Obama demolished Palestinian chances for statehood.

  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    May 25, 2011 10:46 PM GMT
    U.S. supports Israel's demand for the Palestinian state to be demilitarized, it supports postponing discussions on the refugees and Jerusalem, it talks about Israel's security and Israel's security alone.

    By Gideon Levy, Ha'aretz
    20.05.11


    Benjamin Netanyahu may as well have canceled his trip to Washington: Barack Obama did the work for him, or most of it. But the prime minister is already on his way, so he should at least send to the White House a big bouquet of flowers.

    Netanyahu can sit back and relax. It's not that Obama didn't say clear, firm words on the Middle East; it's just that most, if not all of them could have been said by Netanyahu himself, who would then go on doing as he pleased.

    The 1,500 new apartments in Jerusalem will be built, speech or no speech. The real test for that speech, as for any other, is what happens next, and the suspicion is that nothing will happen at all.

    Obama didn't say a word about what will happen if the parties disobey him. This was the king's speech, but the king already appears a little naked. Considering America's weakness, and the power of Congress and the Jewish and Christian lobbies working on behalf of the Israeli government, the Israeli right wing can relax and go on doing what it does.

    Yesterday, the U.S. president demolished the Palestinian's only accomplishment so far - the wave of international support for recognition of statehood in September. September died last night. After America, Europe too will have to withdraw its support; hopes have ended for a historically significant declaration at the United Nations.

    The Palestinians are left once again with Cuba and Brazil, while we get to keep America. Here's another reason for a sigh of relief in Jerusalem: No diplomatic tsunami is forthcoming, the United States is sticking with Israel.

    Regrettably, the president also voiced reservations about the Palestinian unity government. The United States supports Israel's demand for the Palestinian state to be demilitarized, it supports postponing discussions on the refugees and Jerusalem, it talks about Israel's security and Israel's security alone, saying nothing about security for Palestinians. All these are impressive, even if virtual, achievements for Israel.

    The Palestinians yesterday were not listed among the oppressed Arab people of the Middle East who need to be liberated and aided on the way to democracy. Obama spoke impressively about America's corrupt allies in the region, and provided further enlightened encouragement to the people of the region.

    If the first Cairo speech provided the initial inspiration, Cairo 2 provided a more significant push. Obama and his determination on this should be praised. His words were heard not only in Damascus and Benghazi, but also in Jenin and Rafah. Did he mean to praise Majdal Shams as well? Hooray for the unarmed protesters, hoping Obama meant Palestinian ones as well. If he did, it's a pity he didn't say so.

    When he mentioned the Tunisian vendor who was humiliated by a policewoman who overturned his stall - the vendor who later set himself and the revolution ablaze - was Obama thinking about the hundreds of Palestinian vendors who have suffered the exact same fate at the hands of Israeli soldiers and policemen? When he spoke nobly about the dignity of the oppressed vendors, was he speaking about their Palestinian brethren as well? The speech didn't show this enough.

    The conflict between Israel and the Palestinian was sidelined in Obama's speech for the most part, more so than it deserved. This conflict still incites great passions in the Arab world, and with all due respect for the new Marshall Plan for Egypt and Tunisia, the Arab masses don't want to see another Operation Cast Lead and more checkpoints on their TV screens. When it got to us, the tone was different.

    Yes, there were stern words about how a Jewish and democratic state is not compatible with an occupation. There was even a proper presidential plan - the '67 borders with corrections, a Palestinian state and a Jewish state, Israeli security and the demilitarization of Palestine.

    But let's not get too excited. We've heard it before, not only from American presidents, but from Israeli prime ministers. And what did we get? Yet another Jewish neighborhood in East Jerusalem.

    The heart wants to believe that this time it's different, but the head - wise from bitter experience after years of shelved peace plans and vacuous speeches - is finding it hard to believe.

    The optimists will say that yesterday signaled the end of the Israeli occupation. The pessimists, and I, regrettably, among them, will say that it was just another speech. It changed virtually nothing for the better, virtually nothing for the worse.

    source: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/obama-demolished-palestinian-chances-for-statehood-1.362895
  • Mepark

    Posts: 806

    May 25, 2011 11:05 PM GMT
    I don't know why Obama just won't say that the U.S. will have nothing to do with the peace process. It's better for everybody. Let's look at this honestly; There will never be a Palestinian state, EVER, and every time an Israeli leader comes close to agreeing to one, he will be ousted in one way or another -- just look at recent history. As for the Arabs, how on Earth are they going to fit in those borders when their population jumps 50% in the next few years? This subject seriously needs to die. Everyone is just wasting their finger muscles on nothing, as I did now.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    May 26, 2011 7:32 AM GMT
    Uh, no, it was (as it has been ever since 194icon_cool.gif the Palestinians who have demolished their chances for statehood.
    Israel permanently holds out the olive branch.
    And, the Palestinians refuse to even acknowledge the existence of Israel.
    Fuck the Palestinians.
    They could have had half, or nothing.
    They freely and willingly chose nothing.
  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    May 30, 2011 2:03 AM GMT
    Webster666 saidUh, no, it was (as it has been ever since 1948 ) the Palestinians who have demolished their chances for statehood.
    Israel permanently holds out the olive branch.


