Jewish left-wingers are cheering President Obama’s Jerusalem speech in which he once again made the case for a two-state solution. Some are hoping that this will mean a renewed campaign of U.S. pressure on the Netanyahu government. With a new secretary of state in John Kerry who may well be foolish enough to believe he can succeed where so many other American peace processers have failed, perhaps they are right. But it is also possible that although Obama was eager to reiterate his ideas about the necessity of peace, the only real insights about the impact of the presidential visit may be coming from Palestinians and some of their cheerleaders.
While they will also welcome the president’s reassertion of the right of the Palestinians to a state of their own and his criticisms of Jewish settlements, it is far more probable that the part of his address today that will resonate with them is the section in which he laid out at length not only a defense of Zionism but a case for Israel’s right to self-defense and America’s ironclad guarantee of its security. Though there may be some in the Muslim and Arab worlds who will take to heart the president’s sermon on coexistence and shared goals, the chant of demonstrators that greeted him in Ramallah today, in which the crowd chanted for rocket propelled grenades, not more cooperation with the U.S., was perhaps a more accurate reading of public opinion.
Were Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas, whom the president inaccurately praised as a “partner for peace,” really interested in pursuing a two-state solution, he would take up the president’s challenge and agree, as Obama insisted during their joint press conference, to a new round of peace talks without insisting on preconditions. But the odds that the embattled Abbas, who is far more worried about Hamas than he is about Israel or the U.S., will do that are slim, making any new U.S. initiative a fool’s errand.
Those who would dismiss the president’s speeches as meaningless rhetoric shouldn’t underestimate the power of words, especially from an American president, to set the tone in the region. But those who think Obama’s appeal to Israelis to force their leaders to once again take risks for peace (something that runs contrary to the verdict of the recent Israeli election) may not only be misreading the mood of the Israeli public; they are also ignoring the Palestinians.
It should first be understood that merely stating America’s desire for a renewal of the peace process without demanding anything from the parties other than that they return to the peace table does not in any way constitute pressure on Israel. To the contrary, while Israel’s new government is under no illusion about the president wanting them to change course on settlements, they heard no concrete proposals from him that they must either refuse or accede to. In Ramallah, Obama echoed Netanyahu when he pointed out that the Palestinian demand that Israel concede every main point on borders and settlements prior to the negotiations was a formula for inaction, not peace. Israel’s position remains that it is ready to talk about everything without preconditions and that is exactly what Obama endorsed. Though it is possible Obama may follow this up with pressure on Netanyahu in the coming months and years, his speech actually made it very plain that pressure for peace would have to come from the Israel public and not from an American president who has learned his lesson about the futility of trying to impose his will on the Jewish state or on a Palestinian Authority that has consistently disappointed him.
While some on the Jewish right may only be listening to the latter part of the president’s speech in which he criticized settlements, what they need to understand is that Israel’s enemies probably stopped listening after the part where he endorsed Zionism and said those who wish to erase Israel are wasting their time. It will be those words and not his call for mutual understanding that will have the most impact.
The president may have felt that he had to precede any talk about peace with a stirring paean to Zionism and the right of Israel to defend itself against its enemies in order to make them feel safe enough to compromise. But to a Palestinian political culture that still seeks Israel’s delegitimization, that is an invitation to confrontation, not accommodation. So long as Palestinian nationalism is bound up with rejection of Zionism, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for even a stronger Palestinian leader than Abbas to make peace. And that is why he will, no doubt to President Obama’s frustration, continue to avoid talks like the plague.
Obama’s Jerusalem speech about the virtues of a two-state solution is no more likely to produce one than the one George W. Bush gave in 2002 when he became the first U.S. president to officially endorse the creation of a Palestinian state. Then, too, Bush couched his support for the concept in a context of Israeli security and Palestinian rights (though Bush also endorsed Palestinian democracy, a point that Obama wisely avoided since Abbas is now serving in the ninth year of a four-year term). But while Bush’s heartfelt support helped encourage then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to withdraw from Gaza (a colossal blunder that has worsened the country’s security and that neither Netanyahu nor any other Israeli leader will repeat in the West Bank), it did nothing to move the Palestinians. For all of his rhetorical brilliance, Obama’s chances of succeeding where Bush failed are minimal.
