Obama Netanyahu meeting

So, these guys met again yesterday. Why do we agree to meet and grovel to a war criminal?? I don't know. That's American politics. I won't quote Churchill with the riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, but ...  :)

A link for the meeting...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17260083

I don't know if it was supposed to be a general meeting on all issues, but if it was, Netanyahu succeeded in steering the conversation away from Palestinians to focus on Iran. Very convenient, given how someone involved in ethnic cleansing may not be in a strong position to demand we make good on our pledge to always support Israel - they are on the verge of "annihilation". When is the existential threat lie going to go the way of the boy who cried wolf? How many times will it take? There has not been an existential threat against Jews since Hitler, yet Israel cries wolf all the time- Palestinians Iraq, Iran, etc. Very interesting it is that Israel always berates us for not being "Johnny on the spot" whenever it perceives an "existential threat" (we actually are, but since we aren't pre-emptively striking everyone who talks dirty and we occasionally express concern about illegal settlements, they perceive it differently) while being involved in Judaizing neighborhoods, fixing visa laws such that Palestinians can't come back home, refusing to allow refugees back since 1948, and built their state on ethnic cleansing campaigns that involved blowing up innocent peoples houses and killing women and children intentionally to scare others away.

Aside from ignoring Israel's war crimes and treating them like a nation that deserves normal relations and our blind and full support, Obama did a good job repeating his desire for diplomacy and establishing our position that the time for war has not yet come. Netanyahu was ready for war a long time ago. They are always ready for war. They are a military society. I don't even know if they have any diplomats or know what that is.

I think it was wrong not to talk about the Palestinians because the Iran "problem" ties into it. I mean, if Israel had let refugees back after 1948 and all of the conflicts and was a democracy for it's citizens and not just for Jews, Iran would feel less like attacking a state in which Arabs were participating. And perhaps the Arabs would help moderate Israel's rhetoric and positions and would be able to conduct diplomacy with Iran instead of just threatening war all the time. Israel as it is today is really no better or more rational than Iran. They kind of mirror each other in a kind of weird way. They both threaten war all the time and support terrorism in indirect ways and tolerate extremism in government. The only difference is we accept Israel as a normal, Western nation and see Iran for what it is.

Israel as a state for Jews rather than ALL of its citizens is kind of a common denominator for conflict in the Middle East. They are either fighting with another country, exchanging heated rhetoric, or selling arms and info to both sides to keep other parties fighting. It all boils down to "defending" (and I use the term very loosely as they do with demographics) a majority Jewish state in a predominantly Arab area on a land they ethnically cleansed to create. Israel uses the term defense interchangeably for life and the Jewish majority it works hard to keep by illegal and lethal means, which makes some of their cries of annihilation a bit ridiculous, sadly, because that kind of thing shouldn't be spoken of so lightly.

There has always been a discrepancy between the facts and what Israel tells the public to rile them up. Even before 1948, in public, leaders spoke of annihilation and death and destruction and second Holocaust; in private meetings and military planning, they knew they had the advantage militarily and politically. Things have not changed one bit. They are the world's 4th largest military power and yet continually say they are under an existential threat, people want to push them into the sea, and all manner of doomsday scenarios. Particularly disgusting, though, is not just that discrepancy in facts, but that they are actually at the same time engaged in threatening others' existence and expunging them from the history of the region

(For more on Israel's intent and plans in and around the 1900s, read Ilan Pappe, Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.)

While I know that Obama is obligated to state the obvious (we support Israel- if you write to Congress on any Middle East issue, you will clearly learn that, if nothing else) and grovel and reassure Israel that we have their back even amid accusations by the right, AIPAC, and Israel that America under Obama isn't supporting Israel the way they want. How they can make such demands coming from a state built on ethnic cleansing and still engaging in illegal and immoral acts absolutely defies logic. I realize presidents have to do that to get elected, but why don't politicians get together and stand up to Israel in a effort to do right by our own citizens? That way, no one would be standing out on a limb election-wise and the American people would get money for our health care and education rather than supporting ethnic cleansing and apartheid overseas. It's a win-win.

Other nations with human rights issues and UN violations, we maintain a workable but frosty relationship with. In the case of Israel, they accuse us of not supporting them, and we seemingly have no choice but to promise greater love and support despite illegal activity (both the acts we acknowledge and oppose and those we tend to ignore...). What is wrong with us? Why can't we see how backwards this is??

