Obama delivers strong attack on Israeli settlements in speech to Muslim world

[Sanket]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6430692.ece

Obama delivers strong attack on Israeli settlements in speech to Muslim world

(Nasser Nasser/AP)
President Obama is given a standing ovation after delivering his speech in Cairo
Jenny Booth

Barack Obama today delivered one of the strongest condemnations by an American president of Israeli settlement building and made a startling admission of past US foreign policy mistakes.

In an audacious speech at Al-Azhar university in Cairo to a worldwide audience of 1.5 billion Muslims, Mr Obama told the Israeli government that continuing to construct new Jewish homes in the occupied Palestinian territories was unacceptable and must stop.

Mr Obama went further than any US President in recent memory in conceding that America had sometimes been wrong, citing past policies towards Iran and recent reactions after 9/11. He implied that the invasion of Iraq had been a mistake.

He also made thinly-veiled criticisms of the authoritarian regimes in Middle Eastern countries to which America has in the past appeared uncritically supportive.

But perhaps his toughest words, and one of the most warmly received sections of the speech, were his rebuke for Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, who has refused to halt West Bank settlement expansion.

"The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements," said Mr Obama.

"This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop."

Mr Obama did say that the US bond with Israel, the source of much Arab distrust of the United States, was unbreakable, and he rejected "baseless, ignorant and hateful" rants by those who deny the Nazi Holocaust.

To underline his point, Mr Obama is due to tour the former Nazi concentration camp at Buchenwald tomorrow.

But he also voiced compassion for the millions of Palestinians who have lived for decades under Israeli occupation in refugee camps in Gaza and the West Bank, and called on all parties to play their part in reviving stalled peace talks.

"Let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable," he 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. That is in Israel’s interest, Palestine’s interest, America’s interest, and the world’s interest."

There was criticism for other Middle Eastern countries for failing to shoulder their responsibility.

"The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognise Israel ’s legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past."

He condemned the attitude of regimes who had grown rich extracting oil and gas but had not used the wealth to improve the education and living standards of their people - an apparent reference to Saudi Arabia, where Mr Obama stayed last night as the guest of King Abdullah.

He advocated education and rights for women.

Some of his words are set raise eyebrows in the United States. Despite an uncompromising defence of America's pursuit of al-Qaeda and of its invasion of Afghanistan, he went on to cast doubt on the US's actions in Iraq.

"Unlike Afghanistan , Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world," said Mr Obama.

"Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible."

Other surprising admissions include that "in the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government".

Mr Obama also appeared to make a direct appeal to Hamas, which is officially listed by America as a terrorist organisation. He suggested it should shoulder its responsibilities as the elected government of the Gaza Strip and renounce violence.

He wove in quotations from the Koran and frequent praise of Islam's traditions of learning, culture and tolerance in building an appeal for all faiths and nationalities to make a fresh start, and work in co-operation with one another.

[Mediocrates]

Not 'one of', but the strongest attack, ever. It's clear that a Jew Free West Bank and East Jerusalem is merely the first of many unilateral demands Obama will impose. Next up; take your pick

Evacuation from all of Golan
Recognition of Hamas
Recognition of Hezbollah
Agreement with Iran on additional pressure on Israel
Open borders with Gaza
And the big one, unlimited right of return

If anything, even a token gesture would behoove Israel at this point. Israel should

Stop all intelligence sharing with the US
Stop all sales of military gear to the US including UAV's, avionics, ATM's
Stop all military training cooperation with the US
Open discussions with China for a crash program to develop advanced combat aircraft

[Rob]

And:

No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons.

Is this Obama saying he isn´t objecting Iran developing nuclear weapons?

[Mil]

Complete idiocy. So basically he didn't tell anything to the Arabs about Arabs themselves. Even as a favor to his buddy Mubarak he did not even talk Democracy...

The one country he should have talked at would be Turkey... In Turkey he would be talking to civilized people who would actually understand what each party is talking about.

