Obama emerged in Cairo as a true friend of Israel
- Details
- Written by Gideon Levy Gideon Levy
- Published: 05 June 2009 05 June 2009
- Hits: 4165 4165
Neither Tel Aviv nor Ramallah held their breaths Thursday as the American president gave a speech in Cairo; the traffic in both crowded cities continued normally. Tel Aviv was indifferent, Ramallah sunk in desperation: Both cities have already had their fill of nice, historic speeches.
Nonetheless, no one can ignore the speech given by Barack Obama: The mountain birthed a mountain. Obama remained Obama. Only the Israeli analysts tried to diminish the speech's importance ("not terrible"), to spread fear ("he mentioned the Holocaust and the Nakba in a single breath"), or were insulted on our behalf ("he did not mention our right to the land as promised in the Bible"). All these were redundant and unnecessary. Obama emerged Thursday as a true friend of Israel.
The prime minister ordered the ministers to say nothing, but of course they could not help but invade the studios. Uzi Landau said that a Palestinian state is tantamount to an "Iranian state." Isaac Herzog appeared even more ridiculous when he said that the problem with the settlements is one of "public relations." In essence, both were busy with the same problem: How can we manage to pull the new America's leg as well? Israeli politicians have never before appeared as pathetic, as small as they did Thursday, compared to the bearer of promise in Cairo.
Advertisement
Indeed, there was promise in Cairo, of the dawn of a new age. A U.S. president talking about negotiations with Iran without preconditions or tacit threats, even willing to accept Iran having civilian nuclear capability; a president who talked about Hamas as a legitimate organization that represents part of Palestinian society, but that needs to relinquish violence; who spoke with empathy about Palestinian suffering; who spoke, believe it or not, about security not only for Israelis but also for Palestinians; who said that all the settlements are illegal; who called for nuclear disarmament of the entire region. All are sensational messages, headlines whose significance cannot be exaggerated, even if there are those who desperately tried to argue yesterday that "there was nothing new in his speech."
Not enough? Obama also spoke in Cairo (!) against denying the Holocaust, about the rights of women and Copts, and on the need for democracy tailored to each society's culture.
This is the thinking of a great leader, who walked with wisdom and sensitivity between the Holocaust and the Nakba, between Israelis and Palestinians, between Americans and Arabs, between Christians, Jews and Muslims. How easy it is to imagine his predecessor, George Bush the Terrible, in the same position: a complete opposite.
Our right-wingers were disappointed that he did not approve at least of Gush Etzion, and the peace lovers were disappointed that he did not offer a timetable. But a speech is just that, and the time for carrying things out is still to come.
But why waste words? Israeli news shows still opened Thursday with the Dudu Topaz story; that is what really interests Israelis. Never mind Obama; Israel has its own concerns.
URGENT ACTION: House demolition/Forced Eviction/ Access to Water , Over 280 Residents impacted
- Details
- Written by Amnesty International Amnesty International
- Published: 05 June 2009 05 June 2009
- Hits: 4919 4919
Dear Friends,
Please find below our latest Urgent Action. Thank you for forwarding to all relevant activists.
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
URGENT ACTION
PUBLIC AI Index: MDE 15/020/2009
05 June 2009
UA 139/09 House demolition/Forced Eviction/ Access to Water
ISRAEL/ Over 280 residents of Ras al-Ahmar and Hadidiya villages
OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES (OPT)
On 4 June, the Israeli army destroyed the homes of 18 Palestinian families (more than 130 people, many of them children) and their animal pens in the hamlet of Ras al-Ahmar, in the Jordan Valley area of the West Bank in the OPT. The Israeli army confiscated the water storage tank that the villagers rely on as well as the tractor and trailer that they use to bring water to the village. The villagers are now without shelter or source of water during a season of high temperatures.
There is a water-well close to the village which only Israeli settlers are allowed to use. The villagers rely on their tractor and trailer to be able to bring water from various sources, up to 20km from the village, for their survival.
