EDITOR: New Chair of AIPAC speaks at the UN!
So the the AIPAC new chair, and ex-president of the US, a certain Barrack, Hussein Obama, has said what’s on his mind. Or, put differently, the second shot in the game of “fuck the Palestinians” has been now played. Wait for the next moves by the Republicans…
Palestinians blast Obama’s UN speech at West Bank rally
Protesters amass near Abbas’ Ramallah office, accuse U.S. President of siding ‘with killers against victims’; activists call for protests in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya.
By The Associated Press, DPA and Haaretz
Tags: Middle East peace Palestinian state Barack Obama UN Mahmoud Abbas
Dozens of Palestinians gathered outside Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ office in Ramallah on Thursday, protesting U.S. President Barack Obama’s opposition to their bid to gain recognition of a Palestinian state in the United Nations.
The protesters held up anti-Obama signs, including one reading “Obama the hypocrite” and another claiming the American president is siding “with killers against victims.”
Also Thursday, the Egypt’s semi-official Al Ahram newspaper reported online that activists in several Arab countries have called mass demonstrations in support of the Palestinian bid for statehood.
The demonstrations are being organized for Friday in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, countries where uprisings have this year led to the toppling of long-standing rulers.
The activists planned to protest Obama’s address on Wednesday at UN General Assembly, which they termed disappointing and biased, Al Ahram said.
Obama reiterated his objection of what he considered to be a unilateral Palestinain move for UN recognition in a speech given in front of the UN General Assembly on Wednesday, saying that the only path for peace was bilateral negotiations.
In a meeting with Abbas following his UN address on Wednesday, Obama told the Palestinian president that UN action would not achieve a Palestinian state and the United States would veto any Security Council move to recognize Palestinian statehood.
“We would have to oppose any action at the UN Security Council including, if necessary, vetoing,” Ben Rhodes, the White House national security council spokesman, told reporters after Obama met Abbas in New York.
PLO diplomatic envoy to the U.S. Maen Rashid Erekat told Haaretz that the U.S. President “reiterated the commitment of the U.S. to the establishment of the Palestinian state, as part of the two-state solution, and stressed the position of the US that the UN is not the right venue to reach this goal.”
“President Abbas explained the Palestinian position – basically it’s what we’ve done in the past few months, each side explained his position,” he added.
Obama plays it (electorally) safe on Israel-Palestine: Guardian
The US president’s speech to the United Nations offers little hope to the Palestinians
Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, was in New York during Barack Obama’s speech, but did not actually turn up at the General Assembly to hear it. Given that the Israel-Palestine conflict was at the heart of the presidential address, that is a fairly extraordinary snub. If Obama had said anything that was difficult for Israel to stomach, the absence might have been rude but understandable. But the speech contained not an ounce of pressure on the Israelis. Netanyahu’s no-show simply reflected the current power relationship between the two men – the Israeli leader takes Obama for granted.
The reasons are political. Fourteen months from the elections, the US president is already fighting for his political life, and cannot afford (he clearly feels) to be outflanked by his future Republican opponent on the defence of Israel. That explains why the passage on how “America’s commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable” carried far more conviction that the bromides about the peace process.
A good measure of the emotional slant of any speech on the Israel-Palestine question is the relative weight given to Jewish and Arab suffering. By that measure, the needle on Obama’s speech was far over to one side. The president went into detail on the impact of suicide bombs and rockets, anti-Semitism in Arab schoolbooks and centuries of persecution on Jews. There was nothing on the pain of Palestinians under occupation, no mention of settlements, other than an acknowledgement of Arab frustration.
No wonder Mahmoud Abbas had his head in his hands and his fellow delegates were shaking their heads. The message that only Israelis and Palestinians can only sort this problem themselves, “when each side learns to stand in each other’s shoes”, was the Bush administration approach. Obama is offering revived talks but apparently without US pressure for them to bring results.
New talks is what is being offered to Abbas to accept a deal by which the Palestinian application for statehood is kicked into the long grass this week, in the form of indefinite study by Security Council committee. For him to accept, the private assurances that the negotiations will not be time-wasting while new settlements are build on the West Bank will really have to be cast iron, because the public signals in Obama’s speech were pointing in the other direction.
U.S. Jews give Obama mixed reviews for ‘pro-Israel’ UN speech: Haaretz
AIPAC lauds U.S. President for seeing Israelis deserve ‘normal relations with their neighbors’; Americans for Peace Now: U.S. position as defender of rights cannot stand as Israeli-Palestinians conflict ‘left to fester’.
It was quite clear that U.S. President Barack Obama’s speech, which Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said he “would sign with both hands,” would draw mixed reactions. Its failure to go into details about the Israeli-Palestinian issue was assumed to be due to a combination of re-election concerns and those of slipping Jewish support.
But the U.S. Jewish organizations provided varying – in some cases even polar – responses to the speech.
The National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC), which recently launched a new website explaining Obama’s support for Israel, took the speech as an opportunity to claim that all the “political chatter” doubting the president’s support for Israel should be “put to bed once and for all.”
“As he has proven throughout his presidency, President Obama supports Israel and its people instinctively. Israel truly has no better friend in the world today,” NJDC leaders Marc Stanley and David Harris said in a joint statement Wednesday.