The ONLY thing under existential threat is possibly the myths that Israel was ever under existential threat of a second Holocaust, that it didn't actually make the desert bloom, that it didn't expel, kill and terrorize most Palestinians to seize a state for Jews only, that it didn't engage in ethnic cleansing or doesn't today, etc as people gradually wake up and read for themselves about history and the issue instead of trusting famous pastors and politicians to draw conclusions and think for them.

Palestinians Reject Israeli Offer on Settlement Freeze

Palestinians Reject Israeli Offer on Settlement Freeze
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11519969

Right on! I hope they don't fold on this.

On some issues, I'm a bit conflicted, like armed resistance vs non-violent resistance. I mean, I do support non-violence, but you have to have boatloads of popular support and even more international support to make this go anywhere. And what about the fact that Israel is allowed self-defense without question in all of its forms (arresting and holding children and innocents, using human shields, building walls on other peoples' land, building and protecting settlements on others' land, making people perform at checkpoints, etc), but you are not allowed to support self-defense (called armed resistance or terrorism, not self-defense) for Palestinians. I think non-violence can work, but there are obvious problems and inconsistencies that aren't really ever allowed into the conversation. Unless you want to be considered a terrorist, which since I've said this piece, you now think I am.

Back to the issue at hand. I'm not conflicted on this. No one should recognize Israel as Jewish until there is an independent Palestine (an actual one, not Netanyahu's "vision"). This kind of thing rules out a one secular state solution, which would be the best option (IMO) for all. Maybe not the most palatable at first, but has the best chance of providing equal rights for all- settlements would be irrelevant, Jews and Palestinians could enjoy right of return, everyone could go to all holy sites, etc.

The offer for Israel made this week is classic " (Barak's) generous offer" material. Israel makes a grand statement that it will now comply with international law- for 3 months- except in some areas- and if, most importantly, Palestinians recognize Israel as Jewish. Since it is becoming more well known that Palesinians do in fact recognize Israel and don't in fact want to push it into the sea, as the myth goes, Israel has upped the ante- now, recognize it as Jewish. Now this presents some problems. What happens to you and your rights given this recognition, the loyalty law, and the fact that there is no constitution to guarantee your rights (which Israel claims to give to all equally, but facts on the ground show otherwise)? If you are Palestinian Israeli, will you be "encouraged" to move from your home in some way. What protections are there?

Settlement freeze for 3 months in return for giving up your rights and maybe agreeing to be ethnically cleansed. Doesn't seem very generous to me. For recognizing a Jewish state, they should at the very least get an independent state, not a piddly partial temporary settlement freeze- but that still leaves the ominous implications for non-Jews...

Israeli Palestinian peace process- one idea and Congress' non-starter

The Impending Collapse of Israel in Palestine

http://mwcnews.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5563&Itemid=126

Don't sign anything; wait for Israel to collapse.

I don't know that I agree, but it is certainly a different take on this issue. I agree in that at least then they'd be on more equal footing and more likely to come to a viable agreement...

The CIA has recently given Israel 20 years before this would happen, if the article’s claim is correct. They’ve all wasted 22 already. Can they wait out another two decades?

Interesting article, though. Not that the US would let Israel collapse without draining our resources first...so this is not really a real option anyway.

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

And on that note, we have the most recent unhelpful (and uninformed) move by Congress on the Israeli-Palestinian issue:

http://peacenow.org/entries/feinstein_letter

Pro-peace Senate letter ( I take issue with this title :) )

It opens like this:

“As steadfast supporters of Israel and the U.S.-Israeli relationship, we are writing to express our support for the start of proximity talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority on ending the Israeli-Palestinian dispute with the active participation of U.S. Special Envoy George Mitchell.”

Why must everything start this way?? Members of Congress must pledge or demonstrate their state’s undying love and ties to Israel before they can say anything about the region. It must be in the orientation proceedings. It never fails. They must reaffirm Israel’s right to self-defense before saying anything about Palestinians rights to even things like food and water. Is this really where our priorities should be?

The first problematic piece: “It will solidify Israel's identity as a Jewish, democratic state by giving it safe and secure borders.”