Five other families in the nearby hamlet of Hadidiya are under threat of immediate eviction and at least 12 other families are fighting eviction and demolition orders before an Israeli military court, with little chance of success. In total more than 150 people, most of them children, risk losing their home and being evicted from the area.
Some of these families have had their homes destroyed multiple times in recent years and all of them face the prospect of further displacement because the Israeli army has been increasing its decades-old efforts to force local Palestinian communities out of large areas of the Jordan Valley, most of which it has designated as a “closed military area”. It has denied them access to water, further restricted their movements and put their livelihoods at risk by confiscating their animals. After each previous demolition the families have rebuilt their homes in either the same place or nearby but they are now finding it increasingly difficult to survive in the area.
Israelis Say Bush Officials Agreed to Limited Settlement Growth
- Details
- Written by ETHAN BRONNER, NY Times ETHAN BRONNER, NY Times
- Published: 03 June 2009 03 June 2009
- Hits: 4627 4627
The complaint was the latest in a growing rift between the Obama administration and the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over how to move forward to achieve Middle East peace. Mr. Obama was in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday and due to address the Muslim world from Cairo on Thursday.
The Israeli officials said that repeated and ongoing discussions with Bush officials starting in late 2002 gave unambiguous permission to build within the boundaries of certain settlement blocs as long as no new land was expropriated, no special economic incentives were offered to move to settlements and no new settlements were built. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity about an issue of such controversy between the two governments.
When Israel signed onto the so-called roadmap for a two-state solution in 2003, which says its government “freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements),” the officials said, it was after a detailed discussion with Bush officials that laid out those explicit limits.
“Not everything is written down,” said one of the officials.
Read more: Israelis Say Bush Officials Agreed to Limited Settlement Growth
Obama's "interference" in Israeli politics
- Details
- Written by Glenn Greenwald Glenn Greenwald
- Published: 03 June 2009 03 June 2009
- Hits: 4599 4599
Smith quotes several Israel-protective Democrats warning that Obama is either close to broaching -- or has already broached -- what one of them, Rep. Anthony Weiner, calls the "line between articulating U.S. policy and seeming to be pressuring a democracy on what are their domestic policies." Other than a handful of Democrats on civil liberties issues, there has been almost no public criticism of Obama from Congressional Democrats; all it took was some light pressure exerted on Israel for that to happen.
There are several points highlighted by these growing complaints about Obama's actions:
(1) This first point applies equally to those complaining that the Obama administration is unduly "interfering" in private companies seeking government bailouts as it does to those complaining of Obama’s "interference" with Israeli settlement policies. A country, a company or an individual has every right to remain free of "interference" from others as long as they remain independent of the party seeking to "interfere." But if one chooses instead to become dependent on someone else or seeks help and aid from them, then complying with the demands of those providing the aid is an inevitable price that must be paid – and justifiably so.
This is a basic lesson which most people learn in adolescence or young adulthood. Teenagers who tell their parents that they are not compelled to comply with parental dictates are typically met with the response that this is so only if they want nothing from their parents, but as long as they seek financial support, then the parents have the right to demand certain actions in return.
Similarly, businesses are free to make whatever decisions they want about how they are to be run -- as long as they remain independent. But if they go to a bank – or the federal government -- and plead for a loan, then the lender is perfectly justified in imposing all sorts of conditions ("we’ll lend to you only if you spend more responsibly, refrain from paying your executives more than X, not use the funds for Y," etc.). If banks and other companies want to be free of what conservatives and libertarians complain is undue influence from the federal government, then they shouldn’t seek loans and bailouts from the federal government.
Identically, if Israel wants to be free of what it and some of its U.S. supporters call "interference" from the Obama administration, that’s very easy to achieve: Israel can stop asking for tens of billions of dollars of American taxpayer money, huge amounts of military and weapons supplies for its various wars, and unyielding American diplomatic protection at the U.N. But as long as Israel remains dependent on the U.S. in countless ways, then Obama not only has the right -- but he has the obligation -- to demand that Israel cease activities which harm U.S. interests.
