In speech to Muslims, Obama rejects Israeli settlements

<snip>

"President Barack Obama, courting Muslims internationally, said Thursday that the United States didn't accept the legitimacy of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory and that "just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's."

In a speech he conceived well before he was elected last November - aimed at repositioning U.S. standing in the Middle East in the wake of the Iraq war and drafted with the help of prominent Muslim-Americans - Obama told an audience at Cairo University that "I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world."

The relationship, he said, should be founded on mutual interests and respect and "the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition."

He said that "any nation - including Iran - should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."

Obama also said, however, that Muslims must to do their part, by recognizing Israel's right to exist, acknowledging the Holocaust, supporting religious tolerance and accepting that "America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire."

"We must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors," the president said."

more

High for some plain speaking to *both* sides; and I see he's doing so.

and Obama knows it,

"He also acknowledged that Hamas, which the United States labels a terrorist organization, “does have some support among some Palestinians.”

“But they also have responsibilities,” Mr. Obama said, listing them as “to end violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel’s right to exist.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/world/middleeast/05prexy.html?_r=1&hp

the whole quote

Several times, for instance, he spoke of “Palestine,” rather than the more ambiguous term often used by American leaders, “future Palestinian state.” And, in reference to the Palestinians, he pointedly mentioned “the daily humiliations — large and small — that come with occupation.”

He described the bond between the United States and Israel as “unbreakable,” and urged Hamas, the Islamic militant group in control of the Gaza Strip, to stop violence. But in his next breath, Mr. Obama said Israel must curtail its expansion of West bank settlements and recognize Palestinian aspirations for statehood. He also acknowledged that Hamas, which the United States labels a terrorist organization, “does have some support among some Palestinians.”

“But they also have responsibilities,” Mr. Obama said, listing them as “to end violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel’s right to exist.”

“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.”

And, while Israel’s hawkish government has not accepted a so-called two-state solution, Mr. Obama said: “The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.”

“This is in Israel’s interest, Palestine’s interest, America’s interest and the world’s interest,” he said. In the Middle East, “too many tears have been shed; too much blood has been shed.”

the context is important

If those settlements hadn't been built, Hamas would never have gained support and a peace deal would likely have been reached in the Eighties or Nineties.

support on the rise all over the freaking world. You aren't one of those "it's Israel's settlements' fault for everything," nuts are you?

There are others, and the settlements are not the only aspect of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians that angers Muslims, so "the only" isn't true, but Israel's settlements *are* one of the larger factors behind the rise in Islamic extremism.

:eyes:

Netanyahu made a mistake, IMO, when he didn't follow Obama's speech within minutes to say that he agrees with Obama, shares his vision and optimism, etc.

But there will be a greater chance for peace once the I/P dispute is solved.

There can't be as long as Palestinians are denied a state. As long as they are, Israel has no right to expect any Arab country to recognize it or make peace with it. You know that as well as I do.

The settlements are a want, not a need. Israel would be just fine without them.

And it's silly to claim Palestinians are being denied a state.

Abbas just rejected Olmert's latest offer last year, which he admitted went further than Clinton's Parameters (Olmert offered to bring some refugees into Israel). The land offer was equivalent to 100% of the pre-1967 total area that Jordan and Egypt occupied.

Lastly, Hamas (Iran) will never agree to a peace deal. Even if a deal were signed tomorrow, Israel would still have Hamas to deal with in Gaza and Hizbullah in Lebanon. They'd have some reason (that you'd probably accept) for attacking Israel - maybe for "ripping off" the Palestinians somehow, someway.

If there was no war, would parties like Likud and Beitenyu(or even possibly Kadima)have any real support?

Would the IDF high command be able to throw its weight around and continue its slow usurpation of political power?

Why assume only Arab leaders would be cynical?

they don't want war to continue for another 60 years so that their grandchildren will still be fighting. If they feel their leadership wants war and not peace or security, they'll vote them out.

Like political leaders everywhere else, they will sacrifice the people if doing so serves their interests. It's time to admit that Israeli politicians are just politicians, like politicians anywhere else.

