E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS“President Obama struck back at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel in a speech to a pro-Israel lobbying group on Sunday, defending his stance that talks over a Palestinian state should be focused on Israel’s pre-1967 borders, along with negotiated land swaps, and challenging Israel to ‘make the hard choices’ necessary to bring about a stable peace,” the New York Times writes.
“Mr. Obama, speaking before a conference of the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee, offered familiar assurances that the United States’ commitment to Israel’s long-term security was ‘ironclad.’ But citing the rising political upheaval near Israel’s borders, he presented his peace plan as the best chance Israel has to avoid growing isolation. ‘We cannot afford to wait another decade, or another two decades, or another three decades, to achieve peace,’ Mr. Obama said. The world, he said, ‘is moving too fast.’”
“President Obama sought to prove his pro-Israel creds Sunday by assuring the nation's largest pro-Israel lobby that America's commitment to the security of the Jewish state is unwavering,” the New York Daily News adds.
There have been plenty of critics on the right of Obama’s speech about Israel. The Boston Globe, though, says, “Netanyahu was hearing what he chose to hear when he objected to the principles for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement that President Obama outlined in his recent speech on the Mideast.” And: “Obama was right to say what he said. And the overall import of his speech was protective of Israel’s long-term interests… More than ever, Israel needs the security that can only come from a two-state peace agreement. Netanyahu would be acting in Israel’s interest if he welcomed Obama’s offer to help forge that peace.”
“George Mitchell, who stepped down as the Obama administration’s special envoy to the Middle East last week, said Sunday that President Obama’s call to base Israeli-Palestinian peace talks on pre-1967 borders is not a threat to Israel,” The Hill writes. Mitchell said on ABC, “I don't believe it is threatening Israel. A major objective of this initiative, among others, is to prevent a disaster for Israel from occurring at the United Nations General Assembly in September, when the Palestinians have said they will see a unilateral declaration of statehood. The president spoke out strongly against that. We oppose it. And the way to prevent that from occurring is to provide an alternative in direct negotiation that would foreclose or make not necessary that option.”
The Boston Globe on the backlash Cornell West is facing: “A leading black scholar is unapologetic for his scathing and racially loaded comments about President Obama last week, which have ignited fierce blowback from African-American leaders and intellectuals in arguments that continue to rage in black media and on the Web.” More: “Critics have suggested that West’s comments, published on the political blog Truthdig, were motivated by personal slights. West has acknowledged he felt Obama disrespected him and did not return his calls after West stumped for him in the 2008 election. Critics have also described West as a phony, an ivory tower advocate for the poor, or just unhinged. ‘My question to Dr. West: Is this personal or it is political?’ the Rev. Al Sharpton, civil rights activist and Obama ally, said in an interview. ‘Where has the president’s politics changed since when [West] endorsed and supported him for president?”
“Stephen J. Kerrigan, who also helped coordinate the Democratic convention when it was in Boston in 2004, has been named as chief executive officer overseeing the 2012 convention in Charlotte, N.C.,” the Boston Globe reports.
Leave a Comment:
The president could sneeze and people would accuse him of intentionally spreading the flu.
Ira Lapin
I’ve posted this as a factual history related to the negotiations between Israel and its Arab neighbors. I will gladly cite a reference to anything posted here. It is predominantly a summary from Wikipedia and other sources are included.
I’ve bent over backwards to make this as objective as possible and purposely did not address the violence between both sides. Its sole purpose is to provide a history of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian people. For those that think that Israel is against a “Two State Solution”, may I respectfully suggest you note when you read this that this solution has been accepted by Israel on numerous occasions and rejected by Palestinian negotiators.
I know that this is long and wordy, but after reading the comments posted on Thursday regarding this problem, I was clear that some had no understanding of the facts or history related to this debate.
BACKGROUND:
Many attempts have been made to broker a two-state solution, involving the creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside an independent Jewish state or next to the State of Israel (after Israel's establishment in 1948). As recently as 2007, a majority of both Israelis and Palestinians, according to a number of polls, prefer the two-state solution over any other solution as a means of resolving the conflict. Moreover, a considerable majority of the Jewish public sees the Palestinians' demand for an independent state as just, and thinks Israel can agree to the establishment of such a state. A majority of Palestinians and Israelis view the West Bank and Gaza Strip as an acceptable location of the hypothetical Palestinian state in a two-state solution. However, there are significant areas of disagreement over the shape of any final agreement and also regarding the level of credibility each side sees in the other in upholding basic commitments.
