The Democratic Party Should Be Ashamed of Themselves!
May 19, 2011 09:29 pm
Jeff Dunetz
The Democratic Party should be ashamed of themselves. Today they proved themselves to be nothing but partisan hacks who care more about party politics than doing the right thing. While President Obama's speech regarding Middle East generated much criticism from Republicans, but on the Democratic side, even amongst supporters of the Jewish State, there was either positive spin or total silence.
As you know by now the President today gave an address to the nation that for all intents and purposes threw one of our closest allies, Israel, under the proverbial bus. His public call for Israel to retreat to the 1949 armistice lines, broke existing agreements that the United States had made with Israel, probably hurt the quest for an Israeli/Palestinian deal and quite possibly moved the region closer to a new Middle East war.
That 1949 armistice line was created solely because that’s Israeli and Arab forces stopped fighting at the end of the War of Independence (with some added adjustments in certain sectors). It was if the whistle blew and everyone dropped their gear. The line people call 1967 border, is really only a military line. It was never intended for the Armistice lines to mark final borders, and there is plenty of documentation to that fact.
There is not much doubt that at the end of a deal, the two parties will exist with borders somewhere near that armistice border. In fact Israel has offered specific maps of final borders along the lines of what the President said publicly today, once under the Premierships of Ehud Barak the other under Ehud Olmert (in both of those cases the Palestinian leadership rejected the offer).
The difference is that in both of those cases, The return to those"1967 borders" was the end point of negotiations, today Obama severely damaged Israel's negotiating position by making it the staring point. Obama took it upon himself to made a unilateral concession on behalf of Israel. There was no negotiation; he gave away a bargaining chip that was not his to give. Should Israel give in Obama it will actually make negotiations more difficult because Israel will have to fight harder on other issues, some of which might otherwise had been easy concessions. If Israel fights Obama on the issue, things might get a bit dicier in the region. Israel's neighbors might see it as giving attacks on the Jewish State legitimacy.
At this point it looks as if Israel is choosing to take a stand. The Prime Minister all but threw a gauntlet down (diplomatically of course).
“Israel appreciates President Obama’s commitment to peace,” the response began, curtly. “Israel believes that for peace to endure between Israelis and Palestinians, the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state.”
“That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress.”
“Among other things,” Netanyahu reminded Obama, “those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines.”
Republicans were quick to point out that Obama's call for a retreat to the 1949 Armistice lines was dangerous to the Jewish State.
“President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus,” former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said in a statement following Mr. Obama’s sweeping speech about the fundamental changes taking place in the Middle East. “He has disrespected Israel and undermined its ability to negotiate peace.”
Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty called the president’s support for a plan that would revive borders not seen since the Six-Day War in 1967 “a mistaken and dangerous demand.“The city of Jerusalem must never be re-divided,” he said. “At this time of upheaval in the Middle East, it’s never been more important for America to stand strong for Israel and for a united Jerusalem.”
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.), the highest-ranking Jewish Republican, said, “The president’s habit of drawing a moral equivalence between the actions of the Palestinians and the Israelis while assessing blame for the conflict is, in and of itself, harmful to the prospect for peace.“By keeping the burden and thus the spotlight on Israel, the President is only giving the Palestinian Authority more incentive to carry on its unhelpful game of sidestepping negotiations and failing to put an end to terrorism,” Mr. Cantor said in a statement. “Creating another Palestinian terror state on Israel’s borders is something that none of us want. The White House referred to today’s speech as a ‘Moment of Opportunity,’ and I’m disappointed that the President’s remarks missed both the moment and the opportunity.”
Rep. Michele Bachmann said on her face book page that that Obama "has betrayed our friend and ally Israel.I believe Obama's call for 1967 borders will cause chaos, division, and greater aggression in the Middle East and put Israel at further risk,"
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee: "We did not hear a pledge from the President to cut off U.S. funding to a Palestinian Authority now aligned with Hamas, nor did we hear a pledge to veto the scheme to attain U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state without negotiating peace with Israel. I am also disappointed that the President failed to call on the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, and instead imposed new pressure on Israel to make concessions on its borders."
Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL): "The President's new decision to alter U.S. policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process concerns me. Palestinian calls for ‘1967 borders' should be outweighed by Israel's need for secure borders to ensure the survival of a critical U.S. ally. The President should block U.S. taxpayer assistance to Palestinian leaders who teamed up with a group his administration certified as a terrorist organization -- Hamas -- responsible for the murder of at least 26 American citizens. America has no greater ally and political supporter than the Israeli democracy."
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL): "Unfortunately, the President's reference to Israel's 1967 borders marks a step back in the peace process, as the U.S. must not pre-determine the outcome of direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Our focus should be in encouraging direct and meaningful negotiations between the sides, and to continue playing an important role as a security guarantor in the region."
Rep. Allen West (R-FL): "Today's endorsement by President Barack Obama of the creation of a Hamas-led Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders, signals the most egregious foreign policy decision his administration has made to date, and could be the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state. From the moment the modern day state of Israel declared statehood in 1948, to the end of the 1967 Six Day War, Jews were forbidden access to their holiest site, the Western Wall in Jerusalem's Old City, controlled by Jordan's Arab army. The pre-1967 borders endorsed by President Obama would deny millions of the world's Jews access to their holiest site and force Israel to return the strategically important Golan Heights to Syria, a known state-sponsor of terrorism. Resorting to the pre-1967 borders would mean a full withdrawal by the Israelis from the West Bank and the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Make no mistake, there has always been a Nation of Israel and Jerusalem has been and must always be recognized as its rightful capital."
Let see what we have found from the Democratic Party side:
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)usually a big supporter of the Jewish State, ignored Obama's unilateral declaration of the return to the "1967 borders." With his head cowardly in the sand he said,“I am glad the president has rejected any unilateral action by the UN, which has always been biased against Israel, but there can be no negotiations until Hamas, recognized as a terrorist group by the United States, renounces terror and recognizes the reality of a two-state solution,“
Congressman Steve Israel (D-NY) reaction to the President's throwing of the Jewish State was , a reaction echoed by Congressman Gary Ackerman who said and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) who added . That's right they said nothing. Harry read proclaimed that he had not yet heard the speech.
The National Democratic Jewish Coalition showed the country why their party is place in front of their religion in their name as they had the audacity to praise the speech saying that the President "demonstrated his unwavering support of Israel"
Also weighing in on the President's speech was full-time progressive activist, and part time director of the ADL, Abe Foxman who like Chuck Shumer ignored the most distasteful part of the speech.
We support the President's vision of a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian settlement with strong security provisions for Israel, and a non-militarized Palestinian state. We appreciate his direct rejection of a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and his understanding that the Hamas-Fatah agreement poses major problems for Israel.
This should serve as a red flag to anyone who supports the state of Israel. Remember what happened today when the Jewish State most needed the support of our public figures. The Republican party was quick to point out how Obama's speech put Israel in dangers. The Democrats abandoned the Jewish State to the whims of a President who publicly threw Israel under the bus.
As Edmond Burke said almost three-hundred years ago “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." In a time of great need for Israel, the Democratic Party did nothing. For that they should be ashamed of themselves.
Supporters of Israel should remember that when they enter the voting booth in 2012.
Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com
read more
Report: Ahmadinejad Losing Power Struggle With Supreme Leader
May 19, 2011 06:59 pm
Jeff Dunetz
Reports are coming out of Iran that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be forced out of power before the end of his second term as president. According to Iranian observers, Ahmadinejad tried to challenge the powerful clerical establishment, but the "Supreme Leader" Ali Khamenei who is the real power figure in the government not only objected and rebuffed the president, but began to arrest some of his top minister's and advisers.
According to the UK Guardian:
In recent days, Ahmadinejad and the men described as his strongest allies – his chief of staff, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, and executive deputy, Hamid Baghaei – have come under direct attack from senior figures in the powerful Revolutionary Guards and some of most important clerics in the Islamic regime.
Ahmadinejad's many enemies across the political and religious spectrum have scented blood after the arrest of at least 25 people close to him and Mashaei. The president's immediate entourage has been reduced to a handful of serious people and has faced accusations of corruption, revolutionary "deviancy" and even espionage.
Those who aren't under arrest or pressure are giving Ahmadinejad the "ooh you got cooties" treatment such as the Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi who used to be a strong ally:
In a recent interview with an Iranian publication, Yazdi said: "That a human being would behave in a way that angers his closest friends and allies and turns them into opponents is not logical for any politician." .
He told Shoma Weekly that he believed "with more than 90% certainty" that Ahmadinejad had been bewitched". "We saw that this questionable person [Mashaei] has conquered this gentleman [Ahmadinejad] and is in his fist," he said.