And I don't suppose it's occurred to you that Palestinians, let alone other Arabs, may also not want their grandchildren to be fighting. To refuse to admit that Arabs are capable of loving (or wishing long, peaceful lives for)their descendants is, well, what most people would call racism.

into battles. So it's not as self-serving a situation as here in the USA, for example. But once again - you must think Israelis are dumb and don't realize their leaders, from labor to likud, are all just warmongering savages.

As for peaceful Arabs, they don't have a say over their leadership, Ken. Big difference, dontcha think?

My comment was a slam on Israeli politicians. I wasn't insulting the Israeli people, and you know it.

The people and the politicians, in all countries, seldom have common interests.

It's absurd of you to act as if Israeli politicians have some special degree of nobility or sincerity that no other country's politicians have.

too bad the majority of jewish israelis aren't as bright and informed as you are.

:sarcasm:

I respected my country even when I disagreed with it.

It's the politicians that are the problem. At some point, you've got to admit that they aren't in solidarity with the people.

what is there to blame Olmert for, regarding that offer?

Their capital is inevitably going to be East Jerusalem anyway. So long as Israel has West Jerusalem and there's free access to the holy sites(and remember, it was JORDAN that blocked Jewish access to the holy sites from 1948 to 1967, NOT Palestinians)there's no reason for Israel to object to this.

What's going to doom any peace process is the assumption that Palestinians are completely incapable of being reasonable and honorable. The Israeli government and its hardcore supporters are going to have to let go of that belief, since any peace will be a compromise and the war can't possibly end thorough getting Palestinians to accept surrender.

and your position on settlements and strict pre-1967 borders is extreme, as no UNRES ever stipulates Israel being required to go back to insecure and indefensible borders.

The impression I get from reading talkbacks on Israeli news sites and from the recent elections is that most Israelis don't really care about the continuation of the conflict - they think it's probably inevitable, and aren't really worried about it - and certainly don't regard giving up the settlements as a price worth paying to end it.

It would be more accurate to say that if Israelis think their leadership wants peace, they will vote them out - there is more criticism of the ultra-hawkish Netanyahu from the right than the left at the moment, as far as I can see.

I wonder if you think that's true for the Guardian talkback section too. If I remember correctly, you've written before that you're a mathematician, so you should be familiar with representative samples.

Do the talkbacks at "Comment is Free" represent common British opinion about Israel? If so, the derangement from the Israeli online talkbacks is nothing compared to the venom at "Comment is Free".

Who are you to accuse others?

and to steal your line, who is anyone from any other country outside I/P to point the finger at Israel? With the US and UK involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, who is any American or Brit to accuse Israel of anything?

If that's actually nutty.

This is a "needs vs. wants" question.

It can fairly be said that keeping Israel in existence is a need.

It can only be said that keeping the settlements is a want. And it's a want that conflicts with the need for peace on the part of the people of Israel.

Most Israelis don't back the settlers.

The only way to displace half a million people who have lived there for multiple generations will be by force.

It's weird that "progressives" would be pushing for war.

our enlightened friends here believe UNRES 242 states explicitly that Israel is to retreat behind the 1949 "Auschwitz" borders, as though negotiations are not required.

the socalled 'progressives' turn into David Dukes when it comes to Israel or Jews.

They want Israel eradicated, just like Ahmanidiot.

They don't believe in Israel's legitimacy, just like Hamas or Hezbollah.

They want to see the end of the Jewish state, because all these calls for "single, binational" state are a call for the end of Jewish self-determination.

It's strange that "progressives" are proponents of war against Jews, but not against anyone else.

And it's not possible to back the settlements and still retain progressive views. If you are progressive, you have to be against oppressing anybody.

And if those settlements are so important, why do most ISRAELIS oppose the settlers?

We want peace. But peace means giving up on proclaiming "victory". Israel loses nothing if the settlements are lost. And you know perfectly well a Palestinian state couldn't be built if the settlements stay in place. And you know that if the Palestinians don't get a state that the Israeli government has no right to say it wants "peace".

