Archive
Meetings Last Week with Members of the Knesset About the Current Situation in Israel and Operation Protective Edge
Last Wednesday, our group of J Street leaders from the United States and J Street U students spending the summer in Israel, met with four members of the Knesset to get their perspective on the war – or “Operation” as it’s referred to here. One was from Hatnua (which is Tzipi Livni’s party and part of the government), one from Meretz, and two from Labor.
From Labor and Hatnua, we heard a message of support for the war. That it was necessary and needed to be fought. While the fighting is going on, this type of position is not surprising even given the brutal way that Israel has been conducting the war. I think that they all perceive the tunnels as a very real strategic threat that needs to be destroyed and they have no illusions about the nature of Hamas as a terrorist group actively planning to attack Israel.
Because all of those we spoke with are on the center left, it is not surprising that they emphasized the importance of strengthening President Abbas so that he could be in a position to gain enough political power to execute a deal with the Israelis. They felt that one of the not so obvious benefits of this war is that it opened the eyes of many, not only in the government, but in the general population as well, to the fact that they have someone that they can deal with on the other side. All of a sudden, Abu Mazen has gone from being the “Partner we can’t Trust” to being ‘not so bad’ compared to the alternative. Amram Mitzna, former General and Mayor of Haifa and Yeruham, feels that the Operation will help more people understand that there is no better option than the two state solution. There is no military solution to the conflict because Hamas is more than a military organization – it is a state of mind. Israel can destroy all of the rocket caches, blow up the tunnels and kill all of Hamas leaders, but Hamas’ “death to Israel” message will simply be adopted by new leadership.
But the most surprising and most upsetting thing we heard about is what has been going on in Israeli society. Over the past several years, there has been a steady and significant increase in overt racism in the country. This extreme hatred is now being projected against those who oppose the war. Whether it is at physical protests where marchers have been beaten up and forced to disperse – or online bullying which has gone to the extreme of calling out death threats to those posting pieces against the war – we heard about an ugly atmosphere of hate that is getting stronger and stronger. These MKs were concerned that the Cabinet Ministers have remained silent on denouncing these racist attacks. Rather, said one, Ministers are often actually the ones inciting this conduct. Virtually everyone we spoke with was extremely concerned about the increase in societal hatred – even the American Consul General in a separate meeting. Although the tragedy of the death and destruction from the war is heart wrenching, what hits me the strongest is the changing nature of Israeli society. There is something going on here that is abhorrent and rotten. No one drew any links directly to the Occupation, but it is clear that in order to enforce the Occupation, there is a need to dehumanize the Palestinians as “the other”. And once a society labels one group that way, it is a short hop to applying the same attitude to any other group. This trend is taking Israel further and further away from what most of us consider to be our Jewish values.
Along these lines, we also heard about the deterioration of conduct within the Knesset. Of course, it reminded us of home, seeing that Congress continues to set new lows in obstructionism and lack of decorum. One characterization of the way bills are pushed through the Knesset was “violent”. Not a term that one expects to hear describing legislative functioning. Just as in the U.S., we got the sense that there is a general breakdown in decorum and long-standing unspoken rules of how to relate to your political opponents. Whether this reflects the trends of more explicit and blatant religious, ethnic and, now, political hatred, or leads those trends, isn’t clear. But what was being communicated to us by the MK’s was that this was a serious, serious problem.
Finally, all of the MK’s expressed their appreciation for J Street leaders – particularly the J Street U students – for being in Israel at this time of war, and caring enough to reach out to see and hear what was going on so that we could bring what we saw back to those in the U.S.
Why J Street Is NOT “Not pro-Israel”
IDF Soldier looks into Hamas Tunnel – Time Inc
A good friend (whose views skew quite a bit – OK, a lot – to the right of mine) sent me an email this morning:
Subject: “THE PROOF THAT J STREET IS NOT PRO-ISRAEL.