Ayatollah Ahmad Janati, a close ally of Khamenei and head of the Guardian Council, also attacked Ahmadinejad directly. "We did not expect this from him," Janati said. In a reference to Mashaei, he said that "some people seek to cause a deviation, and act against the country and the supreme leader".
Others in the Iranian ruling class have piled on:
"It is like wolves who have been waiting for a sign of weakness and they are now lunging in," said Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-Israeli Middle East analyst and co-author of book on Ahmadinejad, The Nuclear Sphinx of Tehran.
In the latest sign of his dwindling authority, Ahmadinejad's bid to streamline his cabinet and merge eight ministries into four was blocked by the supreme leader in a private meeting attended by the parliamentary chief, Ali Larijani.
Unable to proceed with his initial plan, Ahmadinejad fought back by dismissing three ministers and temporarily taking over the oil ministry but drew unprecedented criticism from Khamenei's camp.
On top of the criticism coming the Supreme leader's pals Ahmadinejad is also losing favor with the Iranian populace. Recently he scrapped long-standing subsidies on fuel, food and other staple items, an the people aren't very happy.
With zero growth projected this year, organised labour is beginning to flex its muscles. Last week, some union members refused to go to work, in protest at delayed salaries and rising unemployment. They blamed Ahmadinejad for the crisis.
.....Ahmadinejad, whose presidency is limited to two terms under Iranian law, must step down in 2013. The depth of rift with the supreme leader has raised speculation he might leave early, triggering a crisis.
Some are comparing him to Abdulhassan Banisadr, Iran's first post-revolutionary president, who was impeached in 1981 after clashing with Ayatollah Khomeini and forced to flee the country.
Speaking from Paris, Banisadr said: "Khamenei is so fed up with Ahmadinejad that [the president] might not even survive before his term finishes."
Don't start throwing a party yet, Ahmadinejad is a scrappy tyrant, he "ain't dead yet." On the other hand the Supreme leader is 72 and there are reports that he is suffering from terminal leukemia.
In the end it might not even matter, if either Khamenei or Ahmadinejad are replaced, chances are those replacement will not moderate Iranian policy.
Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com
read more
Full Text Of Obama's Middle East Speech (Annotated With Analysis and Snarky Comments)
May 19, 2011 03:39 pm
Jeff Dunetz
Today the President made his long awaited "re-set" speech about his vision for the Middle East. Below is the full text of President Obama speech today. As is the tradition for this site, it is annotated (in red) with analysis, corrections and a few snarky comments. So from here on out anything in black are the words of the POTUS, the words in red you can blame on me.
The address was supposed to begin at 11:40, but started about a half-hour late. This can only mean one thing. Obama has begun to understand the concept of "Jewish time" (normally being about 26 minutes after normal time within your time zone).
I want to thank Hillary Clinton, who has traveled so much these last six months that she is approaching a new landmark – one million frequent flyer miles. (Insert yuk-yuk here) I count on Hillary every day, and I believe that she will go down as of the finest Secretaries of State in our nation’s history.
The State Department is a fitting venue to mark a new chapter in American diplomacy. For six months, we have witnessed an extraordinary change take place in the Middle East and North Africa. Square by square; town by town; country by country; the people have risen up to demand their basic human rights. Two leaders have stepped aside. More may follow. And though these countries may be a great distance from our shores, we know that our own future is bound to this region by the forces of economics and security; history and faith.
Today, I would like to talk about this change (no hope?)– the forces that are driving it, and how we can respond in a way that advances our values and strengthens our security. Already, we have done much to shift our foreign policy following a decade defined by two costly conflicts. (Obama is correct we have shifted our foreign policy away from a situation where many counties hated us, but they all respected our leadership, to even more countries hating us and no one respecting our leadership) After years of war in Iraq, we have removed 100,000 American troops and ended our combat mission there (also true, President Bush signed the agreement with Iraq to remove those combat troops) In Afghanistan, we have broken the Taliban’s momentum, and this July we will begin to bring our troops home and continue transition to Afghan lead. And after years of war against al Qaeda and its affiliates, we have dealt al Qaeda a huge blow by killing its leader – Osama bin Laden (and he does deserve congratulations for that)
Bin Laden was no martyr. He was a mass murderer who offered a message of hate – an insistence that Muslims had to take up arms against the West, and that violence against men, women and children was the only path to change. He rejected democracy and individual rights for Muslims in favor of violent extremism; his agenda focused on what he could destroy – not what he could build.
Bin Laden and his murderous vision won some adherents. But even before his death, al Qaeda was losing its struggle for relevance, as the overwhelming majority of people saw that the slaughter of innocents did not answer their cries for a better life. By the time we found bin Laden, al Qaeda’s agenda had come to be seen by the vast majority of the region as a dead end, and the people of the Middle East and North Africa had taken their future into their own hands.
Huh? What is he talking about? Egypt is about to be ruled by the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, according to administration reports the Libyan rebels have been infiltrated by al Qaeda, Lebanon is dominated by Hezballah, who knows which side will win in Syria but neither one of them are big fans of the way we do thing in the US. Jordan is a monarchy that oppresses its Palestinian majority, Saudi Arabia is a monarchy that brutally enforces Shariah law and does not grant rights to women, and we know about the brutal oppression in Hamas' Gaza, Fatah's Palestinian Authority and what has become the real power in the region Iran.
Beyond the Middle East, radical Islamism is making inroads in bringing its tyrannical leadership to places like Chechnya, the northern Caucasus, the Balkans, Nigeria, Somalia, southern Thailand, the southern Philippines, and Indonesia. And don't forget the Taliban is making progress in Pakistan.
That story of self-determination began six months ago in Tunisia. On December 17, a young vendor named Mohammed Bouazizi was devastated when a police officer confiscated his cart. This was not unique. It is the same kind of humiliation that takes place every day in many parts of the world – the relentless tyranny of governments that deny their citizens dignity. Only this time, something different happened. After local officials refused to hear his complaint, this young man who had never been particularly active in politics went to the headquarters of the provincial government, doused himself in fuel, and lit himself on fire.
Sometimes, in the course of history, the actions of ordinary citizens spark movements for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has built up for years. In America, think of the defiance of those patriots in Boston who refused to pay taxes to a King or the dignity of Rosa Parks as she sat courageously in her seat. So it was in Tunisia, as that vendor’s act of desperation tapped into the frustration felt throughout the country. Hundreds of protesters took to the streets, then thousands. And in the face of batons and sometimes bullets, they refused to go home – day after day, week after week, until a dictator of more than two decades finally left power.
The story of this Revolution, and the ones that followed, should not have come as a surprise. The nations of the Middle East and North Africa won their independence long ago, but in too many places their people did not. In too many countries, power has been concentrated in the hands of the few. In too many countries, a citizen like that young vendor had nowhere to turn – no honest judiciary to hear his case; no independent media to give him voice; no credible political party to represent his views; no free and fair election where he could choose his leader.
This lack of self-determination – the chance to make of your life what you will – has applied to the region’s economy as well. Yes, some nations are blessed with wealth in oil and gas, and that has led to pockets of prosperity. But in a global economy based on knowledge and innovation, no development strategy can be based solely upon what comes out of the ground. Nor can people reach their potential when you cannot start a business without paying a bribe.
Obviously the President has never worked in construction.
In the face of these challenges, too many leaders in the region tried to direct their people’s grievances elsewhere. The West was blamed as the source of all ills, a half century after the end of colonialism. Antagonism toward Israel became the only acceptable outlet for political expression. Divisions of tribe, ethnicity and religious sect were manipulated as a means of holding on to power, or taking it away from somebody else.
But the events of the past six months show us that strategies of repression and diversion won’t work anymore. Satellite television and the Internet provide a window into the wider world – a world of astonishing progress in places like India, Indonesia and Brazil. Cell phones and social networks allow young people to connect and organize like never before. A new generation has emerged. And their voices tell us that change cannot be denied.
In Cairo, we heard the voice of the young mother who said, “It’s like I can finally breathe fresh air for the first time.”
But they are also hearing the march of the oppressive Muslim Brotherhood who, when they take power, will unleash repression much worse than what she had before.
In Sanaa, we heard the students who chanted, “The night must come to an end.”
In Benghazi, we heard the engineer who said, “Our words are free now. It’s a feeling you can’t explain.”
In Damascus, we heard the young man who said, “After the first yelling, the first shout, you feel dignity.”
Those shouts of human dignity are being heard across the region. And through the moral force of non-violence, the people of the region have achieved more change in six months than terrorists have accomplished in decades.
Hyperbole! In the cases outlined above, they simply traded in their old tyrants for new ones, the terrorists. Kind of geo-political cash for clunkers.