“On behalf of the National Jewish Democratic Council’s Board of Directors and leadership, we wish to express our thanks to President Barack Obama for passionately and eloquently standing up for Israel and the Jewish State’s security needs at the United Nations today,” they said.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) welcomed the speech. “AIPAC appreciates the President’s “unshakeable” commitment to Israel’s security and his clear statements outlining the daily dangers and strategic threats facing Israel. President Obama demonstrated his understanding of Israel’s legitimate requirements when he stated that the Jewish people – in their historic homeland – deserve recognition and normal relations with their neighbors,” the Jewish lobby said.
American Jewish Committee (AJC) Executive Director David Harris said “President Obama’s message was crystal clear that the only path to sustainable peace is direct Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, not what goes on in the corridors of the UN.”
The Conference of Presidents Chairman Richard Stone and Executive Vice Chairman Malcolm Hoenlein welcomed Obama’s comments at the opening session of the UN General Assembly in support of direct negotiations, and his rejection of solutions imposed by outside parties, unilateral moves, or one sided declarations at the United Nations.
“The President correctly and clearly identified Israel’s security needs and challenges,” said the Conference of Presidents heads.
“The President said that “the Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland” and that “Israel deserves recognition.” We specially note this formulation not only because it reaffirmed a historic truth but also because many in the hall he was addressing have sought to deny Israel’s ancient and constant connection to the land and others have refuse to recognize it as the Jewish State,” their statement continued.
“We hope that other leaders will listen to President Obama’s words and heed his warnings,” they said, adding, “Most of all, we hope that the automatic majority against Israel at the UN will come to consider the danger to that institution and to the cause of peace that results from a blanket acceptance of anti-Israel measures no matter how unjustified they may be.”
Jewish Council for Public Affairs President Rabbi Steve Gutow praised Obama for saying the United States is dedicated to achieving peace through bilateral negotiations.
“He (Obama) understands that peace is a cooperative venture. It needs leaders, partners, supporters, witnesses, and principled advocates. No sustainable peace can be achieved alone,” said the Rabbi. “The path to peace is paved with compromise and cooperation, not unilateralism.”
But on the left side of the map, the disappointment was palpable.
Americans for Peace Now President and CEO Debra DeLee said Obama’s speech, while saying the Americans support peace, offered little hope to Israelis and Palestinians.
“Israelis want and deserve peace and security as much as anyone in the region. Palestinians want and deserve freedom and self-determination as much as Egyptians, Tunisians, or Libyans. The United States cannot maintain credibility as the standard-bearer of rights and freedoms while the Israeli-Palestinians conflict is left to fester,” said DeLee.
DeLee called upon the U.S. President to use his time at the United Nations this week as an opportunity to bring the Israelis and Palestinians back to negotiations. “Only this can re-establish and re-assert U.S. credibility and re-inject hope for an end to this conflict,” she said.
J Street rejected the Palestinian UN bid, but its President Jeremy Ben-Ami said in a statement that Obama was right to say there is “no shortcut” to ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that Obama must turn this “crisis” into “an opportunity to jumpstart meaningful diplomacy that yields results.”
Humanitarian aid for Palestinians should be unnecessary: Guardian
The huge amount of money spent on aid wouldn’t be needed if the international community pressed Israel to lift the blockade and respect international law, and pushed for a political solution
A Palestinian boy stands beside bags of food aid at a UN distribution centre in the Gaza Strip. Photograph: Ali Ali/EPA
As Friday’s expected Palestinian bid for UN membership draws closer, an overlooked issue is the untenable situation of the Palestinian population, who are subjected to collective poverty, misery and desperation, and the role that international humanitarian assistance plays in this.
Several years of experience in the Middle East and of closely following the humanitarian crisis in Palestine have convinced me that humanitarian aid would be unnecessary if a political solution were put in place, and it may even be perpetuating this manufactured crisis.
Many humanitarian workers we have interviewed in the context of the Humanitarian Response Index in recent years have voiced concerns that international humanitarian assistance is simply serving as a sticking plaster to avert the absolute collapse of living conditions in Palestine as the political crisis deepens. The more than $7.2bn (Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2011) injected between 2000 and 2009 seems to have provided an excuse for the international community to avoid fully committing to establishing a just political resolution.
A political resolution is the only option that can solve this artificial crisis of protection, human rights and human dignity violations. But year after year we have seen how political decisions, or the lack thereof, undo humanitarian efforts. It is tragic that the main players, which include the Quartet (the UN, the US, the EU and Russia), are the most generous humanitarian donors while at the same time failing to achieve the political progress that would make their generosity needless.
Meanwhile, things are made worse by restrictions applied by Israel, both for Palestinians and the humanitarian agencies operating there.
Palestine is one of the most complex aid environments for humanitarian agencies, which need to overcome the obstacles and limitations imposed by the Israeli authorities. These include the restrictions on the movement of goods and people between zones and the bureaucratic procedures they entail, as well as the no-contact policy with Hamas stipulated by key donors. As a result, Palestine is a challenging and expensive environment to operate in. As one interviewee said, the no-contact policy “undermines the whole humanitarian response: creating parallel networks, wasting money, in addition to not using available services and resources”.