Continuing settlement expansions that the entire world recognizes as illegal – what Time’s Joe Klein accurately calls "taking territory that the rest of the world, without exception, considers Palestinian" -- clearly harms U.S. interests in all sorts of ways, as Obama himself has concluded. He would be abdicating one of his primary responsibilities in foreign policy -- maximizing U.S. national security rather than those of other countries -- if he failed to demand that Israel cease this activity and if he failed to use U.S. leverage to compel compliance with those demands.
(2) While hypocrisy and double standards are far too common in our political discourse to highlight every time they appear, the notion being pushed by Likudniks in Israel and the U.S. -- that it is wrong for one country to "interfere" in the politics of another democracy -- is far too ironic to ignore. Does anyone remember what the U.S. did -- and continues to do -- in order to punish the Palestinians for electing the wrong party (in elections that we demanded) and to bring down their democratically elected government:
Under new guidelines issued April 12 by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control, U.S. citizens and organizations must cease all transactions with the Palestinian government, its ministries and institutions operating under their control.
The Treasury directive noted that Hamas is classified as a terrorist entity, and it ordered U.S. citizens to conclude all contacts with the Palestinian Authority by Friday, unless specifically permitted to continue.
"U.S. persons are prohibited from engaging in transactions with the Palestinian Authority unless authorized, and may not transfer, pay, withdraw, export or otherwise deal in any assets in which the Palestinian Authority has an interest unless authorized," the document said.
The order does not apply to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, of the Fatah party, or non-Hamas members of the Palestinian Legislative Council.
Today’s article from The Jerusalem Post notes that Kadima officials are worried that a perception by Israelis of undue interference from Obama -- whether the perception is justified or not -- will strengthen Netanyahu’s government due to resentment by Israeli voters. We might want to remember that lesson when it comes to Palestinians specifically and other countries generally: citizens in other countries tend not to like it when we try to dictate to them who should govern them and who shouldn't, and the attempt often emboldens support for the very people we oppose.
That said, American aid to all countries -- including Israel -- is accompanied by an obligation on the part of American officials to ensure that the aid recipients aren't acting contrary to U.S. interests. Independent, for those who purport to care about Israeli interests: just as few things helped Israeli security more than Jimmy Carter’s Camp David peace treaty with Egypt, does anyone actually doubt that few things would advance Israeli interests more than a cessation of settlement activity and a peace agreement with the Palestinians?
(3) How serious Obama is about applying real pressure to Israel remains to be seen, but it’s hard to deny that these initial steps are encouraging. When is the last time there were public rifts of this sort between the American and Israeli governments? Obviously, Israelis are taking Obama’s pressure quite seriously, as are many of his Israel-centric supporters in the U.S. Those who want Obama to continue to depart from the Bush administration’s blind support for Israeli actions should continue to make themselves heard, since those who desire a continuation of that blind Israeli support certainly intend to. As Politico’s Smith reported:
The pro-Israel lobby AIPAC last week got the signatures of 329 members of Congress, including key figures in both parties, on a letter calling on the administration to work "closely and privately" with Israel — in contrast to the current public pressure.
As Andrew Sullivan said about this: “What Obama faces in the Middle East, if he is to move the peace process forward, is a very powerful force against him. It's called AIPAC."
Even the mildest pressure on Israel by Obama will be met with extreme political attacks – as Bush 41 and Jim Baker learned many years ago when they were bowled over by bipartisan outrage at their attempt merely to condition American loan guarantees to Israel on a cessation of settlement growth. Read this 1991 New York Times article by then-reporter Tom Friedman to see how the same dance has been going on for decades regardless of which party is in control:
A bitter political fight took shape today in Washington as Israel and some of its Congressional supporters ignored President Bush's appeal to delay a request for $10 billion in loan guarantees to help settle Soviet Jews and made clear that they would push for quick Congressional approval. . . . In addition, the Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and a broad coalition of Jewish organizations in the United States, made clear that they too would fight the President on the issue.