Of course, change of this magnitude does not come easily. In our day and age – a time of 24 hour news cycles, and constant communication – people expect the transformation of the region to be resolved in a matter of weeks. But it will be years before this story reaches its end. Along the way, there will be good days, and bad days. In some places, change will be swift; in others, gradual. And as we have seen, calls for change may give way to fierce contests for power.
The question before us is what role America will play as this story unfolds. (Our role so far, it has been to bash our allies, and ignore our enemies) For decades, the United States has pursued a set of core interests in the region: countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the free flow of commerce, and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up for Israel’s security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace.
Unfortunately with the possible exception of the first two years of the George W. Bush administration, when Jewish civilians are killed it is not considered terrorism.
We will continue to do these things, with the firm belief that America’s interests are not hostile to peoples’ hopes; they are essential to them. We believe that no one benefits from a nuclear arms race in the region, or al Qaeda’s brutal attacks. People everywhere would see their economies crippled by a cut off in energy supplies. As we did in the Gulf War, we will not tolerate aggression across borders, and we will keep our commitments to friends and partners.
He forgot to mention his Administration's policy that when missiles are sent from Gaza to Israel we urge restraint.
Yet we must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind. Moreover, failure to speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people will only feed the suspicion that has festered for years that the United States pursues our own interests at their expense. Given that this mistrust runs both ways – as Americans have been seared by hostage taking, violent rhetoric, and terrorist attacks that have killed thousands of our citizens – a failure to change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the United States and Muslim communities.
Yep...those Americans are evil. Let me ask you something, what nation in the world does not pursue its own strategic interests as a priority?
That’s why, two years ago in Cairo, I began to broaden our engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect (and we can see how that worked out for the Egyptians). I believed then – and I believe now – that we have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the self determination of individuals. The status quo is not sustainable. Societies held together by fear and repression may offer the illusion of stability for a time, but they are built upon fault lines that will eventually tear asunder.
Actually what I remember about his Cairo speech is that he threw Israel under the bus and downplayed Hamas and Fatah terrorism.
So we face an historic opportunity. We have embraced the chance to show that America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw power of the dictator. There must be no doubt that the United States of America welcomes change that advances self-determination and opportunity. Yes, there will be perils that accompany this moment of promise. But after decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should be.
As we do, we must proceed with a sense of humility. It is not America that put people into the streets of Tunis and Cairo – it was the people themselves who launched these movements, and must determine their outcome. Not every country will follow our particular form of representative democracy, and there will be times when our short term interests do not align perfectly with our long term vision of the region. But we can – and will – speak out for a set of core principles – principles that have guided our response to the events over the past six months:
The United States opposes the use of violence and repression against the people of the region.
We support a set of universal rights. Those rights include free speech; the freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of religion; equality for men and women under the rule of law; and the right to choose your own leaders – whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus; Sanaa or Tehran.
And finally, we support political and economic reform in the Middle East and North Africa that can meet the legitimate aspirations of ordinary people throughout the region.
OOH...I bet this section is going to make the Saudi Royal Family so happy. After all they are not big believers of”free speech; the freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of religion; equality for men and women under the rule of law; and the right to choose your own leader." But they are big believers in oil politics. Something tells me that they may not be as willing to raise production to make gas prices go down.
Our support for these principles is not a secondary interest– today I am making it clear that it is a top priority that must be translated into concrete actions, and supported by all of the diplomatic, economic and strategic tools at our disposal.
And OPEC will translate it into a test of the price elasticity of crude oil.
Let me be specific. First, it will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy.
That effort begins in Egypt and Tunisia, where the stakes are high –as Tunisia was at the vanguard of this democratic wave, and Egypt is both a longstanding partner and the Arab World’s largest nation. Both nations can set a strong example through free and fair elections; a vibrant civil society; accountable and effective democratic institutions; and responsible regional leadership. But our support must also extend to nations where transitions have yet to take place.
Unfortunately, in too many countries, calls for change have been answered by violence. The most extreme example is Libya, where Moammar Gaddafi launched a war against his people, promising to hunt them down like rats. As I said when the United States joined an international coalition to intervene, we cannot prevent every injustice perpetrated by a regime against its people, and we have learned from our experience in Iraq just how costly and difficult it is to impose regime change by force – no matter how well-intended it may be.
I agree with him here, but Libya should not have been a place where we intervened.
But in Libya, we saw the prospect of imminent massacre, had a mandate for action, and heard the Libyan people’s call for help. Had we not acted along with our NATO allies and regional coalition partners, thousands would have been killed. The message would have been clear: keep power by killing as many people as it takes. Now, time is working against Gaddafi. He does not have control over his country. The opposition has organized a legitimate and credible Interim Council. And when Gaddafi inevitably leaves or is forced from power, decades of provocation will come to an end, and the transition to a democratic Libya can proceed.
And he wouldn't even speak out against the violence that Iran was waging against its people.
While Libya has faced violence on the greatest scale, it is not the only place where leaders have turned to repression to remain in power. Most recently, the Syrian regime has chosen the path of murder and the mass arrests of its citizens. The United States has condemned these actions, and working with the international community we have stepped up our sanctions on the Syrian regime – including sanctions announced yesterday on President Assad and those around him.
The Syrian people have shown their courage in demanding a transition to democracy. President Assad now has a choice: he can lead that transition, or get out of the way. The Syrian government must stop shooting demonstrators and allow peaceful protests; release political prisoners and stop unjust arrests; allow human rights monitors to have access to cities like Dara’a; and start a serious dialogue to advance a democratic transition. Otherwise, President Assad and his regime will continue to be challenged from within and isolated abroad
Thus far, Syria has followed its Iranian ally, seeking assistance from Tehran in the tactics of suppression. This speaks to the hypocrisy of the Iranian regime, which says it stand for the rights of protesters abroad, yet suppresses its people at home. Let us remember that the first peaceful protests were in the streets of Tehran, where the government brutalized women and men, and threw innocent people into jail. We still hear the chants echo from the rooftops of Tehran. The image of a young woman dying in the streets is still seared in our memory. And we will continue to insist that the Iranian people deserve their universal rights, and a government that does not smother their aspirations.
Our opposition to Iran’s intolerance – as well as its illicit nuclear program, and its sponsorship of terror – is well known. But if America is to be credible, we must acknowledge that our friends in the region have not all reacted to the demands for change consistent with the principles that I have outlined today. That is true in Yemen, where President Saleh needs to follow through on his commitment to transfer power. And that is true, today, in Bahrain.
Bahrain is a long-standing partner, and we are committed to its security. We recognize that Iran has tried to take advantage of the turmoil there, and that the Bahraini government has a legitimate interest in the rule of law.
Nevertheless, we have insisted publically and privately that mass arrests and brute force are at odds with the universal rights of Bahrain’s citizens, and will not make legitimate calls for reform go away. The only way forward is for the government and opposition to engage in a dialogue, and you can’t have a real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail. The government must create the conditions for dialogue, and the opposition must participate to forge a just future for all Bahrainis.
Indeed, one of the broader lessons to be drawn from this period is that sectarian divides need not lead to conflict. In Iraq, we see the promise of a multi-ethnic, multi-sectarian democracy. There, the Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence for a democratic process, even as they have taken full responsibility for their own security. Like all new democracies, they will face setbacks. But Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region if it continues its peaceful progress. As they do, we will be proud to stand with them as a steadfast partner
So in the months ahead, America must use all our influence to encourage reform in the region. Even as we acknowledge that each country is different, we will need to speak honestly about the principles that we believe in, with friend and foe alike. Our message is simple: if you take the risks that reform entails, you will have the full support of the United States. We must also build on our efforts to broaden our engagement beyond elites, so that we reach the people who will shape the future – particularly young people.
We will continue to make good on the commitments that I made in Cairo – to build networks of entrepreneurs, and expand exchanges in education; to foster cooperation in science and technology, and combat disease. Across the region, we intend to provide assistance to civil society, including those that may not be officially sanctioned, and who speak uncomfortable truths. And we will use the technology to connect with – and listen to – the voices of the people.
Great! Traveling salesmen invade Egypt
In fact, real reform will not come at the ballot box alone. Through our efforts we must support those basic rights to speak your mind and access information. We will support open access to the Internet, and the right of journalists to be heard – whether it’s a big news organization or a blogger. In the 21st century, information is power; the truth cannot be hidden; and the legitimacy of governments will ultimately depend on active and informed citizens.
Such open discourse is important even if what is said does not square with our worldview. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard, even if we disagree with them. We look forward to working with all who embrace genuine and inclusive democracy. What we will oppose is an attempt by any group to restrict the rights of others, and to hold power through coercion – not consent. Because democracy depends not only on elections, but also strong and accountable institutions, and respect for the rights of minorities.