Here, we fall right in line with Netanyahu’s and other right wingers’ demands and prejudge or rule out a path to peace. Why should we ignore the one secular democratic state idea? This is the best chance for all to have access to holy sites, freedom and equality. I am sympathetic to the idea of a Jewish homeland as the UN set forth originally. It was, however, never intended for Jews to set up an exclusive state, probably for good reason. In order to keep that majority in this region, there will have to be legalized ethnic cleansing of some sort(s). I am all for having a provision or guarantee in any one state agreement that makes sure that when either Jews or Palestinians are the minority, that they are protected, represented, given rights and guaranteed a certain minimum of land or something like this. Guaranteeing Israel’s Jewish character is as good as campaigning for ethnic cleansing. Or it will be soon.

Attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah are mentioned as obstacles in this letter, but attacks are often in areas not controlled by the PA; they are Israeli controlled. This is often blamed on Abbas, though. Interestingly, Netanyahu's foot dragging isn't alluded to, nor the fact that he chose to embrace such people like Lieberman who are in fact settlers (part of the problem) and terrorists who make public statements that undermine peace and call into question Israel's desire for peace and value placed on human life and rights.

This probably sums up the Congressional mood, bias, and distance from the facts the best:

“We applaud Prime Minister Netanyahu for committing to direct talks and we urge you to press President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to reciprocate. “

It makes no sense, but this is the way the Israeli Palestinian conflict is always depicted in the US and Israel. Israel is the one looking for a partner, always stretching out the hand of peace, always has the men of peace; Palestinians are refusing generous offers, returning good faith with terrorism, always the last ones to the table.

This time it was different. Palestinians have a very pro-US moderate in Abbas, they have been working on institutions of government- as best one can under occupation, they have been ready to come to the table since Obama was elected, if not before. Netanyahu, on the other hand, only recently conceded to the two state solution, if you can call his version (permanent occupation) a real solution. He also chose some very strange allies in Lieberman and others from that end of the spectrum if he is truly looking for peace. They are settlers and terrorists; part of the problem.

If they are part of this, then why not let Hamas in and legitimize them? Israel in many cases is doing what Hamas does to innocent people. The only difference is, Israel’s operations are on a large scale, they are UN members, they have a state, they call it security, and it is anti-Semitic to criticize them. None of these things actually make what they do any more right than Hamas, but I guess they are reasons we can’t call them on it and make them as accountable as Hamas.

For related posts on Avigdor Lieberman and Benjamin Netanyahu, see the right side key words...

Netanyahu wants Pollard in exchange for settlement freeze??

What?

I'll say it again. WHAT???

Settlements were a topic in the peace talks. They were considered a precondition at one point. Now, Netanyahu wants to free a spy who was jailed by the US for spying on us on a grand scale before he will halt illegal settlement building. For a few more months. Then who knows what he'll demand.

In a universe where truth and justice were important, the deal would be: Israel, stop building settlements (and other illegal activity) and remove all Israelis from Occupied Territory or lose all financial benefits from us. In the Middle East, it's Israel's game, not one involving truth or justice- quite the opposite. They make the rules. They are above the rules and laws.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/20/israel-spy-release-settlement-freeze


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/world/middleeast/21israel.html?_r=1


Guess he doesn't care about Shalit anymore. Crazy. Sometimes I don't know whether an authoritarian regime like Iran is talking or Netanyahu when I hear some of the things he comes up with. This has got to be one of the most absurd stall tactics I've seen yet.

I mean, why does Netanyahu need a concession from us?? I thought we were the mediators of peace between Israel and Palestinians. They should be giving us stuff. Isn't that the way a bribe works? And what in the world does Jonathan Pollard have to do with Middle East peace?? That guy should be walking on eggshells with all the violations of international law and human rights Israel has committed, not making outrageous demands! I guess it shows us how certain that 2 or 4 billion dollars per year to Israel is. If they actually succeed in getting absolutely anywhere- concession, acknowledgment, anything but a big fat NO WAY- on this Pollard thing, we might as well pack up and go home. We will have proven totally ineffective and detrimental to the process.

The infamous quote might just be true if Israel can make such wild demands of the mediator, be in violation of law with no consequences, and still be guaranteed loads of money:

"every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."