Israel doesn't gain a damn thing from those settlements. Ariel Sharon brought nothing but misery when he invented the settler movement.

We are against antisemitism. We know that a crusade against all bigotry(all of which is just as wrong as antisemitism and just a much a threat to the innocent as antisemitism is)must be built. Why should we feel obligated to take the Israeli right's side in a land war to prove that we don't hate Jews?

Am I to understand you are for strict 1949 armistice borders despite many UN resolutions pointing to Israel negotiating secure and defensible borders according to UNRES 242?

Bear in mind that strict 1949 borders will not leave room for a passageway between Gaza and the W.Bank. It won't even allow for a land swap that would expand Gaza in order to make it more economically advantageous for a new Palestinian state.

And remember, we're only a few years out from Sharon basically telling the Palestinians that Gaza was all they were gonna get. So why should they trust the Israeli government on this "land swap" thing at all.

The settlements have almost all the arable land, control of the water supply, and the replanted olive groves that were stolen from Palestinian farms with no justification at all. What could be "swapped" that could possibly make up for that?

and they are both on the same moral plane.

The cries of "land swap" comes from the settlement apologists, not from rational people unmoved by religious zealotry, and certainly not from the Obama Administration.

many UN resolutions connected to #242 state that the borders are negotiable due to Israeli security. Israel is not expected to be as vulnerable to attack as they were from 1948-67.

My argument is that they have no right to exist, period.

Jerusalem without ever building settlements there, all in the interest of secure and defensible borders as UNRES242 and others stipulate?

If you want security, how about moving the WALL over to the Green Line?

you are calling for pre-1967 borders and no UNRES stipulates any such thing. Your position is extreme.

And, with Plan Dalet, 750,000 people were displaced. You didn't have any problem with that.

Plus, unlike with Plan Dalet, The Palestinians would probably let the settlers have time to pack.

It could never be progressive to defend the settlements. We'd have to go right-wing on everything else if we did. Most Israelis don't defend the settlements, so why do you do so from your armchair command post in the Diaspora?

As for "plan dalet", here's Mahmoud Abbas in 1976:

"The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live."

problem in the mideast and everywhere Muslims are found for the most part is SO ingrained, the sheeple have no answer for questions like this because it raises the spectre of the REAL problem...a very PC problem, the massive hate-on for Jews and the fact that a Jewish state in Arab land is and has been intolerable.

In lala land, it makes sense that stopping or even getting rid of the settlements will bring rainbows and joy to the region but of course, that is lala land.

In reality land, many of the settlements will disappear in a final NEGOTIATED peace but some will remain and continue growing to accommodate the way real life works but with final borders finally drawn, they will grow not on palestinian lands. In the meantime Israel has two potential peace partners who draw maps for the masses which show NO Israel; their message and intent is clear.

1)The Arab armies entered to protect Palestinians, not to destroy Israel
2)The Arab armies and the other Arab countries do not always have interests that coincide with those of the Palestinians.

And the most reliable recent scholarship suggests that it was actually the Soviet Union that provoked the Six Day War, by telling the Arab countries that Israel was on the verge of deploying nuclear weapons. This disinformation is what caused the Arab armies to "mass on Israel's borders". They weren't there to destroy Israel(they knew they couldn't manage that even if they'd actually wanted it) but they were trying to send a defensive message to the Israelis not to launch the Bomb.
Tom Segev's book "1967" discusses this at length.

I quoted Abbas from 1976. That quote doesn't prove the Arab nations came in to "protect" Palestinians. Arab leadership was quite clear what their goals were in 1948:

'This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.'

Yes, I know, they really "didn't mean it". :eyes:

to support regresssive, oppressive regimes that beat and stone women, hang gay people, teach hate, cut off opponents at the knees, and restrict movement, free press and religion and obstruct other human rights.

But here on DU, I have learned that it is very progressive to support that kind of government.

And there's no way a military occupation can liberalize a people.