It should be noted that since 2003, the Palestinian side has been fractured by conflict between the two major factions: Fatah, the traditionally dominant party, and its later electoral challenger, Hamas. Following Hamas' seizure of power in the Gaza Strip in June 2007, the territory controlled by the Palestinian National Authority (the Palestinian interim government) is split between Fatah in the West Bank, and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The division of governance between the parties has effectively resulted in the collapse of bipartisan governance of the Palestinian National Authority (PA).
SIGNIFICANT NEGOTIATIONS:
Oslo Accords (1993)
In 1993, Israeli officials led by Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leaders from the Palestine Liberation Organization led by Yasser Arafat strove to find a peaceful solution through what became known as the Oslo peace process. A crucial milestone in this process was Arafat's letter of recognition of Israel's right to exist. In 1993, the Oslo Accords were finalized as a framework for future Israeli-Palestinian relations. The crux of the Oslo agreement was that Israel would gradually cede control of the Palestinian territories over to the Palestinians in exchange for peace. The Oslo process was delicate and progressed in fits and starts, the process took a turning point at the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin and finally unraveled when Arafat and Ehud Barak failed to reach agreement at Camp David in July 2000. Robert Malley, special assistant to United States President Bill Clinton for Arab-Israeli Affairs, has confirmed that while Barak made no formal written offer to Arafat, the US did present concepts for peace which were considered by the Israeli side yet left unanswered by Arafat "the Palestinians’ principal failing is that from the beginning of the Camp David summit onward they were unable either to say yes to the American ideas or to present a cogent and specific counter-proposal of their own".
Camp David Summit (2000)
In July 2000, U.S. President Bill Clinton convened a peace summit between Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Barak offered the Palestinian leader approximately 95% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem, and that 69 Jewish settlements (which comprise 85% of the West Bank's Jewish settlers) would be ceded to Israel. He also proposed "temporary Israeli control" indefinitely over another 10% of the West Bank territory—an area including many more Jewish settlements. The remaining area would be under Palestinian control
Arafat rejected this offer. President Clinton reportedly requested that Arafat make a counter-offer, but he proposed none. A US spokesman has said that “never, in the negotiations between us and the Palestinians, was there a Palestinian counterproposal."
No tenable solution was crafted which would satisfy both Israeli and Palestinian demands, even under intense U.S. pressure. Clinton blamed Arafat for the failure of the Camp David Summit.
Arab Peace Initiative
The Arab Peace Initiative as first proposed by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in the Beirut Summit. The peace initiative is a proposed solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict as a whole, and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in particular. The initiative was initially published on March 28, 2002.
This initiative spelled out "final-solution" borders based explicitly on the UN borders established before the 1967 Six-Day War. It offered full normalization of relations with Israel, in exchange for the withdrawal of its forces from all the occupied territories, including the Golan Heights, to recognize "an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital" in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as a "just solution" for the Palestinian refugees.
The idea of Israel returning to its 1967 borders is a Saudi Arabian proposal adopted and ratified by Arab League members. This is NOT a US initiative. The US has adopted it as a basis for seeking peace.
A number of Israeli officials have responded to the initiative with both support and criticism. The Israeli government has expressed reservations on 'red line,' issues such as the Palestinian refugee problem, homeland security concerns especially defense of its borders and recognition of its right to exist by the Arab League as well as the nature of Jerusalem. The Arab League and now the United States have made the issue of returning to the 1967 borders as a basis of negotiations between the Palestinians, Arab League and Israel.
Jerusalem
The border of Jerusalem is a particularly delicate issue, with each side asserting claims over this city. The three largest Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—include Jerusalem as an important setting for their religious and historical narratives. Israel asserts that the city should not be divided and should remain unified within Israel's political control. Palestinians claim at least the parts of the city which were not part of Israel prior to June 1967. As of 2005, there were more than 719,000 people living in Jerusalem; 465,000 were Jews (mostly living in West Jerusalem) and 232,000 were Muslims (mostly living in East Jerusalem).
The Israeli government, including the Knesset and Supreme Court, is centered in the "new city" of West Jerusalem and has been since Israel's founding in 1948. After Israel captured the Jordanian-controlled East Jerusalem in the Six-Day War, it assumed complete administrative control of East Jerusalem. In 1980, Israel issued a new law stating, "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel."
At the Camp David Summit, the United States proposed a plan in which the Arab parts of Jerusalem would be given to the proposed Palestinian state while the Jewish parts of Jerusalem were retained by Israel. All archaeological work under the Temple Mount would be jointly controlled by the Israeli and Palestinian governments. Both sides accepted the proposal in principle, but the summits ultimately failed.