Another example of the multiple restrictions are the procedures demanded by the Israelis for the delivery of food supplies to Gaza, which cost the World Food Programme and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) $4m per year.
In this context, humanitarian actors say donors are simply not doing enough. Many of the humanitarian organisations we met complained of donor passiveness in advocating for access and of their acceptance of additional operational costs – when at the same time they agreed that the Israeli blockade and occupation were the main obstacles to restoring a minimal level of livelihood and human dignity to the Palestinians.
If the situation seems bad for aid agencies, consider the plight of the Palestinians, who have to endure the Israeli barrier and numerous closures; the arbitrary opening and closing of checkpoints, as well as the random acceptance of the differentiated passes and permits; settlement expansion; forced evictions; and demolitions across the occupied territories. The humanitarian crisis this causes, along with the constant fear of violence, has led to failing hopes and desperation.
At a time when many donor governments are looking to maximise the results and value of their funding, the situation in Palestine shows just how far the response is from achieving efficiency, much less impact. The commitment of one donor to keep constructing what the Israeli authorities keep demolishing on account of a lack of valid building permits illustrates this game of doing, undoing and redoing.
The huge amount of money spent on humanitarian assistance would be unnecessary if the international community pressured Israeli authorities to lift the blockade, respect international humanitarian law, and allow full access to humanitarian aid and recovery.
As the political manoeuvring proceeds, there are ways to ameliorate the suffering of Palestinians. Donors can start by not placing political conditions on their assistance and challenging every party, both Israeli and Palestinian, that delays, controls or misuses aid. They should also avoid short-term funding cycles and grant humanitarian organisations the flexibility they need to implement long-term programmes to meet long-standing needs.
But even if NGOs, the UN and donor agencies provided an exemplary response – and they should deploy all efforts to this end – the solution to the humanitarian crisis in the occupied territories remains political. The most efficient humanitarian response will always fall short if it continues to depend on the interests of Israel and the convenience of donor capitals.
The international community, particularly the main humanitarian donor governments, must understand that their approach of providing large sums of money without calling for the end of the blockade and occupation is not the best way to help the Palestinians – in reality, it allows the protraction of the humanitarian crisis.
The current period is critical. Donors need to back the agencies they fund with a real commitment to building a Palestinian state, something they all agree to. The absence of a solution will lead to more violence, a deeper humanitarian crisis and further instability, none of which will benefit the Palestinians or the Israelis.
• Ross Mountain is director general of Dara
Noam Chayut: Israeli occupation is neither moral nor legitimate: Independent
Thursday, 22 September 2011
In 1979, the year I was born, the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank was 12 years old. I was 10 during the first Palestinian uprising, when my father and his comrades in a reserve unit forced innocent Palestinians out of their homes and shops and, as a form of collective punishment, sent them to clean the streets of graffiti opposing Israeli occupation.
When I joined the army, the 30th anniversary of occupation was being “celebrated”, and three years later, as a young officer, I was sent with my soldiers to confront the second intifada. In one month of riots we killed a hundred Palestinians and many more were wounded by live ammunition.
We were told that our goal was “to sear into the consciousness of Palestinian civil society that terrorism doesn’t pay.” To achieve this, we were to “demonstrate our presence”. This meant entering Palestinian residential areas at any time, day or night, throwing stun grenades, shooting in the air or at water tanks, throwing tear gas grenades, creating noise and fear. For the very same reason, we committed revenge attacks such as demolishing the homes of terrorists’ families, or killing random Palestinian policemen (armed or unarmed): an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. If militants attacked a road, we would close it to Palestinian traffic; if stones were thrown at cars on a road, we would place an indefinite curfew on the closest village.
The Israeli military regime over the Palestinian population is now in its 45th year, and while Palestinian violence has dramatically declined, Israeli soldiers still testify about being assigned to “disrupt the day-to-day routine” in Palestinian areas to create in the local community the feeling of “being constantly pursued”.
It is still unclear what the Palestinian leadership will propose to the UN tomorrow, beyond recognition of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. We don’t know if, or how, the outcome of any vote will be felt on the ground. However, testimonies from more than 750 former Israeli soldiers and officers who have served in the Occupied Territories over the past decade, make one thing clear: from the point of view of the Israeli army, the occupation is not a temporary means of controlling the population. There is no end to it in sight.
Those who oppose the recognition of a Palestinian state cling to a false belief that Israel’s occupation is temporary, its aim to create political space for democratic rule in a future Palestine. This belief is what makes the occupation morally tolerable. Because if an occupation is a permanent one, it can only be illegitimate, not just because the ruler is foreign, but because controlling people via coercion and military orders is immoral.
Even if we accept that a 44-year-long occupation is still temporary in a 63-year-old state; if we ignore the reality of hundreds of thousands of Israeli Jews settled in Palestinian territories, or the existence of two separate and unequal legal regimes imposed on the two ethnic groups in the same small piece of land, it is hard to remain optimistic about Israel’s intentions to evacuate, when we hear its soldiers’ reports to Breaking The Silence, an NGO which collects their testimonies.