Such tolerance is particularly important when it comes to religion. In Tahrir Square, we heard Egyptians from all walks of life chant, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” America will work to see that this spirit prevails – that all faiths are respected, and that bridges are built among them. In a region that was the birthplace of three world religions, intolerance can lead only to suffering and stagnation. And for this season of change to succeed, Coptic Christians must have the right to worship freely in Cairo, just as Shia must never have their mosques destroyed in Bahrain.
What is true for religious minorities is also true when it comes to the rights of women. History shows that countries are more prosperous and peaceful when women are empowered. That is why we will continue to insist that universal rights apply to women as well as men – by focusing assistance on child and maternal health; by helping women to teach, or start a business; by standing up for the right of women to have their voices heard, and to run for office. For the region will never reach its potential when more than half its population is prevented from achieving their potential.
Even as we promote political reform and human rights in the region, our efforts cannot stop there. So the second way that we must support positive change in the region is through our efforts to advance economic development for nations that transition to democracy.
Here comes the real cash for clunkers.
After all, politics alone has not put protesters into the streets. The tipping point for so many people is the more constant concern of putting food on the table and providing for a family. Too many in the region wake up with few expectations other than making it through the day, and perhaps the hope that their luck will change. Throughout the region, many young people have a solid education, but closed economies leave them unable to find a job. Entrepreneurs are brimming with ideas, but corruption leaves them unable to profit from them.
The greatest untapped resource in the Middle East and North Africa is the talent of its people. In the recent protests, we see that talent on display, as people harness technology to move the world. It’s no coincidence that one of the leaders of Tahrir Square was an executive for Google. That energy now needs to be channeled, in country after country, so that economic growth can solidify the accomplishments of the street. Just as democratic revolutions can be triggered by a lack of individual opportunity, successful democratic transitions depend upon an expansion of growth and broad-based prosperity.
Drawing from what we’ve learned around the world, we think it’s important to focus on trade, not just aid; and investment, not just assistance. The goal must be a model in which protectionism gives way to openness; the reigns of commerce pass from the few to the many, and the economy generates jobs for the young. America’s support for democracy will therefore be based on ensuring financial stability; promoting reform; and integrating competitive markets with each other and the global economy – starting with Tunisia and Egypt.
First, we have asked the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to present a plan at next week’s G-8 summit for what needs to be done to stabilize and modernize the economies of Tunisia and Egypt. Together, we must help them recover from the disruption of their democratic upheaval, and support the governments that will be elected later this year. And we are urging other countries to help Egypt and Tunisia meet its near-term financial needs.
Second, we do not want a democratic Egypt to be saddled by the debts of its past. So we will relieve a democratic Egypt of up to $1 billion in debt, and work with our Egyptian partners to invest these resources to foster growth and entrepreneurship. We will help Egypt regain access to markets by guaranteeing $1 billion in borrowing that is needed to finance infrastructure and job creation. And we will help newly democratic governments recover assets that were stolen.
Third, we are working with Congress to create Enterprise Funds to invest in Tunisia and Egypt. These will be modeled on funds that supported the transitions in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. OPIC will soon launch a $2 billion facility to support private investment across the region. And we will work with allies to refocus the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development so that it provides the same support for democratic transitions and economic modernization in the Middle East and North Africa as it has in Europe.
Fourth, the United States will launch a comprehensive Trade and Investment Partnership Initiative in the Middle East and North Africa. If you take out oil exports, this region of over 400 million people exports roughly the same amount as Switzerland. So we will work with the EU to facilitate more trade within the region, build on existing agreements to promote integration with U.S. and European markets, and open the door for those countries who adopt high standards of reform and trade liberalization to construct a regional trade arrangement. Just as EU membership served as an incentive for reform in Europe, so should the vision of a modern and prosperous economy create a powerful force for reform in the Middle East and North Africa.
Prosperity also requires tearing down walls that stand in the way of progress – the corruption of elites who steal from their people; the red tape that stops an idea from becoming a business; the patronage that distributes wealth based on tribe or sect. We will help governments meet international obligations, and invest efforts anti-corruption; by working with parliamentarians who are developing reforms, and activists who use technology to hold government accountable.
Let me conclude by talking about another cornerstone of our approach to the region, and that relates to the pursuit of peace.
OK here it comes Israel is about to get bus tracks on its back. He starts with the long disproved notion that the Israel/Palestinian conflict is intertwined with the conflicts in other areas of the Middle East:
For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region. 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. For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never living in a nation of their own. Moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security, prosperity, and empowerment to ordinary people.
My Administration has worked with the parties and the international community for over two years to end this conflict, yet expectations have gone unmet. (Yep Obama screwed up the talk by ignoring previous agreements that Israel was allowed to "naturally expand existing settlements) Israeli settlement activity continues. Palestinians have walked away from talks. (Actually, Israel declared a 10-month freeze the Palestinians waited 9 of those months before it returned to the table and was "shocked" when the freeze ended a month later) The world looks at a conflict that has grinded on for decades, and sees a stalemate. Indeed, there are those who argue that with all the change and uncertainty in the region, it is simply not possible to move forward.
I disagree. At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever.
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. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. (Obama hides the fact that Fatah, the party of Palestinian President Abbas is just as terrorism-inclined as Hamas). And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.
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.
The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River. Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself. A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people – not just a few leaders – must believe peace is possible. The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. (sure it has, the decades of terrorist appeasement has made the Arafat/Abbas method of political expression more popular than ever) The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.
Ultimately, it is up to Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them, nor can endless delay make the problem go away. But what America and the international community can do is state frankly what everyone knows: a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples. 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.
So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. 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 Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.
Let’s analyze this part. The call for negotiations to be based on 1967 lines was expected, that doesn't make Obama's public declaration the right thing to do. First of all there is no such thing as 1967 borders. That “green line” running through the West Bank is the 1949 Armistice Line. The armistice line was created solely because that’s Israeli and Arab forces stopped fighting at the end of the War of Independence (with some added adjustments in certain sectors). It was if the whistle blew and everyone dropped their gear. That 1949 line, that people call 1967 border, is really only a military line. It was never intended for the Armistice lines to mark final borders.
On the other hand, twice in recent history, Israel has offered specific maps of final borders along the lines of what the President said publicly today, under the Premierships of Barak and Olmert. The difference is that in both of those cases, it was the result of long negotiations, with both sides making concessions. Why Obama's declaration was particularly dangerous for Israel is that HE made a unilateral concession in the name of Israel. There was no negotiation; Obama took it upon himself to take away a bargaining chip from the Jewish State. This will actually make negotiations more difficult because Israel will have to fight harder on other issues to get what it needs.
As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat. 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.
These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I know that these steps alone will not resolve this conflict. Two wrenching and emotional issues remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians.
Notice he splits up the part about recognizing Israel and calling it a Jewish State. He did not say they must accept Israel as a Jewish State.
Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table. In particular, 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. Meanwhile, the United States, our Quartet partners, and the Arab states will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse.
Did he just indicate that the United States government will work with a Hamas government even before they recognize Israel and renounce terror? Once again our President appeases the forces of terror. Contrast that with what Congressman Peter Roskam said to me yesterday:
For those who historically have said Israel is our best friend in the region, and we have shared values of democracy, this is the time to stand with Israel and make it very clear that it’s the PA who has made this choice. It is the Palestinian Authority that has made the choice to put itself outside of the mainstream.
The current law says that the United States will not support terrorist organizations. When the Palestinian Authority makes an affirmative decision to put itself in a relationship with Hamas, it’s making a choice to put itself outside the category of those who receive financial support of the United States taxpayers.
I think it’s really that simple. And it is incredibly important, that when President Obama lays out his agenda tomorrow, he is clear. It is incredibly important that with the Prime Minister’s upcoming visit to the United States that we are clear the burden is on the Palestinian Authority. They have made their decision recognizing that they have put support from the United States in jeopardy, and there are consequences for their actions.
The President's naivete about terrorism is astounding.
Finally his call for the "1967 borders was in direct conflict with his promise of secure borders for Israel. The 1949 Armistice lines have been often called suicide borders as Israel will be as little as 8 miles across in some places.
I recognize how hard this will be. Suspicion and hostility has been passed on for generations, and at times it has hardened. But I’m convinced that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians would rather look to the future than be trapped in the past. We see that spirit in the Israeli father whose son was killed by Hamas, who helped start an organization that brought together Israelis and Palestinians who had lost loved ones. He said, “I gradually realized that the only hope for progress was to recognize the face of the conflict.” And we see it in the actions of a Palestinian who lost three daughters to Israeli shells in Gaza. “I have the right to feel angry,” he said. “So many people were expecting me to hate. My answer to them is I shall not hate…Let us hope,” he said, “for tomorrow”
Shells that were caused by the Hamas missiles.