Content: “IF YOU CAN NOT STAND WITH ISRAEL WHILE IT IS UNDER SIEGE, YOU MUST BE PRO-HAMAS! http://www.timesofisrael.com/j-street-explains-pullout-from-boston-pro-israel-rally/#.U8_MEy40bwI.email”
The article he references describes how the Boston J Street chapter was originally a co-sponsor of a Pro-Israel rally, but then pulled out “because its officials did not feel that issues they wanted addressed were sufficiently represented, including grieving for victims on all sides, an emphasis on a diplomatic solution and especially the role of the US Jewish community in advancing such a solution.” The article goes on to say that Jeremy Burton, executive director of Boston’s Jewish Community Relations Council , “told JTA [a Jewish news agency] that speakers at the rally did address suffering on both sides and noted that its immediate emphasis was on Israel’s right to defend itself and Hamas’ responsibility for the current violence.”
- As noted in the article, “J Street has co-sponsored other pro-Israel rallies across the United States during the current conflict.” That implies – correctly – that this was not a position of J Street national, but rather a local issue based on inter-Boston issues. There has been tension within the Jewish community there with J Street for years. It is a good thing, but amazing, that Boston JCRC has J Street as a member but there remains unease with other organizations that belong.
- Recognizing the suffering of innocent civilians on all sides is important (and it sounds like, as it turns out, that this was done at this rally). Noting the very real suffering of innocent civilians in Gaza does not make a person pro-Hamas. Nor does criticizing the government of Israel make one anti-Israel. I would dare say that you are not pro-the current U.S. administration, but that does not make one anti-American.
- The run up to this war began with the very tragic, heart-wrenching, senseless murder of three innocent Yeshiva students, z’’’l. But from what I have read, this event was then used quite cynically by the Israeli government to take down the Hamas infrastructure in the West Bank. On one level this was a good thing – but on another level, it fanned the flames for the current incursion. It also fanned some very dangerous flames of racism and hatred among a group of right-wingers in a horrific way with the revenge killing of an equally innocent Israeli Arab (i.e., also an Israeli citizen) teenager. One of the reasons that it is so important to make sure that pro-Israel rallies not paint every Arab as seeking to wipe Israel off the map is that once the genie of racial hate is let out of the bottle, it is very hard to get back in.
- While it was the rockets that instigated the Israeli air retaliation, thanks in large part to the Iron Dome system, the rockets do not present a strategic threat to Israel. I am not condoning rocket fire by any means nor saying that Israel doesn’t have a right to retaliate – only that a war like this is not a strategic solution for Israel. Because previous operations failed to deter the threat from Hamas, I originally opposed the escalation. However, as the sophistication and extent of Hamas’ tunnel system came to light once the ground operation began, I have totally changed my mind and I personally believe that this war is extremely necessary and the current land operation totally justified. The Hamas’ tunnel system represents a very, very real threat to the security of Israel.
- One of the most important things that this war re-emphasizes however is that the Israeli government has no strategy for dealing with the Palestinians. As much as we all might like it, the 4 million Palestinians are not just going away. One of J Street’s key points is that we must address the long term solution to these issues: a negotiated two state solution. There is no better time than these rallies to focus the American Jewish community on this fact, instead of simply supporting war. I believe that the lesson from prior military actions (Lebanon, previous Gaza wars) is that when you “mow the lawn”, it just grows back higher and longer The Israeli government, and American Jews, should do everything it can to support moderates – including Mahmoud Abbas.
- Finally, you can read J Street’s official reaction to similar criticisms here: http://jstreet.org/blog/post/myths-and-facts-does-j-street-stand-with-the-proisrael-community-when-israel-is-under-attack_1
Secretary of State Kerry Channels J Street Talking Points in his Speech to the AJC
On Monday, Secretary John Kerry gave the most significant foreign policy speech of his short tenure as the head of the State Department. When listened to in conjunction with the speech that President Obama made
in Jerusalem in March, it becomes clear that this administration has put the Israeli-Palestinian issue at the very top of its foreign policy agenda despite all of the other pressing matters in the world.