We should accept the fact that the army does not intend to withdraw from the Occupied Territories, and that the status quo is the Israeli government’s plan for the future. We should take the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs – who lives in a settlement on Palestinian land – at face value when he declares there won’t be peace even in 50 years.
When security and prosperity continue to flourish for “us”, while liberty and freedom are continually withheld from “them”, it is difficult to think of any other non-violent action the Palestinian leadership can take besides seeking international support for ending the Israeli occupation.
The writer is a former Israeli army officer and member of ‘Breaking The Silence’, an NGO which gathers and publishes testimony from soldiers and works in partnership with Christian Aid to expose the realities of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories
The Palestinians are the new Jews: Haaretz
The Palestinians are the new Jews and their leaders are amazingly similar to the former Zionist leaders.
By Gideon Levy
Look at the Palestinians and look at us. Look at their leaders and recall ours. Not, of course, those we have today, but those we once had, the ones who established the state for us. The Palestinians are the new Jews and their leaders are amazingly similar to the former Zionist leaders.
Their David Ben-Gurion is no longer with them – Yasser Arafat died under mysterious circumstances – but look at Mahmoud Abbas: Isn’t he Levi Eshkol? Saeb Erekat – isn’t he Abba Eban? Salam Fayyad – isn’t he Pinhas Sapir or Eliezer Kaplan? The same moderation, the same nondescript personality, the same pragmatism, the same political wisdom and even, to some degree, the same sense of humor. To take what is attainable, to give up the big dreams – in the partition plan as in the two-state solution.
Then it was the pragmatic Zionist leaders who conceded and compromised, now it is the pragmatic leaders of the Palestinian Authority. At the time they insisted on getting it all, now it’s our turn. Both were ambushed by an internal opposition that was extremist, ultranationalist and uncompromising.
The Palestinian group that is now going to the United Nations should remind Israelis of the Zionist group that turned to the same organization 64 years earlier. Yes, there are differences. And yet the similarity is captivating: Now they are the weak versus the strong, David versus Goliath, their Qassam can’t help but remind us of our Davidka.
They are now the ones whose cause is just in the eyes of the world. The same world that understood in November 1947 that the Jews (and the Palestinians ) deserve a state, understands in September 2011 that the Palestinians finally deserve a state. Then it was after the trauma of the Holocaust, now it is after the trauma of the occupation, without making comparisons.
In the coming days people will once against be glued to their radios counting votes: Russia – yes; the United States – no; Argentina – abstains. Doesn’t it remind us of forgotten times? The United Nations has grown since then, but the proportion will be similar: an absolute majority in favor. The difference: The great powers supported partition at the time, the great power is now opposed to a state. But the moral validity remains the same, there is no longer anyone in the world who can seriously claim that they don’t deserve what we deserved, without being a racist, a chauvinist or a cynical opportunist.
It is amazing how Israelis are unwilling to see the similarities, it is amazing how they are falling plundered and blind in the face of the brainwashing campaign and the scare tactics through which recognition of Palestinian rights is being presented as a threat and an existential danger, and nothing more.
Why is it that there aren’t enough Israelis who see the opportunity and hope for Israel represented by this diplomatic step? Yes, for Israel too. And why is it that there aren’t enough Israelis who properly see the clear fact that the heart of almost the entire world is with the Palestinians, and that it isn’t ringing a belated and deafening wake-up call for them?
Israel at its birth was considered a model society, far more than Palestine at its birth. It bequeathed the world socialist and feminist values, the kibbutz and the moshav, absorption of immigrants and equality of women – a lighthouse of equality and social justice. The Palestinians are now in an inferior position: Their society is more corrupt and less egalitarian than ours, nor did they establish a state-in-the-making for themselves, with impressive institutions such as the ones we had.
But here the situation has become reversed beyond recognition. Israel of 2011 is no longer considered a model society in any area. With quite a number of corrupt Israeli politicians in prison or on the way there, with capitalism that is quite swinish and an occupation that is quite brutal, the story of the great national and social success of the 20th century is now considered a story of missed opportunity of the 21st century. The path to repairing this fateful missed opportunity must now be by way of a new partition plan.
The Palestinians bled for 63 years and paid the price for the fateful mistake of their leaders’ opposition to the 1947 partition plan; the Israelis must not now have regrets for another 63 years and pay a high price for their stubborn and surprising opposition to the 2011 partition plan. Look at them and look at us. They are what we once were.
Mike Leigh, AL Kennedy, Mark Wallinger speak out for the LPO Four: Guardian
Writers, film-makers, artists and academics ‘dismayed’ at suspension of four musicians, and urge the London Philharmonic Orchestra to reconsider
A letter to the Telegraph (scroll down) expresses what so many people in the audience at the London Philharmonic Orchestra’s excellent opening concert were saying privately last night: that the measures against the four musicians who signed a letter to the Independent protesting against the Israel Phil’s appearance at the BBC Proms were absurdly draconian.
Those who signed today’s Telegraph letter include filmmakers Mike Leigh and Ken Loach; actors Sam West, Simon McBurney and Miriam Margolyes; writers AL Kennedy, Philip Hensher, Kamila Shamshie and Ahdaf Soueif; artists Cornelia Parker and Mark Wallinger; composer Steve Martland; playwright Lee Hall and others, including many academics and scholars.