[Mediocrates]

It really no longer matters. Obama will formally recognize and aid both Hamas and Hezbollah. As long as he helps Egypt kill political dissidents, Mubarek won't care. In fact it's better for Mubarek if Obama aids and arms Hamas directly. Since General Dayton is busy in the PA spending $300 million with military advisors and training you can more or less bet that this 3 way squeeze will push Israel out of the entirety of Yesha and East Jerusalem. As Lebanon disappears and is replaced by Hezbollah as a formally recognized fully functional radical Shiite nation, Obama will allow them to push Israel out of the Golan as well. In a few years the 67 line will be a quaint memory and Israel will be hoping to hold on to the 49 armistice lines. I truly believe that Obama will consider the dissolution of Israel to be his crowning achievement.

[Mil]

You voted for him.

[Mediocrates]

I am still an American citizen

[Mil]

Exactly. I am also an American citizen and did not vote for him.

[takeo]

Not 'one of', but the strongest attack, ever. It's clear that a Jew Free West Bank and East Jerusalem is merely the first of many unilateral demands Obama will impose. Next up; take your pick

Evacuation from all of Golan
Recognition of Hamas
Recognition of Hezbollah
Agreement with Iran on additional pressure on Israel
Open borders with Gaza
And the big one, unlimited right of return

If anything, even a token gesture would behoove Israel at this point. Israel should

Stop all intelligence sharing with the US
Stop all sales of military gear to the US including UAV's, avionics, ATM's
Stop all military training cooperation with the US
Open discussions with China for a crash program to develop advanced combat aircraft

So it's clear where your allegiance lies.

If Israel takes these measures, than the US has an appropriate answer:

stop all intelligence sharing with Israel
Stop all sales of military gear to Israel
stop all military cooperation with Israel
Open discussions with Iran and Arab states for a crash program to develop advanced combat aircraft
Stop the annual 3 billion aid to Israel

That's why Israel will NEVER take this measures and always remain friendly to the US, at least officially.

I hope that Obama will put his words in reality, and pressure Israel into a two-state solution. And if they don't want, force them.

[takeo]

Exactly. I am also an American citizen and did not vote for him.

Most Americans did, so he represents the US. The neo-con reign is over. And if there were elections today, Obama would get even more votes according to polls. So most Americans clearly appreciate his policy.

[takeo]

Complete idiocy. So basically he didn't tell anything to the Arabs about Arabs themselves. Even as a favor to his buddy Mubarak he did not even talk Democracy...

The one country he should have talked at would be Turkey... In Turkey he would be talking to civilized people who would actually understand what each party is talking about.

Arabs are human beings too, not some kind of subhumans who should be ignored, as many people on this site think.

[takeo]

It really no longer matters. Obama will formally recognize and aid both Hamas and Hezbollah. As long as he helps Egypt kill political dissidents, Mubarek won't care. In fact it's better for Mubarek if Obama aids and arms Hamas directly. Since General Dayton is busy in the PA spending $300 million with military advisors and training you can more or less bet that this 3 way squeeze will push Israel out of the entirety of Yesha and East Jerusalem. As Lebanon disappears and is replaced by Hezbollah as a formally recognized fully functional radical Shiite nation, Obama will allow them to push Israel out of the Golan as well. In a few years the 67 line will be a quaint memory and Israel will be hoping to hold on to the 49 armistice lines. I truly believe that Obama will consider the dissolution of Israel to be his crowning achievement.

The 49 armistice line and a two-state solution is the goal, which corresponds to the two-state solution, several UN-resolutions AND to Israeli commitments in the past. It would also be a just solution in the spirit of UN resolution 181, that would once and for all solve the ongoing problem between Israel and the Palestinian people. I hope obama will act on his words. If Israel refuses to cooperate, additional pressure should be applied, and the US should especially help the pro-peace movement and parties in Israel and boycott the anti-peace parties. Why not receive Livni instead of Netanyahu in the White House? This would be a powerfull message to the Israeli people, how they have to vote next time if they want to retain good relations with the US. Than they know that if they vote for extremists there will be consequences. Of course the same pressure should be applied on the Palestinians. They want American support for their state? They can have it, IF they recognise Israel. If Hamas declines that offer, than they will be marginalised in Palestine. Obama can send a strong message to both the Israeli and Palestinian people.