New peace talks

I wrote this last week before the talks were supposed to start. I took a little news vacation. I am thankful to have that luxury. Now, I'm curious to know what happened. I kind of don't want to know, because at this moment I'm hoping there's a breakthrough and that's a good feeling. I think I know the result, but I don't want to confirm it.


New peace talks are starting. No one's that optimistic. Why should they be? We know Netanyahu's position. He's been against the two state solution for quite some time, only recently forcing himself to utter the words. Everyone's talking about those hard choices and compromise. Let me translate.

Palestinians must:

*Recognize Israel as Jewish, meaning if they choose to live there, they cannot reasonably expect equal rights.

*Agree that their state will be a permanent military occupation. Israel will have control of borders, air, sea, trade, etc.

*Modify or limit their right of return while of course continuing to allow unlimited Jewish immigration to the area (their "right of return" after some 2000 years and unclear link to Israelites who were promised and banished from the land by God).

*Set a strict (short) time limit on compensation for injustices since 1948 because Jews of all people should know how long one can draw out such claims for such extensive injustices given recent Holocaust compensation. One would think, though, that given the world's great effort and desire to give back land, belongings, and whatever else to Holocaust victims and their families that Israel would try and return the favor to the people it tried to destroy.

These things are expected of Palestinians. I mean, imagine if we, instead of passing a Civil Rights Act, cemented racial inequality and/ or separation for all time and called it progress in race relations? Who would accept that? Should we?

Israel will have to do nothing. It should, but it won't. I happen to think that you should have to answer for a "democracy" if people of one religion are treated better than others and if the very idea of the identity of a people is anti-Semitic to you. Israel will not have to explain how it can reasonably be called a democracy when Jews have more rights with respect to where and when they can build, what land they buy, it isn't illegal to study their history and literature, etc. It will not have to justify Jews' right to be on the land and have a nation, unlike Palestinians. Palestinians are constantly denied this luxury and it is concluded they "aren't ready," they don't deserve it because of the suicide bombing, etc. No one will ask why it was ok for Jews to kill Palestinians and drive them out, but unacceptable for Palestinians to resist in anything but a non-violent fashion (and even this provokes lethal force from Israel). It will not have to explain why it was ok for Palestinians to pay the price of the Nazi Holocaust, then required that they thank these immigrant aggressors for not slaughtering them all and for giving them a slim chance for a sliver of their own land.

I do not agree with violence committed by terrorist groups (like the 4 settlers killed before the recent talks), but when settlers get killed, it's kind of the equivalent of when Palestinian militants get killed in action. Should they be mourned? Yes and no. Not that Americans are willing to see it that way any time soon. Palestinians killed are most likely guilty and don't deserve so much as a pause; Jews that get killed are absolutely innocent- haven't they suffered enough already- let's erect a monument and send money to Israel.

Settlers aren't innocent. They are in general a more extreme group bent on claiming land for Israel and terrorizing Palestinian farmers. They are protected by the army as though they are on Israeli soil when they should be left to be cleaned out by Palestinian security forces, who don't have the personnel or facilities to protect it's own people let alone worry about land- due to the targeting of both by the Israeli army.

Obama Netanyahu meeting - July 6, 2010

So many reasons for one secular bi-national state...

Obama said the U.S.-Israeli bond is “unbreakable.”

How is a statement like that about any country in our best interests? Unless the other entity is trigger happy and not as democratic as we’d like to believe… perhaps we are scared, not stupid.

Netanyahu said:

I’m committed to that peace.” And he said that reports of the demise of the U.S.-Israel relationship are “flat wrong.”

How committed can you be if you can't hardly bear the two state solution? Unless he really wants a peace prize, I don't think the guy has shown he has much interest in the process.

Netanyahu wants to have talks without preconditions. (Never mind those and these he set on the final outcome- recognize Israel as Jewish with all the implications that holds, the Palestinian "entity" will have no army, demilitarized, no control over airspace and borders- in effect, a legal occupation, not an actual state) I guess that’s alright if you’re the one in the driver’s seat, the one with the food and water and freedom of movement and all that. Not so great for those watching the one in the driver’s seat create facts on the ground (stealing and carving up land that is supposed to be your future state) while saying things that make the American President smile affectionately.