In the absence of any peace proposal that will hinge on American pressure on Israel to make concessions, nothing will come of Obama’s peace advocacy. Obama’s critics on the right, both here and in Israel, may say that his Zionist rhetoric is insincere and that the only aspects of his speeches that can be believed are those that call for Israeli concessions. But while he may not, as Aaron David Miller said, be “in love with the idea of Israel,” he gave a plausible impression of someone who is an ardent supporter of that idea this week. After this trip, it is simply not possible to claim he is Israel’s enemy, even if some of his advice to it is unwise.
The irony here is that the Jewish right that will attack Obama for his speech is probably as wrong about its impact as the left that cheers it. As long as the Palestinians remain unwilling to make peace, it doesn’t matter what the Israelis do or what Obama says about the subject.
I don't know I keep hearing excerpts of him saying that Israel can't be secure by occupying and expelling people and throwing old folks out of their homes and throwing grandma off of a cliff and cutting off her diabetes pills … oh wait, that last one's Paul Ryan.
Don't worry about Grandma's pills. Israel has an excellent single payer healthcare system.
HillelA–on point as regards national health insurance (Israel however is not exaclty single payer) but the joke here is not as regards health insurance–but as regards the inaccuracy by analogy of administration declarations per se: as A is to B–so just as the administration's PR is inaccurate that Ryan want's to throw grandma (in the commercials, literally) off of a cliff, so its portrayal of Israel as hellbent on occupying, expelling, and throwing Palestinian grandmothers into the street is inaccurate.
""It is not fair that a Palestinian child cannot grow up in a state of her own, and lives with the presence of a foreign army that controls the movements of her parents every single day. It is not just when settler violence against Palestinians goes unpunished. It is not right to prevent Palestinians from farming their lands; to restrict a student’s ability to move around the West Bank" n nso this has been an exercise in: n na) sincere and perceptive mediation between neigbors in intimate conflict who suffer from mutual injustice and misunderstanding? nb) splitting the difference nc) the left side of the mouth disconnected from what the right side is saying. n n
Until the PLO loves their children more than they HATE the Jews, this will never end. n nTry to remember that Jews lived in that area before Islam was even a religion.
I liked the line about wishing that Israeli parents would sit down with Palestinian children and learn about their hopes and dreams (I'm paraphrasing). and I thought to myself: I can totally see Israeli parents willing to do just that. n nbut what really needs to happen is getting Palestinian parents to sit down with Israeli children. this would never be suggested, naturally, as it might offend the Muslims and we don't want to offend the Muslims. n nthe morning Obama spoke, rockets fired from Gaza hit Sderot. it's amazing to me that he can be in the country with that reality and still ask Israel to give, give, give for peace.
More disturbing than the lies and distortions uttered by Hussein, was the repeated applause of Israeli university students, many of whom must be IDF veterans. What is wrong with the Israeli mass media, army and educational institutions that educate, inform, and socialize those who applaud the call for the establishment of another Arab state on historic Jewish lands whose only raison d'etre is to annihilate the Jewish people and remove them from the middle east? Each round of applause was a deafening condemnation of the total failure of modern secular Zionism's socializing of its elite secular youth. As much as the Commentariat delights in bashing the Charedim, I dare say they would never have applauded Hussein in this way.
He spoke at the university for a reason. Unlike most past American Presidents he did not address the Knesset. He only gave a speech at the one place where the Israeli left can pack the hall – the university. Furthermore, This was not a random sample of college age people. The polling shows that Obama is very unpopular – as is the "peace" movement in Israel.
fwiw, if you looked at the audience as the C-Span coverage did at times, you would have noticed maybe half not applauding anything. n nwhich might explain Obama's facial expression: no smiles. n n
President Barack Obama has shown his true views about Israel by appointing Chuck Hagel, anti-Semite and anti-Israel, as his Secretary of Defence.