That is the choice that must be made – not simply in this conflict, but across the entire region – a choice between hate and hope; between the shackles of the past, and the promise of the future. It’s a choice that must be made by leaders and by people, and it’s a choice that will define the future of a region that served as the cradle of civilization and a crucible of strife.
Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com
May 19, 2011 09:29 pm
Jeff Dunetz
The Democratic Party should be ashamed of themselves. Today they proved themselves to be nothing but partisan hacks who care more about party politics than doing the right thing. While President Obama's speech regarding Middle East generated much criticism from Republicans, but on the Democratic side, even amongst supporters of the Jewish State, there was either positive spin or total silence.
As you know by now the President today gave an address to the nation that for all intents and purposes threw one of our closest allies, Israel, under the proverbial bus. His public call for Israel to retreat to the 1949 armistice lines, broke existing agreements that the United States had made with Israel, probably hurt the quest for an Israeli/Palestinian deal and quite possibly moved the region closer to a new Middle East war.
That 1949 armistice line was created solely because that’s Israeli and Arab forces stopped fighting at the end of the War of Independence (with some added adjustments in certain sectors). It was if the whistle blew and everyone dropped their gear. The line people call 1967 border, is really only a military line. It was never intended for the Armistice lines to mark final borders, and there is plenty of documentation to that fact.
There is not much doubt that at the end of a deal, the two parties will exist with borders somewhere near that armistice border. In fact Israel has offered specific maps of final borders along the lines of what the President said publicly today, once under the Premierships of Ehud Barak the other under Ehud Olmert (in both of those cases the Palestinian leadership rejected the offer).
The difference is that in both of those cases, The return to those"1967 borders" was the end point of negotiations, today Obama severely damaged Israel's negotiating position by making it the staring point. Obama took it upon himself to made a unilateral concession on behalf of Israel. There was no negotiation; he gave away a bargaining chip that was not his to give. Should Israel give in Obama it will actually make negotiations more difficult because Israel will have to fight harder on other issues, some of which might otherwise had been easy concessions. If Israel fights Obama on the issue, things might get a bit dicier in the region. Israel's neighbors might see it as giving attacks on the Jewish State legitimacy.
At this point it looks as if Israel is choosing to take a stand. The Prime Minister all but threw a gauntlet down (diplomatically of course).
“Israel appreciates President Obama’s commitment to peace,” the response began, curtly. “Israel believes that for peace to endure between Israelis and Palestinians, the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state.”
“That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress.”
“Among other things,” Netanyahu reminded Obama, “those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines.”
Republicans were quick to point out that Obama's call for a retreat to the 1949 Armistice lines was dangerous to the Jewish State.
“President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus,” former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said in a statement following Mr. Obama’s sweeping speech about the fundamental changes taking place in the Middle East. “He has disrespected Israel and undermined its ability to negotiate peace.”
Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty called the president’s support for a plan that would revive borders not seen since the Six-Day War in 1967 “a mistaken and dangerous demand.“The city of Jerusalem must never be re-divided,” he said. “At this time of upheaval in the Middle East, it’s never been more important for America to stand strong for Israel and for a united Jerusalem.”
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.), the highest-ranking Jewish Republican, said, “The president’s habit of drawing a moral equivalence between the actions of the Palestinians and the Israelis while assessing blame for the conflict is, in and of itself, harmful to the prospect for peace.“By keeping the burden and thus the spotlight on Israel, the President is only giving the Palestinian Authority more incentive to carry on its unhelpful game of sidestepping negotiations and failing to put an end to terrorism,” Mr. Cantor said in a statement. “Creating another Palestinian terror state on Israel’s borders is something that none of us want. The White House referred to today’s speech as a ‘Moment of Opportunity,’ and I’m disappointed that the President’s remarks missed both the moment and the opportunity.”
Rep. Michele Bachmann said on her face book page that that Obama "has betrayed our friend and ally Israel.I believe Obama's call for 1967 borders will cause chaos, division, and greater aggression in the Middle East and put Israel at further risk,"
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee: "We did not hear a pledge from the President to cut off U.S. funding to a Palestinian Authority now aligned with Hamas, nor did we hear a pledge to veto the scheme to attain U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state without negotiating peace with Israel. I am also disappointed that the President failed to call on the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, and instead imposed new pressure on Israel to make concessions on its borders."
Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL): "The President's new decision to alter U.S. policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process concerns me. Palestinian calls for ‘1967 borders' should be outweighed by Israel's need for secure borders to ensure the survival of a critical U.S. ally. The President should block U.S. taxpayer assistance to Palestinian leaders who teamed up with a group his administration certified as a terrorist organization -- Hamas -- responsible for the murder of at least 26 American citizens. America has no greater ally and political supporter than the Israeli democracy."
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL): "Unfortunately, the President's reference to Israel's 1967 borders marks a step back in the peace process, as the U.S. must not pre-determine the outcome of direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Our focus should be in encouraging direct and meaningful negotiations between the sides, and to continue playing an important role as a security guarantor in the region."
Rep. Allen West (R-FL): "Today's endorsement by President Barack Obama of the creation of a Hamas-led Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders, signals the most egregious foreign policy decision his administration has made to date, and could be the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state. From the moment the modern day state of Israel declared statehood in 1948, to the end of the 1967 Six Day War, Jews were forbidden access to their holiest site, the Western Wall in Jerusalem's Old City, controlled by Jordan's Arab army. The pre-1967 borders endorsed by President Obama would deny millions of the world's Jews access to their holiest site and force Israel to return the strategically important Golan Heights to Syria, a known state-sponsor of terrorism. Resorting to the pre-1967 borders would mean a full withdrawal by the Israelis from the West Bank and the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Make no mistake, there has always been a Nation of Israel and Jerusalem has been and must always be recognized as its rightful capital."
Let see what we have found from the Democratic Party side:
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)usually a big supporter of the Jewish State, ignored Obama's unilateral declaration of the return to the "1967 borders." With his head cowardly in the sand he said,“I am glad the president has rejected any unilateral action by the UN, which has always been biased against Israel, but there can be no negotiations until Hamas, recognized as a terrorist group by the United States, renounces terror and recognizes the reality of a two-state solution,“
Congressman Steve Israel (D-NY) reaction to the President's throwing of the Jewish State was , a reaction echoed by Congressman Gary Ackerman who said and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) who added . That's right they said nothing. Harry read proclaimed that he had not yet heard the speech.
The National Democratic Jewish Coalition showed the country why their party is place in front of their religion in their name as they had the audacity to praise the speech saying that the President "demonstrated his unwavering support of Israel"
Also weighing in on the President's speech was full-time progressive activist, and part time director of the ADL, Abe Foxman who like Chuck Shumer ignored the most distasteful part of the speech.
We support the President's vision of a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian settlement with strong security provisions for Israel, and a non-militarized Palestinian state. We appreciate his direct rejection of a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and his understanding that the Hamas-Fatah agreement poses major problems for Israel.
This should serve as a red flag to anyone who supports the state of Israel. Remember what happened today when the Jewish State most needed the support of our public figures. The Republican party was quick to point out how Obama's speech put Israel in dangers. The Democrats abandoned the Jewish State to the whims of a President who publicly threw Israel under the bus.
As Edmond Burke said almost three-hundred years ago “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." In a time of great need for Israel, the Democratic Party did nothing. For that they should be ashamed of themselves.
Supporters of Israel should remember that when they enter the voting booth in 2012.
Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com
read more
Report: Ahmadinejad Losing Power Struggle With Supreme Leader
May 19, 2011 06:59 pm
Jeff Dunetz
Reports are coming out of Iran that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be forced out of power before the end of his second term as president. According to Iranian observers, Ahmadinejad tried to challenge the powerful clerical establishment, but the "Supreme Leader" Ali Khamenei who is the real power figure in the government not only objected and rebuffed the president, but began to arrest some of his top minister's and advisers.
According to the UK Guardian:
In recent days, Ahmadinejad and the men described as his strongest allies – his chief of staff, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, and executive deputy, Hamid Baghaei – have come under direct attack from senior figures in the powerful Revolutionary Guards and some of most important clerics in the Islamic regime.
Ahmadinejad's many enemies across the political and religious spectrum have scented blood after the arrest of at least 25 people close to him and Mashaei. The president's immediate entourage has been reduced to a handful of serious people and has faced accusations of corruption, revolutionary "deviancy" and even espionage.
Those who aren't under arrest or pressure are giving Ahmadinejad the "ooh you got cooties" treatment such as the Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi who used to be a strong ally:
In a recent interview with an Iranian publication, Yazdi said: "That a human being would behave in a way that angers his closest friends and allies and turns them into opponents is not logical for any politician." .
He told Shoma Weekly that he believed "with more than 90% certainty" that Ahmadinejad had been bewitched". "We saw that this questionable person [Mashaei] has conquered this gentleman [Ahmadinejad] and is in his fist," he said.