I believe that anyone interested in the Israeli-Palestinian issue should take a half-hour and listen to this speech because it clearly lays out this administration’s beliefs about what needs to be done – and done soon. You can access it here: Sec of State Kerry’s Remarks to AJC 6/3/2013
Kerry’s points were straightforward:
- Israel’s security is top priority. However, “best way to truly ensure Israel’s security today and for future generations is by ending once and for all the conflict with the Palestinians…by reaching a negotiated resolution that results in two states for two peoples…A realistic one-state solution simply does not exist for either side”
- This is the time to move forward
- A negotiated solution (which would include a demilitarized Palestine) is needed
- We must recognize the “Palestinians’ fundamental aspirations” for a state of their own
- Time is running out for a two state solution
- The status quo is not sustainable
- The Palestinian Authority has shown its commitment to non-violence and nation building
- What will happen if there is not a negotiated solution? Any or all of the following:
- Widespread civil disobedience, possibly leading to a third intifada
- Going back to the UN for more recognition
- Going to the International Criminal Court
- Peace pays in economic benefits to all
- The Arab League has re-emphasized its Peace Initiative – with the addition of allowing for land swaps
- The American Jewish community must use its voice in pushing American leaders to take bold steps for peace
These are almost verbatim the talking points that J Street has been using since its inception in 2008. One of J Street’s primary missions has been to support the American administration to put this issue on the front burner – and it is obvious that President Obama and Secretary Kerry have done that. It is now time for the rest of the American Jewish community to join in.
Related articles
- When Kerry says ‘both sides,’ AIPAC says the Palestinians (jta.org)
- Kerry warns Israel that status quo cannot hold (washingtonpost.com)
One Important Piece of Action You Can Take If You Believe In Putting The Brakes On The War Train To Iran
This weekend, beginning Sunday, we are about to witness one of the most dramatic shows of Jewish political force in the history of the United States. This is not some anti-Zionist rhetoric – it is simply a fact. AIPAC is going to have over 10,000 people in the DC Convention Center (myself included) at its Policy Conference [for live ‘fair and balanced’ tweets, check www.twitter/beyondzs] – and will have 30-50% of those attending going to lobby on Capitol Hill. Normally, I might say mazel tov – tanks G-t so many care about Israel. But right now, AIPAC is stridently promoting political moves here in the US to lay the groundwork for Israel (alone, or with US overt assistance) to take military action against Iran very shortly. I believe that they do this with good intention, but with flawed reasoning and almost negligent disregard for the outcomes. How can they do this without facing strong, forceful pushback?
- War is easy and its drums are seductive.
- F.U.D. (fear, uncertainty and doubt) cry out to the most base human emotions.
- The politics of our time rewards simplicity and machismo.
So, what is to be done? Here’s the sales pitch:
J Street is having its own Conference three weeks later – from March 24 – March 27. J Street’s position is nuanced and urges caution. Here is an excerpt:
“…Finally, like many American and Israeli security experts such as former Mossad chiefs Meir Dagan and Ephraim Halevy, we believe that a military strike against Iran would be ill-advised. While unlikely to permanently disable Iran’s nuclear program, a military strike would have dire consequences and runs the risk of igniting a broader regional war. A preemptive attack could also strengthen the current regime in Iran and provide an excuse for it to redouble its nuclear efforts. We therefore oppose legislation authorizing, encouraging, or in other ways laying the groundwork for the use of military force against Iran.”
Further details can be found here: http://jstreet.org/policy/issues/iran/.
If you agree with this postion, you can take concrete action by attending the J Street Conference. Every single person who attends sends a critical counter message to Members of Congress and the President. By doing so, you will be standing up for intelligent debate here at home, for allowing the current round of sanctions time to work, and arguing for a new diplomatic “surge”.