[curlyg]

Takeo:

I, for one, am a strong supporter of the alliance with the US. I believe we do have a genuine special relationship in part because of our values in part because of the large Jewish community in the US, and in part because of common interests.

I've personally never been a big fan of the settlements. I've always thought that if we have money available for housing it should be invested in the Galilee and the Negev (are these not part of the Land of Israel which must be settled?). While the settlers were placed/placed themselves in territories where it was clear there would never be a Jewish majority, we've developed Arab majorities all over the country! Today, the "center" is probably the only region that is overwhelmingly Jewish. When I take a drive through the Negev, all I see is empty space, dotted here and there by an Arab village. The Galilee is even worse, having a clear and increasing Arab majority.

But as much as I dislike the idea of the settlements as a matter of principle, I - unlike you - understand that history didn't begin with the election of Obama. The Palestinians have NEVER adhered properly to an agreement they signed with Israel. Israel's record, despite the continued settlement construction, has been far better than that of the Palestinians. And despite the claims of Arab propagandists and the media, which have somehow managed to convince the world that the absence of peace has always been the fault of Israel, we have been the only party that genuinely pursued peace. If you take a look at the map of what Barak offered Yasser Arafat at Camp David (you can find it in Dennis Ross' book The Missing Peace, which I highly recommend) you'll see it is essentially everything the Palestinians demanded. The Clinton bridging parameters went even further, agreeing to shared sovereignty of some kind in the holy sites in Jerusalem rather than Palestinian administrative control and "custodianship." And yet still the Palestinians rejected the agreement despite the fact that essentially ALL of their demands had been met, and they had barely moved from their original demands and were completely inflexible in the negotiations.

The question is, why has Obama's pressure focused almost exclusively on Israel? True, he has made several statements to the effect that Palestinian terrorism must stop - but this hardly seems a concession at all, given that it was a Palestinian obligation under the Oslo Accords which created the Palestinian Authority. Even if we assume that the two demands are of equal value (no settlement construction for an end to violence), why is one being pursued so much more vocally and assertively than the other? If the US wishes to play the role of the so-called "honest broker", does blatantly favouring one side serve its interest? While softening up on Iran and Syria, he's hardening his line with Israel. What kind of message does this send?

Still, I'd like to believe that Bibi will not accept an agreement that doesn't protect Israel's vital interests.

[takeo]

curlyg

I, for one, am a strong supporter of the alliance with the US. I believe we do have a genuine special relationship in part because of our values in part because of the large Jewish community in the US, and in part because of common interests.

Not to mention the military and economical aid Israel receives.

I've personally never been a big fan of the settlements. I've always thought that if we have money available for housing it should be invested in the Galilee and the Negev (are these not part of the Land of Israel which must be settled?). While the settlers were placed/placed themselves in territories where it was clear there would never be a Jewish majority, we've developed Arab majorities all over the country! Today, the "center" is probably the only region that is overwhelmingly Jewish. When I take a drive through the Negev, all I see is empty space, dotted here and there by an Arab village. The Galilee is even worse, having a clear and increasing Arab majority.

I don't think Israeli Arabs are a big danger for Israel. But of course I agree that there's no future for the settlement policy in the occupied territories. Simply because the majority there will never and could never become Israeli citizens. (and also for other reasons as well, these territories will NEVER be internationally recognised as part of Israel, and will continue to spoil relations with most countries)

But as much as I dislike the idea of the settlements as a matter of principle, I - unlike you - understand that history didn't begin with the election of Obama. The Palestinians have NEVER adhered properly to an agreement they signed with Israel. Israel's record, despite the continued settlement construction, has been far better than that of the Palestinians.

Well, the continued settlement construction proves Israel has never been sincere about the two-state solution. Even the Barak-offer didn't give Palestinians the right to controll their own borders, airspace and didn't settle the refugee-problem either, among other flaws. And Oslo has been violated by both sides. I agree that especially Hamas did little to establish peace as well, as I mentioned that problem has to be adressed as well.

And despite the claims of Arab propagandists and the media, which have somehow managed to convince the world that the absence of peace has always been the fault of Israel, we have been the only party that genuinely pursued peace.