Ayatollah Ahmad Janati, a close ally of Khamenei and head of the Guardian Council, also attacked Ahmadinejad directly. "We did not expect this from him," Janati said. In a reference to Mashaei, he said that "some people seek to cause a deviation, and act against the country and the supreme leader".
Others in the Iranian ruling class have piled on:
"It is like wolves who have been waiting for a sign of weakness and they are now lunging in," said Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-Israeli Middle East analyst and co-author of book on Ahmadinejad, The Nuclear Sphinx of Tehran.
In the latest sign of his dwindling authority, Ahmadinejad's bid to streamline his cabinet and merge eight ministries into four was blocked by the supreme leader in a private meeting attended by the parliamentary chief, Ali Larijani.
Unable to proceed with his initial plan, Ahmadinejad fought back by dismissing three ministers and temporarily taking over the oil ministry but drew unprecedented criticism from Khamenei's camp.
On top of the criticism coming the Supreme leader's pals Ahmadinejad is also losing favor with the Iranian populace. Recently he scrapped long-standing subsidies on fuel, food and other staple items, an the people aren't very happy.
With zero growth projected this year, organised labour is beginning to flex its muscles. Last week, some union members refused to go to work, in protest at delayed salaries and rising unemployment. They blamed Ahmadinejad for the crisis.
.....Ahmadinejad, whose presidency is limited to two terms under Iranian law, must step down in 2013. The depth of rift with the supreme leader has raised speculation he might leave early, triggering a crisis.
Some are comparing him to Abdulhassan Banisadr, Iran's first post-revolutionary president, who was impeached in 1981 after clashing with Ayatollah Khomeini and forced to flee the country.
Speaking from Paris, Banisadr said: "Khamenei is so fed up with Ahmadinejad that [the president] might not even survive before his term finishes."
Don't start throwing a party yet, Ahmadinejad is a scrappy tyrant, he "ain't dead yet." On the other hand the Supreme leader is 72 and there are reports that he is suffering from terminal leukemia.
In the end it might not even matter, if either Khamenei or Ahmadinejad are replaced, chances are those replacement will not moderate Iranian policy.
Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com
read more
Full Text Of Obama's Middle East Speech (Annotated With Analysis and Snarky Comments)
May 19, 2011 03:39 pm
Jeff Dunetz
Today the President made his long awaited "re-set" speech about his vision for the Middle East. Below is the full text of President Obama speech today. As is the tradition for this site, it is annotated (in red) with analysis, corrections and a few snarky comments. So from here on out anything in black are the words of the POTUS, the words in red you can blame on me.
The address was supposed to begin at 11:40, but started about a half-hour late. This can only mean one thing. Obama has begun to understand the concept of "Jewish time" (normally being about 26 minutes after normal time within your time zone).
I want to thank Hillary Clinton, who has traveled so much these last six months that she is approaching a new landmark – one million frequent flyer miles. (Insert yuk-yuk here) I count on Hillary every day, and I believe that she will go down as of the finest Secretaries of State in our nation’s history.
The State Department is a fitting venue to mark a new chapter in American diplomacy. For six months, we have witnessed an extraordinary change take place in the Middle East and North Africa. Square by square; town by town; country by country; the people have risen up to demand their basic human rights. Two leaders have stepped aside. More may follow. And though these countries may be a great distance from our shores, we know that our own future is bound to this region by the forces of economics and security; history and faith.
Today, I would like to talk about this change (no hope?)– the forces that are driving it, and how we can respond in a way that advances our values and strengthens our security. Already, we have done much to shift our foreign policy following a decade defined by two costly conflicts. (Obama is correct we have shifted our foreign policy away from a situation where many counties hated us, but they all respected our leadership, to even more countries hating us and no one respecting our leadership) After years of war in Iraq, we have removed 100,000 American troops and ended our combat mission there (also true, President Bush signed the agreement with Iraq to remove those combat troops) In Afghanistan, we have broken the Taliban’s momentum, and this July we will begin to bring our troops home and continue transition to Afghan lead. And after years of war against al Qaeda and its affiliates, we have dealt al Qaeda a huge blow by killing its leader – Osama bin Laden (and he does deserve congratulations for that)
Bin Laden was no martyr. He was a mass murderer who offered a message of hate – an insistence that Muslims had to take up arms against the West, and that violence against men, women and children was the only path to change. He rejected democracy and individual rights for Muslims in favor of violent extremism; his agenda focused on what he could destroy – not what he could build.
Bin Laden and his murderous vision won some adherents. But even before his death, al Qaeda was losing its struggle for relevance, as the overwhelming majority of people saw that the slaughter of innocents did not answer their cries for a better life. By the time we found bin Laden, al Qaeda’s agenda had come to be seen by the vast majority of the region as a dead end, and the people of the Middle East and North Africa had taken their future into their own hands.
Huh? What is he talking about? Egypt is about to be ruled by the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, according to administration reports the Libyan rebels have been infiltrated by al Qaeda, Lebanon is dominated by Hezballah, who knows which side will win in Syria but neither one of them are big fans of the way we do thing in the US. Jordan is a monarchy that oppresses its Palestinian majority, Saudi Arabia is a monarchy that brutally enforces Shariah law and does not grant rights to women, and we know about the brutal oppression in Hamas' Gaza, Fatah's Palestinian Authority and what has become the real power in the region Iran.
Beyond the Middle East, radical Islamism is making inroads in bringing its tyrannical leadership to places like Chechnya, the northern Caucasus, the Balkans, Nigeria, Somalia, southern Thailand, the southern Philippines, and Indonesia. And don't forget the Taliban is making progress in Pakistan.
That story of self-determination began six months ago in Tunisia. On December 17, a young vendor named Mohammed Bouazizi was devastated when a police officer confiscated his cart. This was not unique. It is the same kind of humiliation that takes place every day in many parts of the world – the relentless tyranny of governments that deny their citizens dignity. Only this time, something different happened. After local officials refused to hear his complaint, this young man who had never been particularly active in politics went to the headquarters of the provincial government, doused himself in fuel, and lit himself on fire.
Sometimes, in the course of history, the actions of ordinary citizens spark movements for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has built up for years. In America, think of the defiance of those patriots in Boston who refused to pay taxes to a King or the dignity of Rosa Parks as she sat courageously in her seat. So it was in Tunisia, as that vendor’s act of desperation tapped into the frustration felt throughout the country. Hundreds of protesters took to the streets, then thousands. And in the face of batons and sometimes bullets, they refused to go home – day after day, week after week, until a dictator of more than two decades finally left power.
The story of this Revolution, and the ones that followed, should not have come as a surprise. The nations of the Middle East and North Africa won their independence long ago, but in too many places their people did not. In too many countries, power has been concentrated in the hands of the few. In too many countries, a citizen like that young vendor had nowhere to turn – no honest judiciary to hear his case; no independent media to give him voice; no credible political party to represent his views; no free and fair election where he could choose his leader.
This lack of self-determination – the chance to make of your life what you will – has applied to the region’s economy as well. Yes, some nations are blessed with wealth in oil and gas, and that has led to pockets of prosperity. But in a global economy based on knowledge and innovation, no development strategy can be based solely upon what comes out of the ground. Nor can people reach their potential when you cannot start a business without paying a bribe.
Obviously the President has never worked in construction.
In the face of these challenges, too many leaders in the region tried to direct their people’s grievances elsewhere. The West was blamed as the source of all ills, a half century after the end of colonialism. Antagonism toward Israel became the only acceptable outlet for political expression. Divisions of tribe, ethnicity and religious sect were manipulated as a means of holding on to power, or taking it away from somebody else.
But the events of the past six months show us that strategies of repression and diversion won’t work anymore. Satellite television and the Internet provide a window into the wider world – a world of astonishing progress in places like India, Indonesia and Brazil. Cell phones and social networks allow young people to connect and organize like never before. A new generation has emerged. And their voices tell us that change cannot be denied.
In Cairo, we heard the voice of the young mother who said, “It’s like I can finally breathe fresh air for the first time.”
But they are also hearing the march of the oppressive Muslim Brotherhood who, when they take power, will unleash repression much worse than what she had before.
In Sanaa, we heard the students who chanted, “The night must come to an end.”
In Benghazi, we heard the engineer who said, “Our words are free now. It’s a feeling you can’t explain.”
In Damascus, we heard the young man who said, “After the first yelling, the first shout, you feel dignity.”
Those shouts of human dignity are being heard across the region. And through the moral force of non-violence, the people of the region have achieved more change in six months than terrorists have accomplished in decades.
Hyperbole! In the cases outlined above, they simply traded in their old tyrants for new ones, the terrorists. Kind of geo-political cash for clunkers.
