DN: Obama Mirrors Bush Stance, Gideon Levy affirms the point, in Ha'aretz

Hi.  I’d read the LA and NY Times reports on Obama’s speech to AIPAC, both lauding his ‘even-handed’ stance affirming that, in his speech to the nation.  I’d been skeptical, but was surprised and delighted by his sticking to his guns, for the first time, with this group.  Foolish me.  Democracy Now, once again, imposes reality by offering video and audio tape of the subject, and then intelligent analysis.  I add a couple of comments, between parentheses. What’s not provided below is the audio of overwhelming, positive response by the AIPAC audience.  –Ed

 

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/23/headlines

 

Obama Mirrors Bush Stance on Israeli Control of West Bank

 

“Rights are enforced; they are not negotiated. The moment you say it has to be mutually agreed upon means Israel has a veto over Palestinian rights." –Norman Finklestein   (Think of our ‘Bill of Rights’ – Ed)

President Obama has confirmed his administration is continuing longstanding U.S. policy of rejecting a full Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. Speaking before a gathering of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Obama addressed what he called "misrepresentations" of his call last week for a peace deal based on the 1967 borders. Mirroring the stance of his predecessor George W. Bush, Obama suggested he would back Israel’s retention of its settlement blocs in the West Bank.

President Obama: "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. That’s what mutually agreed-upon swaps means. It is a well-known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years."   (Yes, one party has an army and has steadily taken over huge sectors by force, for over 4 decades.  The other party lives in abject poverty and terror, in shrinking bantustans, have stones and a few vintage rockets. )

Obama also renewed his opposition to a Palestinian campaign to seek recognition of statehood at the United Nations.

President Obama: "I firmly believe, and I repeated on Thursday, that peace cannot be imposed on the parties to the conflict. 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 United Nations or in any international forum. Israel’s legitimacy is not a matter for debate. That is my commitment. That is my pledge to all of you."

Obama’s speech last week had been billed as a major breakthrough in U.S. recognition of Palestinian rights to a state in the Occupied Territories. But speaking on Democracy Now!, the author and historian Norman Finkelstein said Obama had effectively endorsed ongoing Israeli control of the West Bank.

Norman Finkelstein: "The formula has to be exactly as the International Court of Justice said in July 2004 and as the U.N. General Assembly says every year with near-unanimous support. The Palestinians have the right to self-determination in the whole of the West Bank, the whole of Gaza, with East Jerusalem, the whole of East Jerusalem, as its capital. That’s the Palestinian right. That’s not subject to negotiations. Rights are enforced; they are not negotiated. The moment you say it has to be mutually agreed upon means Israel has a veto over Palestinian rights."

Netanyahu: 1967 Borders "Indefensible" and Israel to Keep Troops in Jordan Valley

Obama’s speech to American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) came two days after he hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House. Netanyahu repeated his stance that the 1967 borders are "indefensible," because they would exclude from Israel the hundreds of thousands of Jewish settlers living on occupied Palestinian land. Netanyahu also vowed that Israel would maintain troops along what would be the Palestinian state’s eastern border.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: "While Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines, because these lines are indefensible, because they don’t take into account certain changes that have taken place on the ground, demographic changes that have taken place over the last 44 years. We’re going to have a long-term military presence along the Jordan—I discussed this with the President. I think that we understand that Israel has certain security requirements that will have to come into place in any deal that we make."

Israel Approves New Settlement Construction in East Jerusalem

In a move likely timed to coincide with Netanyahu’s visit to the United States, the Israeli government confirmed the authorization of more than 1,500 new homes on two settlements around East Jerusalem. Outside the White House, Palestinian solidarity activists gathered to call for an end to the occupation.

Protester: "What we’re after is to liberate and support the Palestinians. They’ve been oppressed and occupied and colonized for over 40 years, and Israel needs to let them go, needs to free up the West Bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem."

* * *

 

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

Obama demolished Palestinian chances for statehood

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.