    False. Arafat unconditionally accepted the last Israeli peace proposal at Taba. Sharon rejected Arafat's acceptance, saying it expired. The actual Israeli proposal at Taba did not have an experiation date. Whether it expired or not, Sharon was not holding an olive branch at the time, and his refusal to accept Israel's own peace terms refutes your contention that Israel PERMANENTLY holds out the olive branch.

    Sharon preferred to launch "Operation Defensive Shield" instead, which resulted in $500 MILLION to $1 BILLION in property damage to Palestinian Authority government offices, Palestinian businesses, and foreign owned businesses. It's stated mission, to wipe out the terrorist infrastruture, was not achieved.

    On April 9, 2002, in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres called what happened in the Jenin refugee camp, "a massacre."

    (start quote from Ha'aretz)
    IDF officers also expressed grave reservations Monday over the operation in Jenin. "Because of the dangers," they said, "the soldiers are almost not advancing on foot. The bulldozers are simply 'shaving' the homes and causing terrible destruction. When the world sees the pictures of what we have done there, it will do us immense damage."

    "However many wanted men we kill in the refugee camp, and however much of the terror infrastructure we expose and destroy there, there is still no justification for causing such great destruction."
    (end quote from Ha'aretz)

    source: http://www.haaretz.com/news/peres-calls-idf-operation-in-jenin-a-massacre-1.48297
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2011 2:09 AM GMT
    Oh don't talk nonsense. By standing up to Netanyahu, I think Obama has protected the small amount of credibility the US still has.

    I think there is some merit in Abbas's plan to bring a proposal to the UN in September. It would be greatly helped if:

    (i) Hamas recognized Israel's right to exist.
    (ii) The Palestinian side recognized that the full right of return is incompatible with the notion of Two Peoples, Two States and hence can only be granted symbolically (i.e. some token number).
    (iii) The Palestinian side completely renounced violence.

    If these three conditions were met unilaterally by Abbas, Israel wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2011 5:10 AM GMT
    OP Article> We've heard it before, not only from American presidents, but from Israeli prime ministers.

    Perhaps the problem is that we have NOT heard it from Arab leaders?


    Mepark> every time an Israeli leader comes close to agreeing to [a Palestinian Arab state], he will be ousted in one way or another -- just look at recent history

    I think you're not reading the history fully. The problem is that an Israeli leader not only "comes close to agreeing" but does agree (Oslo, Camp David 2000, Taba 2001, Olmert Plan of 2008 ) but that the Arab parties reject the agreement and resort to violent counter-offers. The Israeli electorate (the vast majority of which supports peace) votes out the guy who stuck out his neck and elects the guy campaigning on security (not false hopes of peace absent a peace partner on the other side).


    tokugawa> Arafat unconditionally accepted the last Israeli peace proposal at Taba.

    The usual spam propaganda lie-for-the-cause.

    The official Palestinian Authority web site is down at the moment, but this link duplicates the information that is found there:

    http://www.robat.scl.net/content/NAD/negotiations/clinton_parameters/param2.php
    Official Palestinian Response to the Clinton Parameters (and letter to international community)
    Remarks and Questions from the Palestinian Negotiating Team Regarding the United States Proposal


    January 1, 2001

    We wish to explain why the latest United States proposals, taken together and as presented without clarification, fail to satisfy the conditions required for a permanent peace.

    ...We cannot, however, accept a proposal that secures neither the establishment of a viable Palestinian state nor the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes.

  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Jun 02, 2011 11:12 AM GMT
    Caesarea4 said ... Mepark> every time an Israeli leader comes close to agreeing to [a Palestinian Arab state], he will be ousted in one way or another -- just look at recent history

    I think you're not reading the history fully. The problem is that an Israeli leader not only "comes close to agreeing" but does agree (Oslo ...


    No Israeli leader ever agreed to a viable, sovereign Palestinian state. Oslo established a "process" by which such a state may come into existence in the indefinite future, but this "process" has broken down so that any movement towards peace is put "in formaldehyde," as one top Israeli leader described it.

    Meaning: permanent subjugation for the Palestinians, all the while Israel is colonizing more and more Palestinian territory, which Israel will NEVER give back. The reaction to the recent Obama suggestion to use 1967 border as a starting point proves this.

    While the US demands security for Israel, there is no security promised to a Palestinian state by the US.

    While the US demands the Palestinians to honor all previous agreements, there is no demand by the US for Israel to honor its previous agreements.

    While the US demands all Palestinians recognize a Jewish state, there is no similar demand by the US for Israel to recognize a viable, sovereign Palestinian state.

    Yet c4 wants everybody to believe that the US is an honest broker.

    Just like c4 wants everybody to believe that black is white.

    Just like c4 wants everybody to believe that up is down.

    c4 believes that a lie, repeated enough times, becomes the truth.

    Message to c4: a lie is still a lie no matter how many times it is repeated.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2011 1:54 PM GMT
    There he goes again. Unable to defend his previous lies that were called out, tokugawa simply regurgitates them.