Of course, change of this magnitude does not come easily. In our day and age – a time of 24 hour news cycles, and constant communication – people expect the transformation of the region to be resolved in a matter of weeks. But it will be years before this story reaches its end. Along the way, there will be good days, and bad days. In some places, change will be swift; in others, gradual. And as we have seen, calls for change may give way to fierce contests for power.
The question before us is what role America will play as this story unfolds. (Our role so far, it has been to bash our allies, and ignore our enemies) For decades, the United States has pursued a set of core interests in the region: countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the free flow of commerce, and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up for Israel’s security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace.
Unfortunately with the possible exception of the first two years of the George W. Bush administration, when Jewish civilians are killed it is not considered terrorism.
We will continue to do these things, with the firm belief that America’s interests are not hostile to peoples’ hopes; they are essential to them. We believe that no one benefits from a nuclear arms race in the region, or al Qaeda’s brutal attacks. People everywhere would see their economies crippled by a cut off in energy supplies. As we did in the Gulf War, we will not tolerate aggression across borders, and we will keep our commitments to friends and partners.
He forgot to mention his Administration's policy that when missiles are sent from Gaza to Israel we urge restraint.
Yet we must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind. Moreover, failure to speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people will only feed the suspicion that has festered for years that the United States pursues our own interests at their expense. Given that this mistrust runs both ways – as Americans have been seared by hostage taking, violent rhetoric, and terrorist attacks that have killed thousands of our citizens – a failure to change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the United States and Muslim communities.
Yep...those Americans are evil. Let me ask you something, what nation in the world does not pursue its own strategic interests as a priority?
That’s why, two years ago in Cairo, I began to broaden our engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect (and we can see how that worked out for the Egyptians). I believed then – and I believe now – that we have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the self determination of individuals. The status quo is not sustainable. Societies held together by fear and repression may offer the illusion of stability for a time, but they are built upon fault lines that will eventually tear asunder.
Actually what I remember about his Cairo speech is that he threw Israel under the bus and downplayed Hamas and Fatah terrorism.
So we face an historic opportunity. We have embraced the chance to show that America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw power of the dictator. There must be no doubt that the United States of America welcomes change that advances self-determination and opportunity. Yes, there will be perils that accompany this moment of promise. But after decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should be.
As we do, we must proceed with a sense of humility. It is not America that put people into the streets of Tunis and Cairo – it was the people themselves who launched these movements, and must determine their outcome. Not every country will follow our particular form of representative democracy, and there will be times when our short term interests do not align perfectly with our long term vision of the region. But we can – and will – speak out for a set of core principles – principles that have guided our response to the events over the past six months:
The United States opposes the use of violence and repression against the people of the region.
We support a set of universal rights. Those rights include free speech; the freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of religion; equality for men and women under the rule of law; and the right to choose your own leaders – whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus; Sanaa or Tehran.
And finally, we support political and economic reform in the Middle East and North Africa that can meet the legitimate aspirations of ordinary people throughout the region.
OOH...I bet this section is going to make the Saudi Royal Family so happy. After all they are not big believers of”free speech; the freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of religion; equality for men and women under the rule of law; and the right to choose your own leader." But they are big believers in oil politics. Something tells me that they may not be as willing to raise production to make gas prices go down.
Our support for these principles is not a secondary interest– today I am making it clear that it is a top priority that must be translated into concrete actions, and supported by all of the diplomatic, economic and strategic tools at our disposal.
And OPEC will translate it into a test of the price elasticity of crude oil.
Let me be specific. First, it will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy.
That effort begins in Egypt and Tunisia, where the stakes are high –as Tunisia was at the vanguard of this democratic wave, and Egypt is both a longstanding partner and the Arab World’s largest nation. Both nations can set a strong example through free and fair elections; a vibrant civil society; accountable and effective democratic institutions; and responsible regional leadership. But our support must also extend to nations where transitions have yet to take place.
Unfortunately, in too many countries, calls for change have been answered by violence. The most extreme example is Libya, where Moammar Gaddafi launched a war against his people, promising to hunt them down like rats. As I said when the United States joined an international coalition to intervene, we cannot prevent every injustice perpetrated by a regime against its people, and we have learned from our experience in Iraq just how costly and difficult it is to impose regime change by force – no matter how well-intended it may be.
I agree with him here, but Libya should not have been a place where we intervened.
But in Libya, we saw the prospect of imminent massacre, had a mandate for action, and heard the Libyan people’s call for help. Had we not acted along with our NATO allies and regional coalition partners, thousands would have been killed. The message would have been clear: keep power by killing as many people as it takes. Now, time is working against Gaddafi. He does not have control over his country. The opposition has organized a legitimate and credible Interim Council. And when Gaddafi inevitably leaves or is forced from power, decades of provocation will come to an end, and the transition to a democratic Libya can proceed.
And he wouldn't even speak out against the violence that Iran was waging against its people.
While Libya has faced violence on the greatest scale, it is not the only place where leaders have turned to repression to remain in power. Most recently, the Syrian regime has chosen the path of murder and the mass arrests of its citizens. The United States has condemned these actions, and working with the international community we have stepped up our sanctions on the Syrian regime – including sanctions announced yesterday on President Assad and those around him.
The Syrian people have shown their courage in demanding a transition to democracy. President Assad now has a choice: he can lead that transition, or get out of the way. The Syrian government must stop shooting demonstrators and allow peaceful protests; release political prisoners and stop unjust arrests; allow human rights monitors to have access to cities like Dara’a; and start a serious dialogue to advance a democratic transition. Otherwise, President Assad and his regime will continue to be challenged from within and isolated abroad
Thus far, Syria has followed its Iranian ally, seeking assistance from Tehran in the tactics of suppression. This speaks to the hypocrisy of the Iranian regime, which says it stand for the rights of protesters abroad, yet suppresses its people at home. Let us remember that the first peaceful protests were in the streets of Tehran, where the government brutalized women and men, and threw innocent people into jail. We still hear the chants echo from the rooftops of Tehran. The image of a young woman dying in the streets is still seared in our memory. And we will continue to insist that the Iranian people deserve their universal rights, and a government that does not smother their aspirations.
Our opposition to Iran’s intolerance – as well as its illicit nuclear program, and its sponsorship of terror – is well known. But if America is to be credible, we must acknowledge that our friends in the region have not all reacted to the demands for change consistent with the principles that I have outlined today. That is true in Yemen, where President Saleh needs to follow through on his commitment to transfer power. And that is true, today, in Bahrain.
Bahrain is a long-standing partner, and we are committed to its security. We recognize that Iran has tried to take advantage of the turmoil there, and that the Bahraini government has a legitimate interest in the rule of law.
Nevertheless, we have insisted publically and privately that mass arrests and brute force are at odds with the universal rights of Bahrain’s citizens, and will not make legitimate calls for reform go away. The only way forward is for the government and opposition to engage in a dialogue, and you can’t have a real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail. The government must create the conditions for dialogue, and the opposition must participate to forge a just future for all Bahrainis.
Indeed, one of the broader lessons to be drawn from this period is that sectarian divides need not lead to conflict. In Iraq, we see the promise of a multi-ethnic, multi-sectarian democracy. There, the Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence for a democratic process, even as they have taken full responsibility for their own security. Like all new democracies, they will face setbacks. But Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region if it continues its peaceful progress. As they do, we will be proud to stand with them as a steadfast partner
So in the months ahead, America must use all our influence to encourage reform in the region. Even as we acknowledge that each country is different, we will need to speak honestly about the principles that we believe in, with friend and foe alike. Our message is simple: if you take the risks that reform entails, you will have the full support of the United States. We must also build on our efforts to broaden our engagement beyond elites, so that we reach the people who will shape the future – particularly young people.
We will continue to make good on the commitments that I made in Cairo – to build networks of entrepreneurs, and expand exchanges in education; to foster cooperation in science and technology, and combat disease. Across the region, we intend to provide assistance to civil society, including those that may not be officially sanctioned, and who speak uncomfortable truths. And we will use the technology to connect with – and listen to – the voices of the people.
Great! Traveling salesmen invade Egypt
In fact, real reform will not come at the ballot box alone. Through our efforts we must support those basic rights to speak your mind and access information. We will support open access to the Internet, and the right of journalists to be heard – whether it’s a big news organization or a blogger. In the 21st century, information is power; the truth cannot be hidden; and the legitimacy of governments will ultimately depend on active and informed citizens.
Such open discourse is important even if what is said does not square with our worldview. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard, even if we disagree with them. We look forward to working with all who embrace genuine and inclusive democracy. What we will oppose is an attempt by any group to restrict the rights of others, and to hold power through coercion – not consent. Because democracy depends not only on elections, but also strong and accountable institutions, and respect for the rights of minorities.