Israel has grave concerns regarding the welfare of Jewish holy places under possible Palestinian control. When Jerusalem was under Jordanian control, no Jews were allowed to visit the Western Wall or other Jewish holy places, and the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives was desecrated. In 2000, a Palestinian mob took over Joseph's Tomb, a shrine considered sacred by both Jews and Muslims, looted and burned the building and turned it into a mosque. There are unauthorized Palestinian excavations for construction on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which could threaten the stability of the Western Wall. Israel, on the other hand, has seldom blocked access to holy places sacred to other religions. Israeli security agencies routinely monitor and arrest Jewish extremists that plan attacks, resulting in almost no serious incidents for the last 20 years. Moreover, Israel has given almost complete autonomy to the Muslim trust (Waqf) over the Temple Mount.
Israel expresses concern over the security of its residents if neighborhoods of Jerusalem are placed under Palestinian control. Jerusalem has been a prime target for attacks by militant groups against civilian targets since 1967. Many Jewish neighborhoods have been fired upon from Arab areas. The proximity of the Arab areas, if these regions were to fall in the boundaries of a Palestinian state, would be so close as to threaten the safety of Jewish residents.
Palestinian refugees of the 1948 war
Palestinian refugees are people who left their homes as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. This resulted from the fact that during the 1948 War the Arab Higher Committee and the Arab states encouraged Palestinians to flee in order to make it easier to rout the Jewish state or that they did so to escape the fights by fear. The majority of these people have relocated to other Arab states, predominantly Jordan, which, has annexed over 60% of the historic Palestinian land.
Most of the people now living in the West Bank and Gaza were born outside of Israel. Nevertheless, Palestinian negotiators have insisted that these refugees have a right to return to the places where they lived before 1948 and 1967.
SUMMARY:
The Arab Peace Initiative as first proposed by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in the Beirut Summit, spelled out "final-solution" borders based explicitly on the UN borders established before the 1967 Six-Day War. It offered full normalization of relations with Israel, in exchange for the withdrawal of its forces from all the occupied territories, including the Golan Heights, to recognize "an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital" in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as a "just solution" for the Palestinian refugees.
The idea of Israel returning to its 1967 borders is a Saudi Arabian proposal adopted and ratified by Arab League members. This is NOT a US initiative. The US has adopted it as a basis for seeking peace.
In July 2000, U.S. President Bill Clinton convened a peace summit between Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Barak offered the Palestinian leader approximately 95% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem, and that 69 Jewish settlements (which comprise 85% of the West Bank's Jewish settlers) would be ceded to Israel. He also proposed "temporary Israeli control" indefinitely over another 10% of the West Bank territory—an area including many more Jewish settlements. The remaining area would be under Palestinian control
Arafat rejected this offer. President Clinton reportedly requested that Arafat make a counter-offer, but he proposed none. A US spokesman has said that "never, in the negotiations between us and the Palestinians, was there a Palestinian counterproposal."
No tenable solution was crafted which would satisfy both Israeli and Palestinian demands, even under intense U.S. pressure. Clinton blamed Arafat for the failure of the Camp David Summit.
Last, Palestinian refugees are people who left their homes as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. This resulted from the fact that during the 1948 War the Arab Higher Committee and the Arab states encouraged Palestinians to flee in order to make it easier to rout the Jewish state or that they did so to escape the fights by fear. The majority of these people have relocated to other Arab states, predominantly Jordan, which has annexed over 60% of the historic Palestinian land. Most of the people now living in the West Bank and Gaza were born outside of Israel. Nevertheless, Palestinian negotiators have insisted that these refugees have a right to return to the places where they lived before 1948 and 1967.
As I said, I will provide a reference for every fact stated here. So before any of you think that Israeli reaction and politics is caused by the inflexibility of the hardline politicians currently in office, I’d suggest you reconsider based on historical fact.
Ira Lapin
I’ve said many times here that stupid is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. This 1967 border policy has been a failure for over 20 years and yet we continue to pursue it. No new ideas from this administration, just a rehash of failed foreign policy.
At the AIPAC meeting the President said “"If there's a controversy, then it's not based in substance,"
Does the President know that more than 60% of the Palestinian land was annexed by and is now part of Jordan, However, nobody ever asked the Jordanians to make painful territorial concessions for their Arab brothers, while everybody asks Israel to give more and more. Why is it ok for Jordan to hold Palestinian land, but not for Israel?