Trust me, Congressmen and women can count – and they will. There will be a simple calculus taking place politically throughout Washington – they will stack up what they see as the constituency pushing for the “military option” versus the constituency that opposes immediate military action in favor of a calmer, more reasoned and examined approach. Any of you reading this who are part of the latter group – need to be in D.C. at the J Street Conference. Period.
I know that it is difficult for people to get away. I know that it is expensive in terms of both time and money (although there is financial assistance available). I know that we all have non-stop schedules. But (and I know that this may sound narcissistic and overly dramatic) I personally feel that we are at a time not unlike Dr. King’s March on Washington, not unlike Breaking Down the Berlin Wall, not unlike Tiananmen Square. That is, there are specific moments in time that actually do affect the course of history. Their outcomes revise the course of world history. They determine the trajectory of the future.
Is it hyperbole to put this moment in that context? Perhaps.
But consider the following:
We are talking about the prospect of America entering its Third War in a little over 10 years with potentially massive consequences in terms of death, destruction and economic upheaval for the U.S., Israel, Iran and the rest of the world. There can be very little doubt that military action against Iran is going to set a new trajectory for the Middle East – and quite possibly the entire world.
So, is that worth taking two-three days of our time? I do not ask this rhetorically nor do I question anyone’s answer to that question.
All that I am saying is that from my personal perspective, we are at a watershed moment for our country, for Israel, and for the world as a whole. We have a chance to do something to influence what direction our government takes. I urge you to join me at the J Street Conference in D.C. March 24-26 and to meet with your Member of Congress face-to-face on Tuesday, March 27. Tell her/him directly how you feel.
For anyone who reads this who would like more information on the Conference, you can find it here http://conference.jstreet.org/
For anyone who reads this who would like to consider going and might want more specific details – please contact me at beyondzerosum.gmail.com and let’s discuss.
For anyone who reads this and is so convinced that they want to sign up right away, please go here http://www.wynjade.com/jstreet12/
Follow BeyondZeroSum at www.twitter/beyondzs
For a thoughtful alternative approach to dealing with Iran, see Foreign Policy blog post: Using religion to restrain Iran’s nuclear program
Related articles
- Obama Says Military Option on Iran Not a ‘Bluff’ – New York Times (nytimes.com)
- Obama to Israel: ‘I don’t bluff’ (thehill.com)
Scathing Attack on J-Street in Today’s Jerusalem Post
In what was nominally a review of Jeremy Ben-Ami‘s new book, “A New Voice for Israel“, in
an op-ed in the Jerusalem Post titled ” J Street’s Soft Sell for the Uninformed“, Isi Leibler pulled out every argument to discredit J Street as not being “pro-Israel” that has been used over the past two years . His arguments use half-truths, lack of context, and every mistake that J Street has ever made (and there have been a few) to malign the organization. He trots out Gaza, Goldstone, UN vote, blah blah blah. His conclusion can be summed up as follows:
The dividing lines between J Street and mainstream Jewish groups are not its views, but its efforts to convince Americans to encourage President Barack Obama to pressure the Israeli government. It is surely unconscionable for trendy American Jews to canvass their government to force Israel to act contrary to its will regarding national security, with potential life-and-death repercussions. J Street justifies this on the grounds that Israelis need “tough love,” comparing us to children on drugs who must be pressured into doing what’s good for them, or impounding the car keys of a drunken friend…
The list of J Street’s anti-Israel initiatives is endless. Most are either ignored or played down in Ben-Ami’s misleading book, which could well serve as a case study of Orwellian double-speak, topped by the dishonest manner in which it portrays itself as “pro-Israel”.