Saeb Erekat makes a good point:

“We want to resume direct negotiations, but the problem is that the land that is supposed to be a Palestinian state is being eaten up by settlements,” he told The Associated Press. He said the Palestinian demand that Israel halt all construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and resume talks where they broke off in 2008 “are not conditions, these are obligations.”

from:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38101443/ns/politics-white_house/

I have 20 posts tagged “settlements” if you look to the right of the blog for more on this precondition.
Or click here, here and here for a few.

***

Apparently, Israel has a lot to be thankful for. We won’t press them on nuclear transparency or the NPT, we pushed back on those pesky calls for an investigation into the flotilla massacre, we pushed through an Iran resolution. And we praised them for “restraint” on settlements. (??) Good job on doing slightly less illegal activity- you didn’t stop or dismantle anything, but great job. And the two lived happily ever after. The End. What? Oh. Right. Palestinians…. Hmm… To be continued. If we have the time. Or if there’s land after Israel gets finished making facts on the ground.

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/07/06/2739932/obama-netanyahu-summit-looks-good-but-what-are-they-saying

***

My Obama-inspired, insane (but comprehensive) settlement rant

To start off-

Pictures:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/06/israeli_settlements_in_the_wes.html

Question: The Palestinian who builds a canal on his own land gets arrested. Where do illegal settlers in settlements, outposts and demolished outposts go??

This conflict is replete with double standards. Where are the investigative journalists? Exposing these and who's perpetuating them could get you a nice journalistic prize..or sent to Guantanamo. Let's face it. If Israel's going to make us go to war with Iran, we can't very well close it, can we?

***

U.S., Israel inch closer to deal on settlement freeze
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1103115.html

“The two are reportedly close to a deal in which Washington would allow a limited number of projects in advanced stages of construction to be completed, but Israel would freeze all other building for an as-yet undetermined period of time.”

They also want to be rewarded with normalization of relations with Arab states if they dismantle illegal outposts. (???)

This is like if I hadn’t paid my taxes in a few years (or decades) and I decided to pay them… at the prodding/threatening of authorities. Jail doesn’t even enter into the discussion- on the contrary- I should be compensated for my extraordinary generosity. I have made great concessions, after all. Totally absurd, right?!

Settlements are illegal. Period. The article said the US is trying to “bridge the gap”?? That can only mean we are going to let them get away with breaking the law. And we thought Obama was different. I might be joining you non-voters in 2012! He’s bending on settlements. He’s letting Israel influence him on Iran, from the people he’s talking to and direction the policy is taking. If we attack Iran preemptively, he might as well be another Bush.

It's laughable that Israel is even attempting to justify *natural growth*+ (and we’re thinking about buying it!) while it denies building permits to Arab Israelis who want to build and demolishes their homes when they build in spite of these racist policies. Note that the Palestinians are Israeli citizens and actually DO own the land they want to build for the same reason Israel is arguing- natural growth.
*=http://www.peacenow.org/policy.asp?rid=&cid=6329 "Top 5 Bogus Excuses for Opposing a Settlement Freeze"
+="normal life" is the favored term of late because it is less controversial and is more all-inclusive. See http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443842941&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
***

Palestinians reject any Israel-U.S. settlement deal
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE56B0F520090712
Yeah?! As well they shouldn’t! A “deal” implies that Israel gets away with breaking the law. Continuing to break the law, that is.
***

US and Israel strike settlement deal: report
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/07/08/78170.html

Apparently, this is the US and Israel finding common ground:

“Israel has won an agreement from the United States for the continued construction of 2,500 housing units in Jewish settlements in the West Bank, an Israeli newspaper reported on Wednesday, despite U.S. calls for a settlement freeze.”

***

Here’s a little more on Israeli denial of Palestinian natural growth:

The Israel – Palestine Problem: The perspective of a New Zealand Muslim
http://www.aen.org.nz/journal/1/1/rahman.html

Home Demolition and Land Confiscation
http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=81&CategoryId=4
***

Israeli-US settlement freeze talks hit a dead end
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/07/01/77531.html

Besides the allowing Israeli natural growth and saying nothing about denying Palestinian natural growth, there’s the part where a good part of this so-called natural growth is in fact immigration, not natural growth.

“Ophran added Israel's claims of "natural growth" are bogus given that 40 percent of the settler increase is due to immigration to settlements either from within Israel or abroad.