The LPO has certainly made a crisis out of a drama. I’m not sure it could have stoked the flames of this episode more effectively if it had tried.
Here’s the text of the letter:
We are shocked to hear of the suspension of four members of the London Philharmonic Orchestra for adding their signatures to a letter calling for the BBC to cancel a concert by the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra.
According to a statement from LPO managers, quoted in the Jewish Chronicle, the action was taken because the musicians included their affiliation to the orchestra with their signatures – a convention that is common practice within the academic world, for example.
One does not have to share the musicians’ support for the campaign for boycotting Israeli institutions to feel grave concern about the bigger issue at stake for artists and others. There is a link being created here between personal conscience and employment, which we must all resist.
A healthy civil society is founded on the ability of all to express non-violent and non-prejudiced opinions, freely and openly, without fear of financial or professional retribution.
The LPO management states that, for it, “music and politics don’t mix” – yet its decision to jeopardise the livelihoods of four talented musicians for expressing their sincerely held views is itself political.
Why should it be so dangerous for artists to speak out on the issue of Israel/Palestine? We are dismayed at the precedent set by this harsh punishment, and we strongly urge the LPO to reconsider its decision.
EDITOR: Even the right wing liberals are worried…
Ari Shavit stands for views which are strongly opposed to mine; nonetheless, I quote him here, as it is interesting to note that Netanyahu has mnanged to infuriate not only the Israeli left (all 21 people left of it…) but also many on the right of the political spectrum.
Netanyahu’s ‘truth’ is proving to be Israel’s mistake: Haaretz
Thanks to Netanyahu and Lieberman, the Palestinian state is now the darling of the international community, and no country is more hated and despised than the Jewish state.
By Ari Shavit
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu traveled to New York this week in order to tell the truth. Here is the truth: Our situation has never been so dismal.
There have been more dangerous situations in the past – for instance, in the early 1950s, when Israel did not have a single strategic ally. There have been more infuriating situations in the past – for instance, in the mid-1970s, when the UN General Assembly ruled that Zionism is racism. But we have never been as pitiful as we are today. The grotesque foreign policy of Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has turned Israel into a pathetic and helpless polity.
The reason for this is simple. In war, the best defense is offense. In diplomacy, the best offense is giving. Only if you give something do you get something, acquire allies and increase your strength. But the Israel of Netanyahu-Lieberman is a tightfisted country that is incapable of giving. That is why it doesn’t receive anything, doesn’t acquire allies and is becoming dangerously weakened. It is losing one asset after another and one position after another, and is becoming totally isolated.
Let there be no misunderstanding: In the present children’s game, the bad boy is the Palestinian one. Israel is still an occupying power, but Palestine is the aggressor.
While the State of Israel recognizes the nation-state of the Palestinian people, Palestine does not recognize the nation-state of the Jewish people. While the State of Israel offered the Palestinians former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s map, the Palestinians have not offered Israel defensible borders that will guarantee its existence. They still reject the only recipe for dividing the country: 1967 in exchange for 1948, realizing the right of self-determination in exchange for waiving the right of return.
The Palestinians, who rejected then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s offer a decade ago and rejected Olmert’s offer three years ago, are the ones who, for the past two years, have refused to speak to Netanyahu. They were and are the real peace rejectionists.
But the very fact that the Palestinians are the bad children proves the extent to which Netanyahu and Lieberman are foolish children. It would have been so easy to tear the mask from the face of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. It would have been so easy to prove that he is demanding even the piece of land on which Haaretz is located.
But in order to do so, Israeli imagination and creativity and daring were needed. It was necessary to offer an Israeli concession: to adopt the Olmert initiative or continue Ariel Sharon’s disengagement or implement Shaul Mofaz’s interim agreement.
None of these three routes would have led Israel to peace. But each of them would have improved Israel’s situation in war. The battle would have been transferred to enemy territory; we would have retained legitimacy; and the Palestinians would have suffered isolation. Instead of being the world’s punching bag, Israel would once again have been a serious political player whom the world is attentive to and takes seriously.
But Netanyahu and Lieberman did not follow any of these three paths. They did not initiate anything and did not offer anything and did not concede anything. All they have done for the past two years is withstand pressure and preserve their honor, preserve their honor and withstand pressure.
In so doing, they have served the Palestinian cause in a way no hostile statesman ever has. With their own hands, they turned Abbas into the hero he isn’t. With their own hands, they turned Israel into a leper, which it must not be. The prime minister and the foreign minister have brought Israel to an unprecedented diplomatic nadir.
Now Netanyahu is begging U.S. President Barack Obama to save us from Gabon. It is quite possible that he will succeed.
Bibi is a champion at such gimmicks. He has all the necessary talents to be an excellent foreign minister.
But even if Palestinian hubris causes the Palestinians to fail in the Security Council, the basic picture won’t change. Thanks to Netanyahu and Lieberman, the Palestinian state is now the darling of the international community. Thanks to Netanyahu and Lieberman, no country is more hated and despised than the Jewish state.