Does Obama know that his proposal undercuts Security Council Resolution 242-- Resolution 242, passed unanimously by the Security Council in the wake of Israel's 1967 victory, and contemplated some territorial adjustments necessary to assure Israel's security against future attacks? It also contemplated that Israel would hold onto the Western Wall, the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem and the access roads to Hebrew University, without the need for any land swaps. Land swaps would only be required to make up for any areas beyond those contemplated by Resolution 242? The Obama formulation would seem to require land swaps even for the Western Wall.
He also said the result must be derived through negotiation, and that provisions must ensure Israeli border security and protections from acts of terrorism. An Israeli withdrawal from territory should be followed by Palestinians taking responsibility for security in a non-militarized state. So who do the Israeli’s negotiate with Fatah or Hamas? Hamas is a militant organization that is listed on the compilation of designated terrorist organizations compiled by the international community. We don’t negotiate with terrorists but Obama is insisting Israel should. It would be the same as if the US was forced to negotiat with Al-Qaeda.
Hamas reaction:
Hamas’ Palestine Times newspaper quotes Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri, reacting to President Obama’s speech.
He called it bereft of content and said that Obama’s speech was a failure, and “the nation does not need to take lessons from Obama.”
Zuhri added, “Reconciliation is an internal affair and we reject the American intervention, and Hamas will not recognize Israel.”
The President said, paraphrasing, that Hamas was a problem but “they (who are they?) needed to work this out among themselves”.
Well thought out answer don’t you think? Add to this the anti-Israeli sentiment increasing in countries experiencing the “Arab Spring” and you wonder why Israel is concerned about establishing indefensible borders.
There is no NEW plan, just very old ideas that have failed over and over again.
For those that do not know who Neville Chamberlain is, he became Prime Minister of Britain in May, 1937. Over the next two years Chamberlain's government became associated with the foreign policy that later became known as appeasement.
Chamberlain believed that Germany had been badly treated by the Allies after it was defeated in the First World War. He therefore thought that the German government had genuine grievances and that these needed to be addressed. He also thought that by agreeing to some of the demands being made by Adolf Hitler of Germany and Benito Mussolini of Italy, he could avoid a European war.
When Adolf Hitler began demanding that the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia should be under the control of the German government, Chamberlain, in an attempt to solve the crisis, met with Hitler in Munich in September, 1938. On 29th September, 1938, Adolf Hitler and Neville Chamberlain, signed the Munich Agreement which transferred to Germany the Sudetenland, a fortified frontier region that contained a large German-speaking population Sudetenland. The Munich Agreement was popular with most people in Britain because it appeared to have prevented a war with Germany.
In March, 1939, the German Army seized the rest of Czechoslovakia. In taking this action Adolf Hitler had broken the Munich Agreement. The British prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, now realized that Hitler could not be trusted and his appeasement policy now came to an end. World War II began 5 months later with the German invasion of Poland on Sept. 1, 1939.
The situation between the Palestinians, Arab nations and Israeli is very similar. The President believes that the Palestinians have genuine grievances and that these needed to be addressed. He also believes that by agreeing to some of the demands he can bring peace to the region. Identical to the ideology of Chamberlin.
It strikes me that Obama is a lot like Chamberlin. He is an appeaser, a compromiser and a bit naïve. He believes in the good in people and their good faith and that an agreement that cedes land back to the Palestinians and the Arab countries that attacked Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 will end hostilities there. Obama is convinced that the Arab nations will respect a treaty that assures that Israel may exist, if only they give up still more land, just like they did with Sinai. He has faith that the Arabs and Palestinians will keep their word.
Just as Chamberlin and Stalin learned, treaties and agreements with people bent on aggression are easily broken. They are paper treaties with no teeth or enforcement provisions. They are meaningless.
Just as Hitler demanded to be allowed to "take back" what was "rightfully theirs" as German nationals, as believers in the true faith of Nazism and anti-Semitism, we'd be foolish to ignore that there are radical Islamists who demand the same thing, to "take back" what is their "national heritage" and to kill the Jews and annihilate the State of Israel.
Surely now people would recognize the mistakes of 1938, right? Surely now people would not support capitulation for "peace? It seems not.
The above posters seem to think that the law answers all of the problems created by a post colonial Middle East and how to handle the the fact that a sovereign nation conqueredterritory from other sovereign nations. The State of Israel was a legal fiction, much like the surrounding territories created after WWI. The region is little different than the fiction that was Yugoslavia. The interests of the US are much larger and far beyond the borders of Israel. Perhaps the solution to this problem is not arguing what the letter of the law prescribes, but seeking justice through the spirit of the law.