"As much as the Commentariat delights in bashing the Charedim, I dare say they would never have applauded Hussein in this way." Not only would the Charedim not applaud him in this way, few of them are willing to have their sons and daughters join the IDF to defend the country that coddles them. (Is that "bashing" or telling it like it is? Whichever, it provides no delight.)
Doc, I have read that the single largest combat unit in the IDF today is the Nachal Haredi. And the IDF has broken many of the promises that in made to Haredim not to unnecessarily interfere with their religious observance and way of life. n nPeople like to forget that the Chazon Ish offered Ben Gurion that he would declare army service a religious duty if the army was willing to make the army men-only. Ben Gurion refused, and got a law enacted making it a criminal offense to work without a work permit that can be obtained only by military service. By doing so, he stripped Haredim of the ability to support themselves with dignity, forcing them to rely on handouts. Which the Israeli public and uninformed Jews in golus castigate them for. n nIt's hard for me to view Haredim as coddled knowing that Ben Gurion, as a matter of choice, deliberately made it unlawful for them to work without serving, and deliberately created conditions making it impossible for them to serve without abandoning their religious observance. All of this was part of Labor's well known campaign to create a 'new Jew' who would be freed from the shackles of religion.
I'm willing to be educated, so please tell me more. n nI know that there are combat units made up of very religious Jews, but how does that excuse the fact that the great majority of Haredi neither go into the military or do alternative service? n nHow specifically has the IDF "broken many of the promises that in made to Haredim not to unnecessarily interfere with their religious observance," and their "way of life" means exactly what that doesn't fall under "religious observance"? n nIn the early days of the state, Ben Gurion refused to agree to a men-only army, so that serves as a justification for not requiring military service of them today? Suppose Ben Gurion had agreed to a men-only army, then would the Haredi be excused from service if they couldn't be guaranteed that there were no homosexuals serving in the men-only army? n nWhile I am interested in the history of Israel and its founding, the present day circumstances there are of greater concern to me. So is that law you say Ben Gurion got past making it "a criminal offense to work without a work permit that can be obtained only by military service" (details?) still in effect today, effectively barring the way to gainful employment of the Haredi? I would very, very much doubt that to be the case, but perhaps you can prove me wrong. n nAlso, can you tell me whether like other modern countries requires that all children be educated and the education satisfy certain minimal secular standards? Do Haredi children get educations that prepare them to support themselves and their families, or are they left with no marketable skills? n
The two state solution is a more sophisticated form of deadly anti-Semitism than the nakedly anti-Semitic one state solution, and many Jews of course support it. Many Jews, perhaps most American Jews, hence support a path to another Holocaust. n nThe two state solution can be summed up as: nthe solution to Muslim extremism against the Jews is for the Jews to surrender their whole Western buffer zone to Muslim extremists, as they have surrendered Gaza to Muslim extremists and southern Lebanon to Hezbollah and the Sinai to the Muslim Brotherhood. n nHence it is deadly anti-Semitism. To expect Israel to surrender more territory to Muslim fanatics AFTER the Gaza, Lebanon withdrawals and now the Egypt Sinai experience can only be explained by Jew-hatred (in the language of peace and justice naturally enough). Jews are clearly bent on mass suicide by still supporting the new final solution aka the two state solution
President MacGuffin says whatever the audience in front of him wants to hear.
Bad Trudy, nBad, bad Trudy. n nWere you not an unbalanced Trudy you would have noted that Obama stood on a platform with Abbas and publicly told him that he should shove his demand that their be a complete building freeze in the settlements before new negotiations. n nAbbas and the audience sure as sugar didn't want to hear that…. and Abbas quickly contradicted Obama
Yes, while standing under a big banner of a smiling Yasser Arafat yemach shmo. And telling Israelis that they need to reach out to the average Arab family. n nObama's words on this trip have not been the unmitigated disaster that they usually are. But much of what he has said smacks of insincerity (Iran), patronising (he knows better than Israelis what will assure their security), platitudes, moral equivalence, sheer fantasy (the PA is ready to make peace, Abbas and PA are peace partners for Israel, Arabs don't covet Tel Aviv every bit as much as they do E-1), ethnic discrimination (no Jews in areas where Arabs don't want them), partisan divisiveness (no students from Ariel), and blatant disrespect (refusing to speak to the Knesseth and instead telling college students what he wants them to pressure their government to do; disrupting Pesach preparation and perishable food for families who live in the Old City). Paskutnyik!