Israel even refused to talk to the palestinians untill the 90's, and has never stopped colonising. I wouldn't call that "genuinely pursued peace". Today Israel even quits former commitments. The Obama-speech was directed against the new leadership of Israel, not against Israel as a whole. And as Obama did I agree with you Palestinians should pull themselves together as well, the blame lies not entirely on Israel.

If you take a look at the map of what Barak offered Yasser Arafat at Camp David (you can find it in Dennis Ross' book The Missing Peace, which I highly recommend) you'll see it is essentially everything the Palestinians demanded. The Clinton bridging parameters went even further, agreeing to shared sovereignty of some kind in the holy sites in Jerusalem rather than Palestinian administrative control and "custodianship." And yet still the Palestinians rejected the agreement despite the fact that essentially ALL of their demands had been met, and they had barely moved from their original demands and were completely inflexible in the negotiations.

Actually there was a "peace now" website dedicated to what was offered by Barak and it quickly becomes clear why the Palestinians refused it. For example the Jordan river would remain Israeli controlled, there wasn't any real solution for the refugees, etc. But it was a base for further negociation, which Barak refused. Israel on the other hand refused to accept the Saudi peace proposal, which had been accepted by the Palestinians. Anyway, what Netanyahu offers the Palestinians is totally unacceptable, I think you will agree with me on that one.

The question is, why has Obama's pressure focused almost exclusively on Israel?

He talked about a lot of subjects.

True, he has made several statements to the effect that Palestinian terrorism must stop - but this hardly seems a concession at all, given that it was a Palestinian obligation under the Oslo Accords which created the Palestinian Authority.

The demand to end settlements and occupation and accept a two-state solution isn't new either.

Even if we assume that the two demands are of equal value (no settlement construction for an end to violence), why is one being pursued so much more vocally and assertively than the other? If the US wishes to play the role of the so-called "honest broker", does blatantly favouring one side serve its interest?

Actually the US is still biased towards Israel. It supports Israel, concludes far more favorable agreements with Israel, despite the fact that Israel violates many UN-resolutions. Iran and Syria for example have not been involved in any war the past 18 years, and don't violate international law, yet they get criticised, harsher than Israel, and still suffer from economic punitive measures.

While softening up on Iran and Syria, he's hardening his line with Israel. What kind of message does this send?

a clear message: if Iran and Syria strech out their hand the US will take it. But the US will not accept Iran building nukes. Equally so, Israel should strech its hand to the Arabs and the Palestinians. A two-state solution is a necessary requirement for peace, agreed upon by Israel, and withdrawing this commitment is not acceptable. I think the message is meant for Bibi more than for Israel as a whole.

Still, I'd like to believe that Bibi will not accept an agreement that doesn't protect Israel's vital interests.

And you think Olmert, Barak or Rabin would? Israel already aknowledged that a two-state solution will be in the interest of Israel as well. I personally think the refusal of Netanyahu has more to do with ideological reasons than with safety.

[Reffo]

Israel even refused to talk to the palestinians untill the 90's, and has never stopped colonising. I wouldn't call that "genuinely pursued peace". Today Israel even quits former commitments. The Obama-speech was directed against the new leadership of Israel, not against Israel as a whole. And as Obama did I agree with you Palestinians should pull themselves together as well, the blame lies not entirely on Israel.

Really? I thought it was the other way around.

Here is a quote from an article from the Time Magazine, dated Friday, July 14, 1967:

The Least Unreasonable Arab

Israel will not move back an inch, says the government, until the Arabs show their willingness to begin negotiating directly with it. Even then, the Israelis say that they will demand three irreducible conditions in any final peace settlement: Israeli retention of a united Jerusalem, free passage through the Gulf of Aqaba and the reopening of Egypt's Suez Canal to Israeli ships.

Note Israel's terms for a withdrawal (in bold). They only wanted to retain Jerusalem, nothing else ....

And what was the Arab response? NO negotiations, NO recognition, NO peace .... and that phrase became known as the three NOs of Khartoom ....

So much for your attempt, Takeo, to portray Israel as the intransigent party...