"Natural growth in the settlements is not simply a matter of births from within but includes continuous flow of immigrants," Ophran explained.

Settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem have continued to expand at a rate higher than the population growth inside Israel. Some 180,000 additional Jews have been permitted to settle inside Israel’s Arab sector in East Jerusalem.”

Here’s a chicken and egg question, I guess. Are illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories growing more because of receiving more money or are they receiving more money because they are growing faster than the Israeli population in Israel?

Study: Settlements get more state funding than Israeli cities
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1101829.html

Study: Heavily Subsidized Settlements Skew Israeli Policies
Settlements Get More Funding than Cities, Study Shows
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/07/21/study-heavily-subsidized-settlements-skew-israeli-policies/

And the next question would be...since we give Israel so much money, are we contributing to the violation of the 4th Geneva Convention. Bush said we didn't have to worry about that, though, so we're cool. This article doesn't really talk about government spending, but it does talk about unsuspecting Americans "contributing" to this "cause".

Report: US dollars funding Israeli settlements
http://www.prisonplanet.com/report-us-dollars-funding-israeli-settlements.html


This may explain the growth:

Beautiful Two-Bedroom on One Disputed Acre: How much does an Israeli-settlement home cost?
http://www.slate.com/id/2220531/

About half as much. How’s that for incentive? The money the Israel government is spending on making these homes so attractively priced should be going toward compensation for Palestinians.


If there were one binational secular democratic state, most of these final status, hot button issues would be solved. Settlements, human rights, water rights (maybe), refugees, borders, security, Jerusalem, access to holy sites.

Would there be apartheid? Maybe. Civil war? Only if it was forced on them and the people didn’t choose it themselves.

Israel's intentions... lets' stop lying to ourselves. Israeli leader's don't.

I heard this quote from Shamir today about Israel's real intent to stall with talks while they create facts on the ground with settlements that will make a Palestinian state impossible. We in the US often make it seem like Israel's trying their utmost and doing everything possible for peace that they can do; we are just waiting on Palestinians to fullfill their obligations. This is far from the truth if you listen to Israeli leaders themselves- Shamir, Sharon, etc.

Democracy Now Monday June 15, talking about Netanyahu's June 14 policy speech:

RABBI ARIK ASCHERMAN: Well, it’s, of course, significant that he even made a policy address. Israeli leaders don’t usually do that. That shows that he—that our prime minister felt a need to respond to President Obama in a very significant way.

I’m, unfortunately, always remembered of the words of our former prime minister, Yitzhak Shamir, when he was voted out of office. He had been the prime minister during the beginning of the Madrid process. And he said, “You know, it’s too bad that I was voted out of office. My plan was to keep on talking and talking and talking, all the while creating facts on the ground, so that by the time we actually got anywhere, there would be—it would be moot. There would be nothing really to talk about.”

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/15/netanyahu_outlines_vision_for_a_demilitarized

***
This is the actual quote I found after some digging:

Mission accomplished
Osamah Khalil, The Electronic Intifada, 29 November 2007

After leaving office, Shamir explained why he agreed to attend the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference, stating that although Israel participated in negotiations with the Palestinians, "I would have carried on autonomy talks for ten years and meanwhile we would have reached a half million people in Judea and Samaria." [7]

[7] Joseph Harif, "Interview with Yizakh Shamir," Ma'ariv, 26 June 1992; Avi Shlaim, "Prelude to the Accord: Likud, Labor, and the Palestinians," Journal of Palestine Studies, p 23 (1994).

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9131.shtml

***
And here is some backpedaling from those remarks at the time, after ruffling feathers of "friends". There are just too many statements by too many leaders to believe anything other than the original impression. Especially if you read some of the other stuff Shamir said (his talk of "Greater Israel", etc).

Shamir remarks on autonomy 'misinterpreted'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/shamir-remarks-on-autonomy-misinterpreted-1530468.html

President Obama's Cairo speech

Here's the link to Obama's Cairo speech:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Cairo-University-6-04-09/

I thought he did a great job in trying to mend fences that have been left neglected and rotting for 8 years. He clarified a lot of common sense things that Bush obfuscated. I know this wasn't the place to make major policy announcements, but I think that's what I wanted to hear, so I was a bit disappointed. I think the folks are right who say that if he doesn't actually do something soon, the words will be just meaningless words. Overall, the speech was going in the right direction.