Barack Obama ‘will veto’ Palestinian UN bid: BBC
President Obama says there can be “no short cut” to a lasting peace
Barack Obama has told Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas he will veto his bid for UN membership, as he tried to persuade him to drop the plans.
But Mahmoud Abbas vowed to press ahead during a meeting with the US president, the White House said afterwards.
Mr Obama had told the UN General Assembly a Palestinian state could only be achieved through talks with Israel.
But French President Nicolas Sarkozy warned a veto could spark another cycle of violence in the region.
Diplomatic efforts for Palestinian UN membership have intensified, with Mr Abbas preparing to submit a written application to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in New York on Friday.
Thousands of people rallied in the West Bank on Wednesday in support of the move.
‘Badge of honour’
If Mr Ban approves the request, the Security Council will examine it and vote on it. In order to pass, it would need the backing of nine out of 15 council members, with no vetoes from the permanent members.
However, Mr Obama had indicated the US will use its veto, leaving Western diplomats trying to find ways to put off the voting process to buy more time.
In his speech, President Obama praised the way Arabs in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia had seized their freedom. But even with the prospect of the US vetoing the Palestinian UN bid, the Palestinians are claiming some victories – they’ve put the issue of their independence back on the international agenda.
The president’s speech was as much about the politics of his own re-election bid next year as it was about the politics of making peace.
His leading Republican opponent has accused him of appeasing the Palestinians. Mr Obama said nothing that Israel and its friends would not like.
That may well be good for the Israeli government. It isn’t necessarily good for Middle East peace.
And the US president made his position clear to both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr Abbas during meetings late on Wednesday.
“We would have to oppose any action at the UN Security Council including, if necessary, vetoing,” White House national security council spokesman Ben Rhodes said after Mr Obama met Mr Abbas.
Mr Netanyahu told reporters that Mr Obama deserved a “badge of honour” for his defence of Israel.
However, senior Palestinian negotiator Nabil Shaath argued that Palestinian UN membership was “morally, legally and politically acceptable in every way”.
Mr Sarkozy urged a compromise, suggesting the General Assembly give the Palestinians enhanced status as a non-member state to allow a clear timeline for talks – a month to start negotiations, six months to deal with borders and security and a year to finalise a “definitive agreement”.
A vote on enhanced status – enjoyed by others such as the Vatican – would not require a Security Council recommendation but a simple majority in the General Assembly, where no veto is possible.
Failed talks
French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said any UN vote on the issue was in any case “several weeks” away.
Mr Obama had earlier told the General Assembly: “Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the UN.
“There is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades.
“Ultimately, it is Israelis and Palestinians – not us – who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and security; on refugees and Jerusalem.”
Palestinians say their bid for statehood has been inspired by the Arab Spring, and is the result of years of failed peace talks.
In the West Bank on Wednesday, schools and government offices were shut to allow for demonstrations backing the UN membership bid in Ramallah, Bethlehem, Nablus and Hebron.
While UN recognition would have largely symbolic value, the Palestinians argue it would strengthen their hand in peace talks.
Mr Abbas’s spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeina, said after Mr Obama’s speech: “The end of the Israeli occupation and a Palestinian state are the only path to peace.
“We will agree to return to the negotiations the minute that Israel agrees to end the settlements and the lines of 1967.”
In his meeting with Mr Obama, Mr Netanyahu said direct negotiation was the only way to achieve a stable Middle East peace. The last round of talks broke down a year ago.
The “quartet” of US, European, Russian and UN mediators aims to give the two sides a year to reach a framework agreement, based on Mr Obama’s vision of borders fashioned from Israel’s pre-1967 boundary, with agreed land swaps.
Efforts are now reportedly under way to provide a basis for resumed peace negotiations, but work by mediators has yet to produce guidelines for the resumption of talks.
The one-sided US veto: Al Jazeera English
The US, arguing that unilateralism is misguided, hypocritically plans to veto Palestinian statehood at the UN.
Neve Gordon and Yinon Cohen, 20 Sep 2011 10:02
US President Barack Obama’s decision to use the US’ veto prerogative if the United Nations votes to recognise a Palestinian state will constitute a blow to those seeking peace in the Middle East.
His administration’s claim that peace can only be achieved through dialogue and consent rather than through unilateral moves ignores the complex power relations that constitute peace-making between Israelis and Palestinians. History teaches that peace is achieved only when the conflicting sides believe that they have too much to lose by sustaining the conflict. And, at this point in history, the price Israel is paying for continuing the occupation is extremely small.
But if, for the sake of argument, one were to accept the view expressed by President Obama – that unilateralism is a flawed political approach – then one should survey the history of unilateral moves within the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and examine the US response towards them.
A logical place to begin is 1991, when Israelis and Palestinians met for the first time in Madrid to negotiate a peace agreement. United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338, which call for Israel’s withdrawal from the land it occupied during the 1967 War in exchange for peace, served as the basis for the Madrid Conference.
Ever since that conference, Israel has carried out numerous unilateral moves that have undermined efforts to reach a peace agreement based on land for peace. These include the confiscation of Palestinian land, the construction of settlements and the transfer of Jewish citizenry to occupied territories, actions that every US administration regarded as an obstruction to the peace process.