    The problem is that an Israeli leader not only "comes close to agreeing" but does agree (Oslo, Camp David 2000, Taba 2001, Olmert Plan of 2008 ) but that the Arab parties reject the agreement and resort to violent counter-offers. The Israeli electorate (the vast majority of which supports peace) votes out the guy who stuck out his neck and elects the guy campaigning on security (not false hopes of peace absent a peace partner on the other side).

    t> No Israeli leader ever agreed to a viable, sovereign Palestinian state.

    Barak at Camp David.
    Barak at Taba.
    Olmert in 2008.

    tokugawa will now repetoire of lies about these, post false maps, etc.
    We've seen it all before here - and those lies have all been refuted:

    UNSCR 242, Oslo Accords, Camp David 2000 and Taba 2001
    (I support the Clinton COMPROMISE parameters. Do you?!)

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/354843

    Not that anyone has ever discussed the Olmert plan.
    Including PA President Abbas, who simply echoed Hamas and dismissed it as a "waste of time".
    (Rather than, at the very least, taking it as a starting point let alone making a counter-offer.)


    t> Oslo established a "process" by which such a state may come into existence in the indefinite future, but this "process" has broken down.

    It has usually broken down when Arab leaders refused to step up to the plate.
    Or walked out.


    t> Meaning: permanent subjugation for the Palestinians

    Which, as CuriousJock and others have noted, makes it all the stranger that the Arab parties prefer the status quo - or worse - than to negotiate, compromise and make peace. Why play political games if you are "suffering" so much? Not for a week or a month, but year after year, decade after decade.

    How could it be that they prefer to fight forever, damn the cost, rather than compromise on a net 35-70 square miles, the size of a US township or two?

    Is the purpose of the constant demonization of Israel (and anti-peace activism!) to reduce that to only 20-40 miles?
    Or to reject peace and make permanent the war to destroy Israel until total victory?
    No matter how many people are killed, how many lives are destroyed, or how many centuries it takes?
    (The analogy is often made - by them - to how eventually "we" [the Mamluks and Kurds?] defeated the Crusaders.


    t> While the US demands security for Israel, there is no security promised to a Palestinian state by the US.

    Because the Palestinian Arabs are their worst enemy.
    A nascent PA state, created after peace is established, will not need security.
    Why are the war-mongers demanding that they have an army...?


    t> While the US demands the Palestinians to honor all previous agreements, there is no demand by the US for Israel to honor its previous agreements.

    Because only the Palestinian Arabs are violating previous agreements.


    t> While the US demands all Palestinians recognize a Jewish state, there is no similar demand by the US for Israel to recognize a viable, sovereign Palestinian state.

    Israel has repeatedly stated this, for the past 20 years.
    If the Arab parties are committed to peace, why can't they confirm this?


    Look how, arguing from different premises (of convenience), tokugawa contradicts himself:

    t1> Obama demolished Palestinian chances for statehood.
    t2> The reaction to the recent Obama suggestion to use 1967 border as a starting point proves this

    One second Obama is the problem, the next he's the hero standing up to Israel and Israel is the problem.
    Both are false.

    The "reaction" was to false claims and reports that the 1949 Armistice line (the pre-1967 border) would be the ending point.

    Oddly enough, the Israeli position is that the 1949 Armistice line is the starting point.
    Guess who is categorically against that? The Arab parties!
    Despite this being the basis of the Oslo Agreement.
    The Saudi / Arab "plan" rejects this.
    This was Arafat's objection at Camp David.
    Even the usual suspects here on RJ lie about UNSCR 242, claiming it requires an Israeli withdrawal from "all" territories.
    (Despite that word intentionally being left out, an amendment to add it being defeated.)


    t> Arafat unconditionally accepted the last Israeli peace proposal at Taba.

    The usual spam propaganda lie-for-the-cause.

    From the official Palestinian Authority web site:

    http://www.nad-plo.org/etemplate.php?id=98
    Official Palestinian Response to the Clinton Parameters (and letter to international community)
    Remarks and Questions from the Palestinian Negotiating Team Regarding the United States Proposal


    January 1, 2001

    We wish to explain why the latest United States proposals, taken together and as presented without clarification, fail to satisfy the conditions required for a permanent peace.

    ...We cannot, however, accept a proposal that secures neither the establishment of a viable Palestinian state nor the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes.

    t> [caught in another blatant lie, resorts to pretending that I'm the one repeating lies]
  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Jun 10, 2011 6:44 PM GMT
    Caesarea4 said ... The problem is that an Israeli leader not only "comes close to agreeing" but does agree (Oslo, Camp David 2000, Taba 2001, Olmert Plan of 2008 ) ...


    ... however, a fanatical Zionist assassin kills ...

    Caesarea4 said ... the guy who stuck out his neck. ...

    t> No Israeli leader ever agreed to a viable, sovereign Palestinian state.

    Barak at Camp David.
    Barak at Taba.
    Olmert in 2008.


    Instead of a viable, sovereign state, Palestinians are offered a series of disconnected Bantustans, subject to Israeli invasion at any time.