I did appreciate how he said that just as Israel has a right to exist, so does Palestine. Settlements were again spoken about, which is important, but Israel will continue to ignore it if we don't do something- like threaten to cut "aid" to them, for instance.

One thing that disturbed me was that he said our bond with Israel was unbreakable. I don't think our bond with any country should be without conditions or unbreakable. That should make no sense to anyone concerned about our security.

Another biggie was that he kept speaking of Palestinian displacement vs. Israel's having to endure hostility, attacks, old women on buses being blown up, sleeping children being fired on by rockets. "Displacement" is probably the most polite way I have heard it described (esp. if you consider all it encompasses-occupation, crimes, bloodshed- which most won't). On top of this, to contrast it with Palestinians blowing up old women and children is to say that Israel doesn't shoot children on the way to school, blow up families on the beach or in cars, demolish homes, take prisoners for political reasons, the list goes on... It is simply unfair and untrue to imply that Palestinians do this, but Israel does not have as much, if not more, innocent blood on its hands.

To be fair, he did touch on the Palestinian humanitarian situation and called it intolerable. But he fell into the same old American refrain of telling Palestinians they must renounce violence, recognize Israel (As a Jewish state? He didn't say. And didn't Hamas already do this in 2006?), recognize past agreements, without being as straightforward with Israel. This stipulation that Palestinians must renounce violence and disarm, but Israel doesn't, makes no sense. Even if both sides disarmed, where would we be? Palestinian land would still be occupied, they would still be imprisoned without food and water or travel or rights, but Israel would be peachy, so I guess that's all that matters?? Who would accept such conditions as we are expecting Palestinians to accept? The absurdity and inequality goes back to when the Mandate Palestine was formed (and before). Jews owned 6% of the land, but were given 55% under the British Mandate. Everyone always says it's the Arabs' fault for not accepting agreements. Who would? Who in their right mind would not be enraged by a bunch of Westerners suddenly giving away half the land (to new immigrants mostly) already won and promised to them (for helping remove the Ottoman Empire) to finally exercise their independence?

He did call on Israel to "live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society," which is an improvement, I'll give him that, but it is still without the specifics the Palestinians routinely get. This description, along with "dislocation" is rather the whitewashed, cleaner version of actual events. It still gets under my skin that Palestinians are described as "dislocated" (it isn't even said Israel is to blame, but rather something Palestinians suffer without rhyme or reason, like an earthquake), which is rather benign compared to the imagery of Palestinians blowing up old women and sleeping children.

If he'd have stated the specifics of the UN resolutions Israel is ignoring, such as withdraw from the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem to pre-1967 borders, tear down the Wall, recognize and allow the Palestinian right of return, evacuate ALL settlements, recognize Jerusalem as an international city, release political prisoners and children, recognize a Palestinian state with control over it's own borders, airspace, and water, THEN I would have called the speech a real turning point.

Here are a few other reactions. The first, I agree with, the other two I think are rather funny given that they focus on one word or sentence, rather than the whole or even a few paragraphs.

*** *** ***
US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation had this, among other things to say about the speech. I thought this point was particularly insightful:

On the one hand, on the other. President Obama's empathy with the Palestinian narrative and acknowledgment that both Israelis and Palestinians are "two peoples with legitimate aspirations" is certainly an advance over traditional U.S. discourse which over the decades has primarily portrayed Israel as an innocent victim and either downplayed or ignored Palestinian human and national rights. However, there is a danger that the "both sides" rhetoric-"It's easy to point fingers," and "if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth," for example-President Obama employed obscures the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has never been one of equals.

It has been and continues to be today a conflict of Israel, an apartheid state that institutionalizes discrimination against non-Jews, versus Palestinians, a people dispossessed of their homeland through ethnic cleansing. In the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, for the last 42 years it has been and continues to be a conflict of Israel, an Occupying Power defying international law and the Geneva Conventions, versus an Occupied People, the Palestinians who struggle daily to maintain their existence in the face of widespread and systematic human rights abuses by Israel.

Within this framework, it is intellectually dishonest for President Obama to ask Palestinians to give up violence without asking the same of Israel. (In fact, Palestinian civil society is engaging in nonviolent campaigns of boycott, divestment, and sanctions to advocate for their rights, a call which we support.)