AIPAC is now even issuing veiled threats of a primary challenge to the superb freshman Rep. Donna Edwards for alleged insufficient devotion to Israel.
Whatever Obama’s ultimate intentions are, the early change in tenor, the recent actions of the last several weeks, and his reliance on George Mitchell (praised by Jimmy Carter, J Street and even Noam Chomsky) as his envoy all signal that he is serious at least about making the public case that Israeli settlement expansions are wrong and counter-productive. If he is to do more of that, he will need political support at least as vigorous and vocal as the opposition already emerging from the bipartisan AIPAC faction that has dictated U.S. actions in this area for decades.
REMARKS BY PRESIDENT OBAMA AND PRESIDENT ABBAS
- Details
- Written by PRESIDENT OBAMA AND PRESIDENT ABBAS PRESIDENT OBAMA AND PRESIDENT ABBAS
- Published: 29 May 2009 29 May 2009
- Hits: 4007 4007
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the
Press
Secretary
______________________________________________________________
For
Immediate
Release
May 28, 2009
REMARKS BY PRESIDENT OBAMA
AND PRESIDENT ABBAS OF
THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY
IN PRESS AVAILABILITY
Oval
Office
5:15 P.M. EDT
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Hello, everybody. Well,
it is a great pleasure to welcome President Abbas to the Oval Office. We
had -- we just completed an extensive conversation, both privately as well as
with our delegations, about how we can advance peace in the Middle East and how
we can reaffirm some core principles that I think can result in Palestinians and
Israelis living side by side in peace and security.
As I've said before,
I've been a strong believer in a two-state solution that would provide the
Israelis and Palestinians the peace and security that they need. I am very
appreciative that President Abbas shares that view. And when Prime
Minister Netanyahu was here last week I reiterated to him that the framework
that's been provided by the road map is one that can advance the interests of
Israel, can advance the interests of the Palestinian people, and can also
advance the interests of the United States.
We are a stalwart ally of
Israel and it is in our interests to assure that Israel is safe and
secure. It is our belief that the best way to achieve that is to create
the conditions on the ground and set the stage for a Palestinian state as
well. And so what I told Prime Minister Netanyahu was is that each party
has obligations under the road map. On the Israeli side those obligations
include stopping settlements. They include making sure that there is a
viable potential Palestinian state. On the Palestinian side it's going to
be important and necessary to continue to take the security steps on the West
Bank that President Abbas has already begun to take, working with General
Dayton. We've seen great progress in terms of security in the West
Bank. Those security steps need to continue because Israel has to have
some confidence that security in the West Bank is in place in order for us to
advance this process.
And I also mentioned to President Abbas in a frank
exchange that it was very important to continue to make progress in reducing the
incitement and anti-Israel sentiments that are sometimes expressed in schools
and mosques and in the public square, because all those things are impediments
to peace.
The final point that I made was the importance of all countries
internationally, but particularly the Arab states, to be supportive of a
two-state solution. And we discussed how important it is that the Arab
states, building off of some of the recognition of the possibilities of the
two-state solution that are contained in the Arab Peace Initiative continue to
provide economic support, as well as political support, to President Abbas's
efforts as he moves the Palestinian Authority forward, as he continues to
initiate the reforms that have taken place, and as he hopefully is going to be
able to enter into constructive talks with the Israelis.
So, again, I
want to thank President Abbas for his visit and a very constructive
conversation. I am confident that we can move this process forward if all
the parties are willing to take on the responsibilities and meet the obligations
that they've already committed to, and if they keep in mind not just the
short-term tactical issues that are involved, but the long-term strategic
interests of both the Israelis and the Palestinians to live side by side in
peace and security.
So, thank you again, Mr. President.
PRESIDENT
ABBAS: (As translated) Thank you very much, Mr. President, for
receiving us here at the White House. We came here to tell you first of
all that we congratulate you for the confidence that was expressed by the
American people in electing you President of the United States. And we
wish you all success in your mission.