Settlement expansion
Consider, for example, the Jewish settler population. At the end of 1991, there were 132,000 Jewish settlers in East Jerusalem and 89,800 settlers in the West Bank. Two decades later, the numbers of settlers in East Jerusalem has increased by about 40 per cent, while the settlers in the West Bank, according to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, have increased by over 300 per cent. Currently, there are about half a million Jewish settlers.
If Israel had arrested its unilateral transfer of Jewish citizens to Palestinian land in 1991 once it had embarked upon a peace process based on the return of occupied territory, the number of Jewish settlers in the West Bank would have been less than 50 per cent of what it is today.
There are over 300,000 Israeli settlers currently living in the West Bank [EPA]
Indeed, estimations based on the natural growth rate of the West Bank settler population suggest that this population would have been less than 150,000 people in 2011, while today it is actually over 300,000.
An analysis of settler movement to the West Bank also reveals that settler population growth has not been substantially different when left-of-centre parties have been in power. During periods in which the Labour Party formed the governing coalition, the numbers have been just as high, if not higher, than periods during which Likud or Kadima have been in power. This, in turn, underscores the fact that all Israeli governments have unilaterally populated the contested West Bank with more Jewish settlers while simultaneously carrying out negotiations based on land for peace.
Seeing that the settlers are undermining any future two-state solution, the Palestinians have decided not to wait any longer and are asking the United Nations to recognise a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. This, they intimate, is their last attempt to salvage the two-state route before abandoning it to the dustbin of history.
Their argument is straightforward: If the idea behind a two-state solution is dividing land among the two peoples, how can Israel unilaterally continue to settle the contested land while carrying out negotiations? Israeli unilateralism, in other words, has driven the Palestinians to choose the unilateral path. The only difference is that the latter’s unilateralism is aimed at advancing a peace agreement, while the former’s is aimed at destroying it.
One-sided US veto
The US has never considered using its veto power to stop Israel from carrying out unilateral moves aimed at undermining peace.
Instead, the US has frequently used its veto to prevent the condemnation of Israeli policies that breach international law. Now the Obama Administration wants to use the veto again, with the moral justification that unilateralism is misguided. But the real question is: Why is unilateralism bad when it attempts to advance a solution, yet warrants no response when unilateralism threatens to undermine a solution?
President Obama should keep in mind that the Palestinian appeal to the international community might very well be the last chance for salvaging the two-state solution.
If the Palestinian demand for recognition falls through due to a US veto, then the necessary conditions for a paradigm shift will be in place: The two-state solution will be even less feasible, and the one-state formula will emerge as the only alternative.
Neve Gordon is the author of Israel’s Occupation and can be reached through his website www.israelsoccupation.info
Yinon Cohen is Yerushalmi Professor of Israel and Jewish Studies, Department of Sociology, Columbia University, New York.
Obama calls for peace talks but reaffirms US support for Israel: Independent
By Rupert Cornwell
Thursday, 22 September 2011
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu chats to President Barack Obama at the United Nations in New York yesterday
Warning that there was “no shortcut” to a Middle East peace settlement, President Barack Obama sought yesterday to persuade Israeli and Palestinian leaders to re-start direct negotiations – and thus blunt the Palestinian bid for full United Nations membership that Washington has vowed to veto.
But as Mr Obama held separate talks with Benjamin Netanyahu, and the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, prospects of a early breakthrough seemed remote. With the US President sitting beside him, the Israeli Prime Minister flatly declared that any attempt to secure statehood via the UN would not succeed. “The Palestinians want statehood but aren’t prepared to offer peace to Israel in return,” Mr Netanyahu said.
Barring an astonishing last-minute reversal, Mr Abbas will make the application official when he addresses the General Assembly tomorrow. It is certain of broad but mainly symbolic approval by the assembly. But the critical arena is the 15-member Security Council, where the US would wield its veto, if a statehood resolution won the required majority of nine votes
Mr Obama’s overriding goal, however, is to prevent matters reaching that point, which would be a lose-lose situation for the US. A veto would shatter what remains of Washington’s credibility in the region, after his embrace of the democracy movements of the “Arab Spring”.
But to refrain from a veto would play into the hands of his Republican opponents at home, who accuse him of abandoning the Jewish state – in the words of Mitt Romney, a leading contender for the 2012 nomination, of “throwing Israel under a bus”.
In his address to the General Assembly, Mr Obama sought to walk that tightrope, re-affirming America’s support for a Palestinian state, but stressing that a settlement could only be reached by negotiation and compromise, “not by statements and resolutions at the UN”. Peace, he warned, “is hard work”.
Addressing a domestic political audience as least as much as the world leaders listening in the chamber, Mr Obama pledged unwavering US backing for Israel. He spoke explicitly of the hostility to it across the region, of Iran’s threats to “wipe Israel off the map”, and the historical persecution of Jews that culminated in the Holocaust. “Friends of the Palestinians do them no service by ignoring these truths,” he added.
But those words cut little ice with Mr Abbas and his delegation, frustrated by decades of failure to secure peace. There was a gap, complained Yasser Abed Rabbo, the secretary-general of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, “between praising the struggle of Arab peoples for the sake of freedom and between an abstract call for negotiations between us and the Israelis”.
