Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol  

   • 2011 – The Jordan Valley: No Ground to Stand On

   "But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

   • 

     Oui on May 20, 2011 at 2:51 pm

     .

     Lyndon Johnson and Israel:
     The Secret Presidential Recordings [pdf]

     Jerusalem was also critical in the administration’s effort to craft a diplomatic solution that would not further alienate key oil suppliers in the Gulf. A few days after fighting ended, Rostow informed the President that Saudi King Faisal had reiterated “his desire to continue your close personal relationship”–but that the King expected “us to be even-handed in picking up the pieces of the Mid-East war. He has no doubt that the Israelis committed aggression and asks you to help make sure that they don’t gain territorially.” The National Security Advisor reported receiving “strong pressures we are getting from our Arab friends to say that our support for the territorial integrity of all the states in the area means pulling the Israelis back behind the 1949 Armistice lines and not forcing a peace settlement.”

     Johnson confidante Bob Anderson, meanwhile, reported back that the oil companies believed that “the future of Jerusalem may be the critical and truly explosive problem in the Middle East. Arabs regard the Syrian Heights as a Syrian problem; the West Bank as a Jordanian problem; Gaza as an Egyptian problem; but the Old City of Jerusalem is capable of stirring the mobs in the streets to the point where the fate of our most moderate friends in the Middle East will be in jeopardy and the basis laid for a later holy war.”  

     "But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."