aha, the president of the US has every right in the world to advise our friends and clients, who are free to heed that advice or not. n nthe prime minister of our little ally has not been shy in his urgings to my country about what we must do. n nObama has been quite mild in public. so quietly swallow what you must.
ldubinsky, when the American president advises – especially when he advises a "little ally" – that ally might have to listen. Not quite the same when Netanyahu does it in reverse. Come on, you know that. nAt any rate, Obama got our "little ally" to apologize to Erdogan. How do you say "kowtow" in Turkish?
I only wish that you were correct, mike. Obama has offered advice and urged actions upon Netanyahu for years without any evidence other than that the advice was heard and not accepted. n nBibi ain't thin-skinned. We in New York learned that long ago back when he was hanging out here at the UN. n n n nThis thing with Netanyahu making that phone call to Erdogan as Obama was getting ready to jet was good political theater and a smart all around move for Israel, the US and Turkey. n nThe two small countries had to heal the rift and by Bibi letting Obama get the credit for the call also allows Bibi to share some of the offense taken by those who need to feel offended. n ngood for everybody…except the Assads, Iran, and Lebanese Hezbollah. n n n n n
He stated point blank that Jews in Yesha was bad and that a "Palestinian state" had to be 'contiguous', unquote.
supply the quotes, dear lady, rather than your claims about what he said. n n nI don't know, but highly doubt that he said that a Palestinian state had to be contiguous, unless he meant to propose that Gaza not be a part of it. n nIf he meant to say that the West bank part of such state had to be contiguous, that's entirely unobjectionable. n n nand don't forget to post that " Jews in Yesha was bad " crud, so we can see who's spraying points that are blank, Obama or yourself.
I heard it with my ears. Sorry if that's too retro for you.
when and in what speech from where/ n ni'll go try to dig up a transcript. n ndarn sure ain't gonna take your word that what you claim to have heard is actual any more than I would take David Berkowitz's word as to the source and accuracy of what he thought he heard. n n
" Obama stood on a platform with Abbas and publicly told him that he should shove his demand that their be a complete building freeze in the settlements before new negotiations." nOk, and then… n"Abbas and the audience sure as sugar didn't want to hear that…. and Abbas quickly contradicted Obama." nOh – I see. Obama lobbed him a home run pitch and Abbas gleefully slammed it out of the park. Obama either purposely or idiotically set this up – how do you think the Muslim world will respond to this? The lowly Palestinian leader stood up to the POTUS. Brilliant. nNow, if you are looking for real presidential leadership on foreign soil, reread Reagan's Shanghai speech, 1984, or his Moscow University speech in 1988.
"Though there may be some in the Muslim and Arab worlds who will take to heart the president’s sermon on coexistence and shared goals, the chant of demonstrators that greeted him in Ramallah today, in which the crowd chanted for rocket propelled grenades, not more cooperation with the U.S., was perhaps a more accurate reading of public opinion." nNow that I've wiped the coffee off my screen, let me comment. The fact that such chants greeted the President seems to suggest he shouldn't have been there to begin with. President Sisyphus should have turned the limo around. Accompanied by a middle finger, this might have accomplished more for the region than he did by opening his mouth.
any bets on how much Jeffrey Goldberg's interview with King Abdullah of Jordan in The Atlantic, available online, wil impact the entire mishegoss today? nIt might just overshadow anything Obama said in Israel, at least for the next few days.