Yesterday, Mr Netanyahu again called on the Palestinians to return to the bargaining table, but gave no public sign of any concession on settlements or anything else. Nor did Mr Obama go into specific issues in his speech.
The one hope is that procedural requirements mean any vote in the Security Council is probably some weeks off, offering a window in which a formula could be found for a restart of talks. And as Mr Obama spoke, frantic efforts were taking place to avert such a diplomatic disaster.
Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President, called on the UN to grant the Palestinians the status of observer state, like the Vatican, while outlining a one-year road-map to peace. A US veto in the Security Council, he warned, could plunge the Middle East into new violence. But the stakes are highest of all for Mr Obama as he tries to right his struggling presidency and preserve Washington’s influence in the Middle East.
The options: Full vs partial membership
What would full membership mean?
The Palestinians believe that full UN membership would level the playing field when it comes to negotiations with Israel, enhancing their ability to extract concessions. Instead of an occupying state negotiating with an occupied territory, the relationship would shift to that of state versus a state. But, in taking the full membership route, the Palestinians would not only defer a vote by months as various subcommittees review the application: they also invite almost certain failure, because the US will use its veto against a bid for statehood.
What would partial membership mean?
Palestinians could pursue the so-called “Vatican option” – an upgrade of their status from a non-member entity to that of a non-member state. The resolution would probably pass with little difficulty, given that it would only require a majority in the General Assembly, where the Palestinians have a strong base of support. Some Palestinian leaders see this as the best route to full membership, giving them in the meantime access to various international bodies, including, it is thought, the International Criminal Court. The latter is a deeply worrying prospect for Israel, which could be exposed to legal challenges over its policies in the Occupied Territories.
Obama’s passivity could lead to the loss of a Palestinian partner: Haarretz
Speeches like the one given by U.S. President Barack Obama to the UN General Assembly will not advance peace one iota.
By Akiva Eldar
The key statement in President Barack Obama’s address to the UN General Assembly was the distinction that peace between Israel and the Palestinians will not be attained by means of speeches and UN resolutions. Indeed, speeches like those presidential candidate Obama gave on Wednesday will not advance peace one iota. A resolution passed by the General Assembly to upgrade the status of the Palestinians a bit – after a blocking majority put together by Obama or an American veto thwarts them in the Security Council – is also not likely to improve the situation in the occupied territories.
Worse yet, Obama’s passivity could pave the way to a civil uprising against Israel and its American patron, and/or lead to the loss of the Palestinian partner to the two-state solution.
Obama’s graceless courting of the Israeli government is unlikely to attract Jewish votes or financing; those who believe in the perpetuation of the conflict will prefer a Republican candidate who recycles the hollow vow to bring the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. The photographer Spencer Tunik should have invited Obama to take part in his photograph in the lowest place on earth, since Obama’s speech presented the diplomacy of the (still ) strongest power in the world in all its nakedness.
To realize the extent to which the lame-duck candidate has regressed from the positions of the new and promising President Obama, the speech to the United Nations in September 2011 should be compared to one he gave in Cairo in 2009. At that time he pledged to “personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires,” and said “… it is time for all of us to live up to our responsibilities.” Yesterday he sent the occupied and the occupier, the strong and the weak, to solve the core issues on their own.
In Cairo he recalled, along with Jewish suffering in the Holocaust, the “daily humiliations … that come with the occupation.” And he added: “Let there be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable.” He even compared the struggle of the Palestinians for freedom to the struggle of black people in the United States for equal rights. On Wednesday, Obama paid pursed lip service to the legitimate aspirations and forgot to mention the occupation.
In June 2009, Obama spoke of “the obligations that the parties have agreed to under the road map.” He meant, among other things, and perhaps mainly, Israel’s obligation to completely stop construction in the settlements and dismantle the outposts built after March 2001. To remove all doubt, he stated resolutely: “It is time for these settlements to stop.”
On Wednesday, not one word of criticism was heard about Israel creating unilateral physical facts on the ground. To the 2011-model Obama, only the Palestinians’ approach to the United Nations is unilateral, objectionable and meriting the death penalty. Only the very best navigators of the endless maze of the “peace process” could find in yesterday’s address an indirect mention of Obama’s support for negotiations based on the 1967 borders and an exchange of territories – in a general reference to his speech last May.
Obama forgot to mention that in July he demanded that the Quartet release a statement of support for the annexation of the settlement blocs to Israel and recognition of Israel’s Jewish character. Yesterday he was a bit more cautious and made do with the declaration that “Israel deserves recognition.” To whom exactly was the statement directed? To North Korea? To Iran? How many countries among those whose leaders were listening to his remarks do not recognize Israel? True, none of them, including the United States, recognize the occupation, nor the annexation of East Jerusalem.
There is no doubt that Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman had many moments of pleasure on Wednesday. His great nemesis, the person who threatened to expel him from his home in the settlement of Nokdim in exchange for a diplomatic agreement with the Palestinians, and perhaps for a regional peace initiative as well, raised a white flag yesterday. In fact, how can one complain about a foreign leader who risks our existence for considerations that are foreign to us? Don’t we have one like that?