Mr. President, you referred to the
international commitment as we stipulated in the road map. I would like to
take this opportunity to reaffirm to you that we are fully committed to all of
our obligations under the road map, from A to Z. And we believe, like you,
Mr. President, that carrying out the obligations of all parties under the road
map will be the only way to achieve the durable, comprehensive, and just peace
that we need and desire in the Middle East.
Mr. President, I believe that
the entire Arab world and the Islamic world, they are all committed to
peace. We've seen that through the Arab League Peace Initiative that
simply talks about land for peace as a principle. I believe that if the
Israelis would withdraw from all occupied Palestinian, Syrian, and Lebanese
land, the Arab world will be ready to have normal relationships with the state
of Israel.
On our part, we are carrying our security and responsibility
in the West Bank, and have law and order in that areas under our control because
we believe that it is in our interest to have security. It's in the
interest of stability in the region. And here I would like to pay tribute
and thank you to General Dayton and all those who work with him in helping and
supporting and training our security organizations to carry out their duties and
responsibilities.
Mr. President, I believe that time is of the
essence. We should capitalize on every minute and every hour in order to
move the peace process forward, in order to cement this process, in order to
achieve the agreement that would lead to peace.
Thank you very
much.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. We got time for a couple of
questions. Julianna.
Q Thank you, Mr.
President. I'm going to ask you a question about your trip next week to
Riyadh. Reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil is a cornerstone of your
energy policy. And when you meet with Riyadh's King Abdullah next week,
what message will you take to him about U.S. energy policy, oil prices, output
quotes, and the like?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, you know, Saudi Arabia
has been an important strategic partner in providing us with our critical energy
needs. We appreciate that. It's a commercial relationship as well as
a strategic relationship.
And I don't think that it's in Saudi Arabia's
interests or our interests to have a situation in which our economy is
dependent, or better yet, is disrupted constantly by huge spikes in energy
prices. And it's in nobody's interest, internationally, for us to continue
to be so heavily dependent on fossil fuels that we continue to create the
greenhouse gases that threaten the planet.
So in those discussions I'll
be very honest with King Abdullah, with whom I've developed a good relationship,
indicating to him that we're not going to be eliminating our need for oil
imports in the immediate future; that's not our goal. What our goal has to
be is to advance the clean energy solutions in this country that can strengthen
our economy, put people back to work, diversify our energy sources.
And,
you know, interestingly enough, you're seeing the Saudis make significant
investments both in their own country and outside of their country in clean
energy, as well, because I think they recognize that we've got finite -- we have
a finite supply of oil. There are going to be a whole host of countries
like China and India that have huge populations, need to develop
rapidly.
If everybody is dependent solely on oil as opposed to energy
sources like wind and solar, if we are not able to figure out ways to sequester
carbon and that would allow us to use coal in a non-polluting way, if we don't
diversify our energy sources, then all of us are going to be in trouble.
And so I don't think that will be a difficult conversation to
have.
Q (Question asked in Arabic.) Mr.
President, 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?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: We'll, I think it's important not to
assume the worst, but to assume the best. And in my conversations with
Prime Minister Netanyahu I was very clear about the need to stop the
settlements; to make sure that we are stopping the building of outposts; to work
with the Palestinian Authority in order to alleviate some of the pressures that
the Palestinian people are under in terms of travel and commerce, so that we can
initiate some of the economic development plans that Prime Minister Netanyahu
himself has said are so important on the ground.
And that conversation
only took place last week. I think that we don't have a moment to lose,
but I also don't make decisions based on just the conversation that we had last
week because obviously Prime Minister Netanyahu has to work through these issues
in his own government, in his own coalition, just as President Abbas has a whole
host of issues that he has to deal with.
But I'm confident that if Israel
looks long term -- looks at its long-term strategic interests, that it will
recognize that a two-state solution is in the interests of the Israeli people as
well as the Palestinians. And certainly that's how the United States views
our long-term strategic interests -- a situation in which the Palestinians can
prosper, they can start businesses, they can educate their children, they can
send them to college, they can prosper economically. That kind of
situation is good for Israel's security. And I am confident that the
majority of the Israeli people would see that as well.