I'm willing to bet that it aint anything from Goldberg that's gonna be doing the overshadowing. n nI'm of the mind that Bibi's phone call is gonna be in the center ring of the circus
While some words do, indeed, have power; words uttered by this shallow and superficial poseur have none, and will go down as still more meaningless rhetoric. nEven as far as his, utterly unacceptable and disastrous, goals, go, this nonsensical speech was a proverbial dollar short and a day late. Israel, as the recent election have shown, has moved beyond constant fixation with "peace"; and making, or not making, unilateral concession to the Arabs, is no longer a primary concern of anyone, except the rapidly fading extreme left. nBam-bam could've just as well have been talking about Jews living in Sepharad and the Spanish Inquisition, for all the relevance his words had to his wider audience (beyond the mind numbed sophomores packed into the hall for his speech).
Hopefully the days of a fabricated Palestinian entity are counted.
Hopefully the days of a fabricated "Palestinian" entity are counted. Their country is East to the Jordan river. This morning Bel Ami was again spreading false info on NPR.
you're silly.
After watching Obama’s Press Conference in Amman. I came to the conclusion that this is the last time Air-Force-one will ever touchdown the Middle East soil. Obama’s body language ain’t only conquering but rather delusional. Commanding Bibi to call and beg Recep Tayyip Erdou011fan forgiveness was foolish lifesaver. That’s exposed the nothingness of the trip. Israel media tainted world headlines with the word ‘ETERNAL’ that I didn’t hear Obama ever uttered it in any of his four statements that in Israel. ‘ETERNAL’ it’s an unconstitutional word. Potus has no right to use it. I didn’t know that Obama lies to women as well when greeted Bibi’s wife, he said: ‘Michelle would love to be in Israel’ unless he meant Israel’s darling Michele Bachmann who Bibi dug her grave in the primaries. Back to the boring game that Israel enjoys to sport. PEACE. Obama came to the conclusion that it is UNAMERICAN to waste money and time to wholesale peace for Israel. Middle East has larger problem than America can handle. They need honor that ain’t manufactured in DC. They have to fight to get it. McCain Germs are calling the shots in the Middle East not the Thugocracies that Obama used to poodle to fund Prodigal Grafts. McCain Germs enjoy trouble instead of prosperity.
Those of us from the center-Right can be forgiven for remaining skeptical of anything Barack Obama says—and not just re: Israel and the Palestinians! n nI believe that Obama's main concern is that the US House be restored to Democratic control in 2014. For that, he will need America's Jewish voters again. His Middle East trip was aimed at establishing his pro-Israel bona fides via a few supportive words and hugs caught on camera. However, his words to the Arabs a few years ago still ring in my ears: "Be patient." For what? Why didn't he say that to Israelis? Telling folks who hate Jews to "Be Patient" is a scary thing to do. Again, "patient" for what? n nLet's face it, we Jews are anxious to overlook the worst in anyone! We long for safety, security and peace. For so many centuries the world has been our enemy, so who can blame us for being a soft-touch whenever a glimmer of "at long last" is thrown at us? But our only friend is reality, not the reassuring words of a proven grifter like Obama. What has he ever said, to anyone, that has turned out either to be true, or to be good for anyone other than those he considers "his people." Who imagines that we Jews are "his people?" n nUntil we see concrete evidence that Obama means to do no harm, I believe wariness and suspicion should be our watchwords where he's concerned. He may have been sincere in what he said to Israelis, but his history mitigates against that. It's more likely that President Obama's Middle East trip was all about politics, i.e., photo-ops.
I don't have a dog in the hunt, however his remark 'as long as there is a United States of America' it will support the existence of Israel was stirring because it made for a complete identification with Israel, again to an outsider, in a tenuous situation, inescapable for it and optional for us.
thanks, besht. n nI think that the context makes rather clear his meaning, that the West bank portion must be contiguous if a deal is to be sustainable. n ndoes anyone here disagree with that?
as I said~ disgusting n nErdogan: Don't Expect 'Normal' Ties, Despite Apology n nBefore Turkey normalizes ties with Israel, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdou011fan said, it expects Israel to 'fulfill its promises' n nBefore Turkey normalizes ties with Israel, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdou011fan said Sunday, it expects Israel to “fulfill its promises. It is impossible to normalize ties without Israeli actions, Erdogan wrote in his Twitter feed. “Turkey has done its part to defend the Palestinian people,” he added. n nanyone should have seen this coming n.