I sent a Letter to the Editor of the JP in response to the column that essentially said:
“This is a fantastic* piece of satire. Some of the facts presented are undoubtedly true – but many of them simply repeat previous criticisms of J Street which have been shown to be half-truths or simply taken out of context. Since, I doubt that Mr. Leiber is ill-informed about these matters, they are either thinly veiled political polemics, or meant to be viewed in a satirical context. I assumed the latter because there was a clue that clearly gave it away. He writes that “in Ben-Ami’s misleading book, which could well serve as a case study of Orwellian double-speak, topped by the dishonest manner in which it portrays itself as “pro-Israel”.” Once I read that I realized that he had written a piece filled with facts that were either “ignored or played down” that he meant the entire column to be read as a mobius strip of so-called Orwellian logic.
Brilliant.
* Merriam-Webster Online: Definition of FANTASTIC
1 a : based on fantasy : not real”
Mid-East Peace? Here Is An Organization You Need To Know About: The Council for Peace and Security
Gen (Ret) Nati Sharoni - Wouldn't you listen to this General?
Who do you think would be most worried about whether or not Israel has defensible borders? Who would be most wary of trusting the Arabs? Who might you think would believe that maintaining the settlements, and particularly the outposts, should be a cornerstone of Israeli defense policy? The obvious answer would be: former IDF and security (Shin Bet, Mossad, etc.) officers, right? Think again.
Some of Israel’s most recognized and decorated soldiers, sailors, airforce personnel, security directors and staff have joined together with other prominent diplomats and academics to form the one thousand strong Council For Peace and Security. The Council describes itself as a “Non-Profit Organization of Experts on Peace and Security”. One of the statements in its website’s Profile sums up their point of view:
“It (the Council) considers the support of the Middle East Peace Process to be a necessary component of National Security.”
The Council’s current President, Gen (ret) Nati Sharoni, is going to be in Chicago speaking this Thursday (July 28) at a private home in the city. I urge you to come hear him. If you are interested – please email me directly at beyondzerosum@gmail.com.
To understand more about the Council, here are the Guiding Principles that all members must accept:
-
DELIBERATIONS ON SECURITY ISSUES MUST BE NON-POLITICAL
-
PEACE IS ACHIEVED BY COMPROMISE
-
THE OCCUPATION IS CAUSING DAMAGE
-
A PALESTINIAN STATE IS NOT A THREAT
-
JERUSALEM, THE CAPITAL OF ISRAEL
-
A PALESTINIAN STATE IS NOT A THREAT
-
ISRAEL MUST REMOVE PROBLEMATIC SETTLEMENTS
-
ISRAEL MUST RESIST PROVOCATION
-
PEACE WITH SYRIA IS A STRATEGIC NECESSITY
-
THREAT OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
-
CONSCRIPTION FOR ALL
-
EQUAL RIGHTS FOR MINORITIES
The members of the Council are not wild-eyed, left-wing radicals whose views can be dismissed with the usual argument of naiveté. They are seasoned military and security thinkers who have come to the very rational conclusion that Israel’s long term security depends on achieving a two-state solution – as soon as possible. Disappointedly, I have never heard of the Council For Peace and Security in any of the Jewish circles that I am involved with in the United States.
To remedy that, J Street is sponsoring nine members to travel the country so that American Jews can listen to the conclusions of these military and security experts. It is particularly important because the conclusions they have arrived at are almost 180 degrees opposite from what Mr. Netanyahu’s government is espousing – along with the American Jewish organizations which believe that there should be “no daylight” between American Jews and the Israeli government. Personally, I think that it is irresponsible for American Jews not to listen to the point of view of these extremely experienced and battle-hardened military and strategic experts. Listening only to people who tell you what you want to hear is the easiest way to make tragically wrong decisions.
So, again, if you are available on Thursday night and would like to meet General (Ret) Sharoni (along with Col (Ret) Shaul Arieli), please send me an email at beyondzerosum@gmail.com – and feel free to pass the information along to others who might be interested.