Lets face it Israel is the bad guy in this conflict... They have commited PRE-MEDITATED LAND STEALING, they well knew that by moving jews to the occupied areas it would be almost impossible to remove them in the future, and by extending the conflict the settlers would in time be owners of the land...
Just like pre meditated murder, this act was pre planned and needs to be severely punished in order for there to be a real peace in the region. With a partial peace hate for what the jews did will be around for decades openning the door for future conflict.
Israel needs to accept their crimes against the Palestinians and make ammends in order for there to be real peace.
But Israel being a very stupid racist bunch of people they will not accept their crimes against the Palestinians... because inside they truly believe they are God's choosen people and every one else is inferior to them....
So the only way is by forcing Israel will be by UN sanctions, economic isolation, and embargo on all their economy.
We in the US can start by stoping all aid to Israel and try to accelaratre a true peace process.
Extremely good posts, Ira. Much information for anyone that takes time to read it. However, the fact remains that the Palestinians had their land given to foreigners by foreigners. I know- religious beliefs dictate who's land it really was in the begining, but that's the problem. Because one group believes something, doesn't make it another group's reality. Including the notion that the land belonged to the Palestinians, too- who can know for sure? Maybe BOTH sides are wrong.
I don't think it will ever be resolved, as long as the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates the isses.
Again- no disrespect toward anyone intended- just my thoughs on the whole thing.
xxxx
robert buko and Wm.-375815..
Have either of you EVER read a book or know the history of the region since the Balfour Declaration. There is not one fact that can be supported by history in your post, just opinion and by some of the words used ,hatred towards Israel. .
Lets cut through the BS. The fact is the palestineans do not want peace with Israel. Their main objective is the destruction of Israel and ridding the area of alll Jews. You know..."drive the Jews into the sea." No matter what concessions Israel were to make, this fact cannot be ignored. They will continue to wage "holy" war against Israel. If your do not believe this youare either naive or a fool. These discussions by the current administrationare a thinly-veiled attack on Israel's sovereignty in support of his arab brethern. You cannot make peace with fanatical people who are born and bred to hate and kill you, as are the palestineans.
On another note, this from NY Times article yesterday:
"...When Mr. Obama did so last Thursday, he unleashed a furious response from Mr. Netanyahu."
"That was Bibi over the top," one administration official said Saturday, referring to Mr. Netanyahu by his nickname. "That's not how you address the president of the United States."
Well, that says quite a bit. It is becoming painfully obvious to me, on the world stage, this child-president, does not carry alot of weight. This is not the first time he has been smacked by experienced, seasoned international politicians and world leaders.
NEVER AGAIN!
Reality Check-1104333..
Agree...
Hope you read my post of the other day.
Skimmed the big one above...but its all genetic...
Very little good law or precedents comes from the colonial machinations of the UK and France. The State of Israel is still a fiction that was created into the vaccum that was the chaos of the Middle East. To the present day we are propping up fictions all over the Middle East. You have two sides, Israel, a fiction with the protection of law, and Palestine a fiction with no legal basis, and very little historical context. Still, Israel has conquered and settled foreign territory. It's Jordan's territory that is being debated.
drive-by-observer
the fact remains that the Palestinians had their land given to foreigners by foreigners
................................................................
Both Israel and the Palestinians borders in 1948 were defined by the UB security Council.
For the displaced, the majority of these people have relocated to other Arab states, predominantly Jordan, which has annexed over 60% of the historic Palestinian land. Most of the people now living in the West Bank and Gaza were born outside of Israel. Nevertheless, Palestinian negotiators have insisted that these refugees have a right to return to the places where they lived before 1948 and 1967.
Why hasn't Jordan given their Arab brothers their land back?
Good speech Mr. President in a very tough situation. No GOP/RNC! The President dd not need to use a teleprompter! I will say this Mr. President. You stick to your diplomatic beliefs Mr. President, and no one can ever call you a "flip-flopper." Oh! That's right. That title has been well earned by "Nutty Newt."
drive-by-observer..
I don't get your point cause 60% of their "historical land" was annexed by Jordan who has never been asked to give it back. Why not have a Two State Solution with Israel giving a portion back and Jordan releasing the 60% they simply annexed.
drive-by-observer..
........and stop leaving disclaimers on you responses. I'm a big boy and a good political discussion or disagreement doesn't need an apology. It's the racist comments that set me off and you're too much of a gentlemen to do that.
The president's speech on the middle east and Arab - Israeli conflict sure sounded like our President read Jimmy Carter's "Peace not Apartheid." I recall that book didn't go over well with Jewish -Americans.
Obama is a failure.