It is unrealistic and even cruel to ask Palestinians "to focus on what they can build" when Israel systematically destroys Palestinian civilian infrastructure and maintains a siege of the Gaza Strip under which Palestinians have difficulty importing pasta, much less necessary things like concrete to rebuild after Israel's devastating attacks that left more than 1,400 Palestinians dead and thousands of buildings destroyed. President Obama must do more than just ask Israel "to take concrete steps to enable such progress" toward Palestinian economic opportunity; he must recognize instead that as long as Israel maintains its brutal occupation and siege of Palestinian territories, then Palestinian institution-building and economic development are impossible.

*** *** ***
Fox news focused on the mention of Hamas. Obama was more chastising them rather than promising to treat them as a negotiating partner. As usual, Fox missed the point.

*** *** ***
MSNBC noted the "silence" in response to the one sentence mention of closing the Sunni-Shia divide. IMO, clapping would be inappropriate, as it was talking about the violence as well, so I’d say that the “silence” was more out of respect for the situation rather than a rejection of Obama’s call for unity. And sometimes you need to pause to see where he's going and what he has to say. Clapping after every sentence they agreed with would get tiresome and annoying (for all, I'm sure).

Here's the sentence:
“And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims, as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.”

Netanyahu and Obama begin key talks in US
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8055105.stm



With regard to Iran, Israel is saying:

"The prime minister will emphatically emphasize the element of urgency,"

Uhhh, does this translate to- you’d better make up a reason to go in there and get ‘em or we’ll nuke ‘em for ya. It doesn’t have to be a good reason, as we’ve seen in Iraq. Just mention national security and maybe 9/11 and mushroom clouds and BAM! You have a population more than ready to sign their sons’ and daughters’ lives away to “fight terror” or “fight for freedom”. Wow. That sounds familiar. It sounds like how people are recruited for extremist groups.

When are we going to learn that doing Israel’s dirty work is not in the interests of us, them or the Middle East as a whole?? I guess the danger is that Israel would go it alone and we’d be blamed for not being able to “persuade” them from starting nuclear war.

So, maybe we have to be involved, but must we simply be yes men?

“Tenders have been issued to build 20 housing units in Maskiot, a former Israeli military base that has been designated for housing settlers removed from Gaza in 2005.”

I wonder if this will come up at all in the meeting. Hmm. It should go something like if you don’t stop building settlements (which are against our policy and international law) then our “aid” to you stops today. If they continue to build, they should have to pay the Palestinians (like a hefty fine) and risk home demolishing (or bombing) by Palestinians. Just a thought. We already know Israel thinks this is fair and acceptable.

We may not have ALL of the issues in the conflict figured out, but this one is a no-brainer. It’s against the law. We should apply pressure, cut off aid, boycott. Do something, at least! All we do is make lame little statements that must get lost on the way over to Israel. They always come back and slap us in the face with plans to expand and build more settlements. We cower and back down every time so that our “stand” becomes more like a “run and hide”. Is that hole we pulled Saddam Hussein out of still open? It’s as though we make a bold statement about dismantling settlements in public, but in private meetings, we must say- settlements? We love settlements. Settlements are great. Keep up the good work. Otherwise, why would Israel keep building these things with absolutely no consequences??

Another interesting tidbit- the American public isn’t holding our elected officials back from holding Israel accountable:

On Israeli Settlement Freeze, Public Has Obama's Back
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/on-israeli-settlement-fre_b_194751.html

Mr Netanyahu has so far been unwilling to endorse a two-state solution, saying only he wants a "fresh approach".

Interesting. We are still meeting with these guys even though they don’t endorse the two-state solution that Hamas, other Palestinians, the US, Europe, etc endorse.

The only other solution is one secular state with equal rights for all--- and we know full well that no good Israeli Jew could ever live with such a thing. Equal rights? Whoever heard of such a silly notion?

I guess there is another solution. Genocide. Is that the “fresh approach” Netanyahu talking about? Maybe not killing everyone, but at least transfer them somewhere out of Israel’s way.



Another interesting article I found:

Obama's Middle East moment of truth
His diplomatic moves are a good start. But does he have the will to challenge Israel?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2009/03/17/middle_east_obama/