Related articles
- Israeli ex-generals, diplomats press for U.S. role in peace talks (jta.org)
- Poll Shows Shift In American Jewry View Of Israel (lezgetreal.com)
- Guy Ziv: The Generals vs. Netanyahu (huffingtonpost.com)
Jewish Obama Donor Defection Story is Way Overblown
Image by jamesomalley via Flickr
Right wing bloggers have been trying to create a story line that some large Democratic donors are not going to support President Obama because of his recent speeches about the Middle East. On her Commentary blog Contentions, Alana Goodman, said:
One of the most important Democratic donors in the past two decades, whose generous contributions helped pay for the DNC headquarters in Washington, D.C., has indicated that he will not contribute to President Obama’s reelection campaign in 2012, because of the administration’s stance on Israel.
The thrust of Goodman’s blog post was to continue to build the story that Obama anti-Israel. And further, that it is hurting is chances of fundraising.
However, Washington Post’s Greg Sargent decided to follow-up and go straight to the source. In his blog yesterday, Sargent quoted Saban as follows:
“If solicited, I will absolutely write a check to the level allowed by law,” Saban said. “I don’t agree that he’s anti-Israel.”
Sargent characterized it like this:
Saban told me that he did not view Obama as anti-Israel and that he would donate the maximum to Obama’s campaign if asked. And while he said he had problems with the timing of Obama’s announcement, he stated that he has no problem with the substance of Obama’s position, and said conservatives had misrepresented it in order to drive away Obama’s Jewish support.
Related articles
- Reports That Obama Had Alienated Jewish Donors With ‘Arab Spring’ Speech Seem To Have Been Exaggerated (huffingtonpost.com)
- Haim Saban can’t ‘break’ what he never forged (blogs.jta.org)
- The Pro-Israel Lobby Moves (andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com)
I Think That There Are Actually People Out There Trying To Paint President Obama As Anti-Israel!
SECRET MAP OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S PROPOSED BORDERS
Far be it from me to speculate what the motivations would be for people to want to mischaracterize the President’s positions and actions towards Israel, but it certainly appears that there are indeed folks out their who are claiming that, based upon the speeches which Mr. Obama made over the past week, he is the most “Anti-Israel President ” ever. (Shockingly, some of these comments have even been heard from those who are normally fair and balanced). What is even more upsetting is that if I am wrong (which I am known to be occasionally) and those people are correct in saying that he is insidiously anti-Israel, we have a bigger problem. Because that would mean, since their veiwpoints are so closely tied as you will see, that Prime Minister Netanyahu would be the most anti-Israel Prime Minister that Israel has ever had! And somebody had better wake up the Israelis ASAP so that they can drum this guy out of office because things are tough enough without having their country run by an imposter who is clearly as anti-Israel as this Obama no-goodnik.
Why do I say this, you might ask? Because I have actually gone through the transcripts of the four speeches given since last Thursday and discovered something that really is surprising. When you strip away the audiences and all those standing ovations, when you look at the texts of these speeches, not only are each of their positions virtually identical, but they even use almost exactly the same themes. And, everyone talks about the importance of there being “no daylight” between the US and Israel, and I’ve got to tell you, when I compare the differences between Barrack and Bibi’s positions, I am surely not being blinded by the light.
Although a lot was made of the “1967 borders” issue, anyone who listened to the speech or even read the transcript had to understand that “1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps” was all part of a single phrase which should never have been parsed out separately. Also, as the President said in his speech to AIPAC, anyone who has spent any time at all following the current status of the peace process knows that virutally everyone agrees that any agreement will almost certainly involve just that: 1967 borders plus swaps. And when you actually read the details of what Bibi and Barrack both said about this, they really didn’t disagree.
As to the Right of Return and Jerusalem, granted Obama did not agree with Bibi. On the other hand, he didn’t disagree either. What he was doing, it is clear, was trying to bring the parties together using the two issues that various reports (including Bernard Avishai’s NYT Magazine article about Olmert and Abbas negotiations) indicated they were close on: Borders and Security. The idea was that if they could show some progress on these issues, it could build trust and goodwill before moving on to the even more intransigent issues.
So, my only conclusion, as difficult as it is for me to believe, is that there are actually people out there that want to misrepresent Obama’s stand towards Israel. And, heaven forbid, they may even be doing it for political purposes!