If the people commanding the troops keep making sanctimonious comments about how "our values are better than theirs", than those being occupied will associate those values with their conquerors. They'll hate those values just because someone who holds a gun in their face supposedly holds them.

You cannot seriously describe the Occupation as a progressive thing.

we all know that your idea of a "neutral" occupation would involve a military needing to police Hamas and IJ so that they do not ship, smuggle in, or fire missiles and rockets into Israel once Israel leaves for good. Such a "neutral" occupier will need to disrupt and destroy terror networks in the W.Bank and Gaza when they see that the PA will not do police themselves.

Look, I'd like a short-term thing with the peacekeepers. And once a real Palestinian state were established, that would end something like 95% of the fighting, with the rest dying out not long after.

Why do you put "neutral" in quotation marks? You can't honestly believe the entire planet is allied against Israel's mere survival. That's insanely paranoid. The world wants Palestinian self-determination-not the extermination of Jews.

Whether you admit it or not, whether you REALIZE it or not, your position is, in fact "The IDF has to stay in the West Bank for decades and then we get to get all the good parts of the place". You say the Palestinians need a better "leadership", but you will always find something in whatever "leadership" they have that you can use to justify preserving the status quo.

The way to end this is to let the Palestinian people breathe. They can't be expected to become better people while they're still living under a brutal military occupation. And the Israeli government has no right to treat Palestinian statehood as a privilege to be earned.

The Occupation does not bring Israel security.
The settlements don't bring Israel security.
Neither did Operation Cast Lead.

Why stay with what you know doesn't work?

The pre-1967 boundaries will be sufficient, given that the war will end when a Palestinian state is born.

You can't make peace if you work from the assumption that the other side will NEVER stop fighting no matter what.

it's silly for you to argue occupation is bad when your solution for it is more occupation.

Our values ARE better than theirs.

You have just proven my point.

It isn't "progressive" to think that murdering women, hanging gays, and basically holding an iron boot over the people is a good thing.

A free society is better.

And no, occupation isn't progressive.

But neither are any of these oppressive societies, including Gaza.

You can't possibly think that is better for the people to live like that.

Occupation is always at least as oppressive as any alternative.

And none of us think that murdering women, hanging gays and holding an iron boot over anyone is a good thing.

But the occupation isn't a way to stop that.

And no occupation can liberalize the occupied.

If Israel were actually APPLYING its values in the West Bank, it might be different. But Israel never did. And it sometimes worked against those values, such as when the Israeli government arrested freely elected mayors of West Bank cities.

There's no way you can present occupation as a "civilizing mission". And to get into this "we're superior to them" mindset is always colonialist.

that beats on women?

End the occupation to what?

Hamas running around the WB suicide bombing again?

Israel isn't suicidal.

downpayment on the reparations Israel owes Palestine for theft and suffering. It will be a nice start to building Palestine.

Obama has spoken against the settlements, true. This is what he 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". Clearly he only opposes continued settlements, and supports the existence of already established settlements, which is perfectly compatible with the consensus that the current settlements should be permanent.

Also, does anyone find it odd that Obama says that "resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed" for Palestinians, but nothing about how Israel should refrain from violence as well? Does anyone remember that far more Palestinians have always been killed by Israelis than vice-versa, and many of them with American-supplied weapons? The same weapons that Obama has pledged to continue giving to Israel with no accountability.

He also said that, "that the Palestinian people--Muslims and Christians--have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years, they have endured the pain of dislocation". Of course, the Palestinians more than 60 years ago already had a homeland, which was taken away from them by violence. Why does Obama find this so hard to say that he must skirt around it?

Israel supporters should not be shocked or appalled by anything Obama has said. He is quite clearly determined to support Israel with complete unaccountability, just as Bush did.

Here is the text of Obama's speech: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_text
I suggest that anyone who wants to know what his priorities really are for the Middle East read it instead of trusting vague snippets like the above.

time for ALL americans to get on board.

I voted for Obama knowing he would posture for the anti-Israel crowd. If BHO comes down explicitly against Israel he will loose my support. Congress will withdraw it's support of Israel at any rate.