Now, obviously the
Israelis have good reason to be concerned about security, and that's why it's
important that we continue to make progress on the security issues that so often
end up disrupting peace talks between the two
parties.
Q (Previous question translated.)
President Abbas, you've met with President Obama, and perhaps you shared some of
your ideas about permanent status resolution. What was in these ideas, and
what kind of appropriate mechanism that you have discussed to realize them and
carry them out?
PRESIDENT ABBAS: We have shared some ideas with the
President, but all of them basically are embodied in the road map and the Arab
League Initiative, without any change, without any
modification.
Regarding the mechanism to carry it out, of course, there
is a mechanism through the Quartet as well as the follow-up committee from the
Arab nations. Such a proposal will need to be looked at, studied; then
we'll see where to go from here.
Q Mr. President, do
you plan to unveil any part or all of your proposal for Mideast peace when
you're speaking in Cairo next week, or is it some other message you intend to
deliver?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I want to use the occasion to deliver a
broader message about how the United States can change for the better its
relationship with the Muslim world. That will require, I think, a
recognition on both the part of the United States as well as many majority
Muslim countries about each other, a better sense of understanding, and I think
possibilities to achieve common ground.
I want to emphasize the
importance of Muslim Americans in the United States and the tremendous
contributions they make, something that I think oftentimes is missed in some of
these discussions. But certainly the issue of Middle East peace is
something that is going to need to be addressed. It is a critical factor
in the minds of many Arabs in countries throughout the region and beyond the
region. And I think that it would be inappropriate for me not to discuss
those.
I'm not going to give you a preview right now, but it's something
that we'll certainly discuss.
One thing that I didn’t mention earlier
that I want to say I very much appreciate is that President Abbas I think has
been under enormous pressure to bring about some sort of unity government and to
negotiate with Hamas. And I am very impressed and appreciative of
President Abbas's willingness to steadfastly insist that any unity government
would have to recognize the principles that have been laid by the
Quartet.
In the absence of a recognition of Israel and a commitment to
peace, and a commitment to previous agreements that have already been made, it
would be very hard to see any possibility of peace over the long term. And
so I want to publicly commend President Abbas for taking that position because I
think it's a position that's in the interest of the Palestinian people, in the
interests of peace in the region, and it's something that the United States very
much agrees with.
Q (Asked in Arabic.) Mr.
President, if I may, President Bush hoped that you would have a Palestinian
state by the time he leaves office. It didn't happen. Do you have a
time frame when this Palestinian state is going to happen? Are you talking
about a timetable for negotiation?
(Previous question translated.)
The first question to President Abbas: Mr. President, did you receive any
kind of clear-cut commitments from President Obama, or any pledges that would
help you to strengthen your hands when you are dealing with the Palestinian
public and opposition among Palestinians that this peace process activities
could be viable and could be actually productive?
And the second question
was, did President Obama ask you to have a meeting with Prime Minister
Netanyahu?
PRESIDENT ABBAS: President Obama basically talked and
reaffirmed the international commitments that we all agreed to, and they are all
embodied in the road map. He talked about the necessity to have two
states, he talked about the importance of stopping settlement activities, and he
also talked about the importance of achieving peace through negotiating all
permanent status issues.
Obviously without discussing and negotiating
permanent status issues there will be no progress. We know that all the
six issues of permanent status were discussed with the previous Israeli Prime
Minister, Mr. Olmert, and what is needed right now is to resume the discussions
with the current Israeli government.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: And in terms
of a timetable, I have not put forward a specific timetable. But let me
just point out, when I was campaigning for this office I said that one of the
mistakes I would not make is to wait until the end of my first term, or the end
of my second term, before we moved on this issue aggressively. And we've
been true to that commitment.
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 drift**, 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. And I will do
everything I can, and my administration will do everything I can -- my special
envoy, George Mitchell, is working as diligently as he can, as is my entire
national security team, to make sure that we jumpstart this process and get it
moving again.
All right.
END
5:39 P.M.
EDT