Finally, I believe so strongly that the content spoken by Obama and Netanyahu is almost exactly the same (with the partial exception of the Right of Return & Jerusalem issues as stated above), that I challenge anyone out there to prove me wrong. If you can come up with some valid evidence using direct language from these speeches showing me where I have missed significant disagreements, then I have a crisp $100 bill here that I am prepared to give to Magen David Adom. Let me know. I’m up for the challenge. Either way, it’s win-win. Kind of like a peace agreement might be…
Below is a topic-by-topic comparison of selections from the four speeches:
1. Obama at the State Department, May 19
4. Netanyahu before Congress, May 24
|
TOPIC |
OBAMA-STATE DEPT |
OBAMA-AIPAC |
NETANYAHU-AIPAC |
NETANYAHU-CONGRESS |
| Borders | The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. | The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. | ||
| Borders The Sequel | By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation | The status of the settlements will be decided only in negotiations. But we must also be honest. So I am saying today something that should be said publicly by anyone serious about peace. In any peace agreement that ends the conflict, some settlements will end up beyond Israel’s borders. The precise delineation of those borders must be negotiated. |
||
| Borders III | It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides. | This compromise must reflect the dramatic demographic changes that have occurred since 1967. | ||
| Enough with the Borders Already | We will be very generous on the size of a future Palestinian state. But as President Obama said, the border will be different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. Israel will not return to the indefensible lines of 1967. | |||
| Palestinian Right of Return | Open issue | Palestinians from around the world should have a right to immigrate, if they so choose, to a Palestinian state. This means that the Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside the borders of Israel. |
||
| Jerusalem | Open issue | As for Jerusalem, only a democratic Israel has protected freedom of worship for all faiths in the city. Jerusalem must never again be divided. Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel. I know that this is a difficult issue for Palestinians. But I believe with creativity and goodwill a solution can be found. |
||
| Israel as a Jewish State | Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace. [Emphasis added] | My friends, this must come to an end. President Abbas must do what I have done. I stood before my people, and I told you it wasn’t easy for me, and I said… “I will accept a Palestinian state.” It is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say… “I will accept a Jewish state.” |
||
| Self-Defense | As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself — by itself — against any threat | As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat. | When we say never again, we mean never again. Israel always reserves the right to defend itself. | |
| Security | Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.[Emphasis added] | Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated. | So it is therefore absolutely vital for Israel’s security that a Palestinian state be fully demilitarized. And it is vital that Israel maintain a long-term military presence along the Jordan River. Solid security arrangements on the ground are necessary not only to protect the peace, they are necessary to protect Israel in case the peace unravels. For in our unstable region, no one can guarantee that our peace partners today will be there tomorrow. | |
| Obama Admin Commitment to Israel | As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it is important that we tell the truth: the status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace. | Yesterday President Obama spoke about his ironclad commitment to Israel’s security. He rightly said that our security cooperation is unprecedented. He spoke of that commitment in front of AIPAC. He spoke about it in two speeches heard throughout the Arab world. And he has backed those words with deeds. |
||
| Security Cooperation | It’s why we’ve increased cooperation between our militaries to unprecedented levels. | He rightly said that our security cooperation is unprecedented | ||
| Advanced Technologies | It’s why we’re making our most advanced technologies available to our Israeli allies | |||
| Military $$ | And it’s why, despite tough fiscal times, we’ve increased foreign military financing to record levels. | I know these are tough economic times. So I want to thank the president and Congress for providing Israel with vital assistance so that Israel can defend itself by itself |
Thank you all, and thank you President Obama, for your steadfast commitment to Israel’s security. I know economic times are tough. I deeply appreciate this. |
|
| Iron Dome | That includes additional support – beyond regular military aid – for the Iron Dome anti-rocket system. This is a powerful example of American-Israel cooperation which has already intercepted rockets from Gaza and helped saved innocent Israeli lives. … make no mistake, we will maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge. | I want to thank you all for supporting the Iron Dome missile defense system |
||
| Agreement Must Be Between the Two Parties | These are the facts. I firmly believe, and repeated on Thursday, that peace cannot be imposed on the parties to the conflict. | |||
| Delegitimization | For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. | You also see our commitment to Israel’s security in our steadfast opposition to any attempt to de-legitimize the State of Israel. As I said at the United Nation’s last year, “Israel’s existence must not be a subject for debate,” and “efforts to chip away at Israel’s legitimacy will only be met by the unshakeable opposition of the United States.”…No vote at the United Nations will ever create an independent Palestinian state. And the United States will stand up against efforts to single Israel out at the UN or in any international forum. Because Israel’s legitimacy is not a matter for debate. | ||
| Hamas As a Partner | Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. | Moreover, we know that peace demands a partner – which is why I said that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with Palestinians who do not recognize its right to exist, and we will hold the Palestinians accountable for their actions and their rhetoric. | And Hamas is not a partner for peace. Hamas remains committed to Israel’s destruction and to terrorism. They have a charter. That charter not only calls for the obliteration of Israel, but says ‘kill the Jews wherever you find them’. Hamas’ leader condemned the killing of Osama bin Laden and praised him as a holy warrior. |
|
| Hamas-Fatah Unification | the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel — how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist. In the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question. | And I indicated on Thursday that the recent agreement between Fatah and Hamas poses an enormous obstacle to peace. No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction. We will continue to demand that Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace: recognizing Israel’s right to exist, rejecting violence, and adhering to all existing agreements | ||
| Israel’s Right to Exist | And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist. | My friends, this must come to an end. President Abbas must do what I have done. I stood before my people, and I told you it wasn’t easy for me, and I said… “I will accept a Palestinian state.” It is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say… “I will accept a Jewish state.” |
||
| Gilad Shalit | And we once again call on Hamas to release Gilad Shalit, who has been kept from his family for five long years. | And you’ve joined President Obama and me in denouncing Hamas and demanding that it release our captive soldier, Gilad Shalit |
||
| New Proposals? | There was nothing particularly original in my proposal; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. Administrations.…By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation …If there’s a controversy, then, it’s not based in substance. What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately. [Emphasis added] | |||
| Palestinian intransigence | So why has peace not been achieved? Because so far, the Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Palestinian state, if it meant accepting a Jewish state alongside it.…You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state. |
|||
| Iran | See below | A nuclear-armed Iran would ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East…This is why I ask you to continue to send an unequivocal message: That America will never permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons. | ||
| Obama’s Actions Against Iran | You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Here in the U.S., we’ve imposed the toughest sanctions ever on the Iranian regime. At the United Nations, we’ve secured the most comprehensive international sanctions on the regime, which have been joined by allies and partners around the world. Today, Iran is virtually cut off from large parts of the international financial system, and we are going to keep up the pressure. So let me be absolutely clear – we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. | It is even worse because there are many who rush to condemn Israel for defending itself against Iran’s terror proxies. But not you. Not America. You have acted differently. You’ve condemned the Iranian regime for its genocidal aims. You’ve passed tough sanctions against Iran. History will salute you America. President Obama has said that the United States is determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. He successfully led the Security Council to adopt sanctions against Iran. You in Congress passed even tougher sanctions. These words and deeds are vitally important. |
||
| Arab Teaching Hatred | For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could get blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them. | They continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to name public squares after terrorists. And worst of all, they continue to perpetuate the fantasy that Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of Palestinian refugees. |
Related articles
- Israel’s 1967 borders ‘indefensible’, Netanyahu tells Aipac (guardian.co.uk)
- “Former AIPAC Official Dodges Questions On Whether 1967 Borders Has Been US Policy ‘For Years’” and related posts (wonkroom.thinkprogress.org)
beyondzerosum 