Such tolerance is particularly important when it comes to religion. In Tahrir Square, we heard Egyptians from all walks of life chant, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” America will work to see that this spirit prevails – that all faiths are respected, and that bridges are built among them. In a region that was the birthplace of three world religions, intolerance can lead only to suffering and stagnation. And for this season of change to succeed, Coptic Christians must have the right to worship freely in Cairo, just as Shia must never have their mosques destroyed in Bahrain.
What is true for religious minorities is also true when it comes to the rights of women. History shows that countries are more prosperous and peaceful when women are empowered. That is why we will continue to insist that universal rights apply to women as well as men – by focusing assistance on child and maternal health; by helping women to teach, or start a business; by standing up for the right of women to have their voices heard, and to run for office. For the region will never reach its potential when more than half its population is prevented from achieving their potential.
Even as we promote political reform and human rights in the region, our efforts cannot stop there. So the second way that we must support positive change in the region is through our efforts to advance economic development for nations that transition to democracy.
Here comes the real cash for clunkers.
After all, politics alone has not put protesters into the streets. The tipping point for so many people is the more constant concern of putting food on the table and providing for a family. Too many in the region wake up with few expectations other than making it through the day, and perhaps the hope that their luck will change. Throughout the region, many young people have a solid education, but closed economies leave them unable to find a job. Entrepreneurs are brimming with ideas, but corruption leaves them unable to profit from them.
The greatest untapped resource in the Middle East and North Africa is the talent of its people. In the recent protests, we see that talent on display, as people harness technology to move the world. It’s no coincidence that one of the leaders of Tahrir Square was an executive for Google. That energy now needs to be channeled, in country after country, so that economic growth can solidify the accomplishments of the street. Just as democratic revolutions can be triggered by a lack of individual opportunity, successful democratic transitions depend upon an expansion of growth and broad-based prosperity.
Drawing from what we’ve learned around the world, we think it’s important to focus on trade, not just aid; and investment, not just assistance. The goal must be a model in which protectionism gives way to openness; the reigns of commerce pass from the few to the many, and the economy generates jobs for the young. America’s support for democracy will therefore be based on ensuring financial stability; promoting reform; and integrating competitive markets with each other and the global economy – starting with Tunisia and Egypt.
First, we have asked the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to present a plan at next week’s G-8 summit for what needs to be done to stabilize and modernize the economies of Tunisia and Egypt. Together, we must help them recover from the disruption of their democratic upheaval, and support the governments that will be elected later this year. And we are urging other countries to help Egypt and Tunisia meet its near-term financial needs.
Second, we do not want a democratic Egypt to be saddled by the debts of its past. So we will relieve a democratic Egypt of up to $1 billion in debt, and work with our Egyptian partners to invest these resources to foster growth and entrepreneurship. We will help Egypt regain access to markets by guaranteeing $1 billion in borrowing that is needed to finance infrastructure and job creation. And we will help newly democratic governments recover assets that were stolen.
Third, we are working with Congress to create Enterprise Funds to invest in Tunisia and Egypt. These will be modeled on funds that supported the transitions in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. OPIC will soon launch a $2 billion facility to support private investment across the region. And we will work with allies to refocus the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development so that it provides the same support for democratic transitions and economic modernization in the Middle East and North Africa as it has in Europe.
Fourth, the United States will launch a comprehensive Trade and Investment Partnership Initiative in the Middle East and North Africa. If you take out oil exports, this region of over 400 million people exports roughly the same amount as Switzerland. So we will work with the EU to facilitate more trade within the region, build on existing agreements to promote integration with U.S. and European markets, and open the door for those countries who adopt high standards of reform and trade liberalization to construct a regional trade arrangement. Just as EU membership served as an incentive for reform in Europe, so should the vision of a modern and prosperous economy create a powerful force for reform in the Middle East and North Africa.
Prosperity also requires tearing down walls that stand in the way of progress – the corruption of elites who steal from their people; the red tape that stops an idea from becoming a business; the patronage that distributes wealth based on tribe or sect. We will help governments meet international obligations, and invest efforts anti-corruption; by working with parliamentarians who are developing reforms, and activists who use technology to hold government accountable.
Let me conclude by talking about another cornerstone of our approach to the region, and that relates to the pursuit of peace.
OK here it comes Israel is about to get bus tracks on its back. He starts with the long disproved notion that the Israel/Palestinian conflict is intertwined with the conflicts in other areas of the Middle East:
For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region. 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. For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never living in a nation of their own. Moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security, prosperity, and empowerment to ordinary people.
My Administration has worked with the parties and the international community for over two years to end this conflict, yet expectations have gone unmet. (Yep Obama screwed up the talk by ignoring previous agreements that Israel was allowed to "naturally expand existing settlements) Israeli settlement activity continues. Palestinians have walked away from talks. (Actually, Israel declared a 10-month freeze the Palestinians waited 9 of those months before it returned to the table and was "shocked" when the freeze ended a month later) The world looks at a conflict that has grinded on for decades, and sees a stalemate. Indeed, there are those who argue that with all the change and uncertainty in the region, it is simply not possible to move forward.
I disagree. At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever.
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. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. (Obama hides the fact that Fatah, the party of Palestinian President Abbas is just as terrorism-inclined as Hamas). And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.
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.
The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River. Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself. A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people – not just a few leaders – must believe peace is possible. The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. (sure it has, the decades of terrorist appeasement has made the Arafat/Abbas method of political expression more popular than ever) The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.
Ultimately, it is up to Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them, nor can endless delay make the problem go away. But what America and the international community can do is state frankly what everyone knows: a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples. 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.
So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. 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 Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.
Let’s analyze this part. The call for negotiations to be based on 1967 lines was expected, that doesn't make Obama's public declaration the right thing to do. First of all there is no such thing as 1967 borders. That “green line” running through the West Bank is the 1949 Armistice Line. The armistice line was created solely because that’s Israeli and Arab forces stopped fighting at the end of the War of Independence (with some added adjustments in certain sectors). It was if the whistle blew and everyone dropped their gear. That 1949 line, that people call 1967 border, is really only a military line. It was never intended for the Armistice lines to mark final borders.
On the other hand, twice in recent history, Israel has offered specific maps of final borders along the lines of what the President said publicly today, under the Premierships of Barak and Olmert. The difference is that in both of those cases, it was the result of long negotiations, with both sides making concessions. Why Obama's declaration was particularly dangerous for Israel is that HE made a unilateral concession in the name of Israel. There was no negotiation; Obama took it upon himself to take away a bargaining chip from the Jewish State. This will actually make negotiations more difficult because Israel will have to fight harder on other issues to get what it needs.
As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat. 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.
These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I know that these steps alone will not resolve this conflict. Two wrenching and emotional issues remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians.
Notice he splits up the part about recognizing Israel and calling it a Jewish State. He did not say they must accept Israel as a Jewish State.
Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table. In particular, 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. Meanwhile, the United States, our Quartet partners, and the Arab states will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse.
Did he just indicate that the United States government will work with a Hamas government even before they recognize Israel and renounce terror? Once again our President appeases the forces of terror. Contrast that with what Congressman Peter Roskam said to me yesterday:
For those who historically have said Israel is our best friend in the region, and we have shared values of democracy, this is the time to stand with Israel and make it very clear that it’s the PA who has made this choice. It is the Palestinian Authority that has made the choice to put itself outside of the mainstream.
The current law says that the United States will not support terrorist organizations. When the Palestinian Authority makes an affirmative decision to put itself in a relationship with Hamas, it’s making a choice to put itself outside the category of those who receive financial support of the United States taxpayers.
I think it’s really that simple. And it is incredibly important, that when President Obama lays out his agenda tomorrow, he is clear. It is incredibly important that with the Prime Minister’s upcoming visit to the United States that we are clear the burden is on the Palestinian Authority. They have made their decision recognizing that they have put support from the United States in jeopardy, and there are consequences for their actions.
The President's naivete about terrorism is astounding.
Finally his call for the "1967 borders was in direct conflict with his promise of secure borders for Israel. The 1949 Armistice lines have been often called suicide borders as Israel will be as little as 8 miles across in some places.
I recognize how hard this will be. Suspicion and hostility has been passed on for generations, and at times it has hardened. But I’m convinced that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians would rather look to the future than be trapped in the past. We see that spirit in the Israeli father whose son was killed by Hamas, who helped start an organization that brought together Israelis and Palestinians who had lost loved ones. He said, “I gradually realized that the only hope for progress was to recognize the face of the conflict.” And we see it in the actions of a Palestinian who lost three daughters to Israeli shells in Gaza. “I have the right to feel angry,” he said. “So many people were expecting me to hate. My answer to them is I shall not hate…Let us hope,” he said, “for tomorrow”
Shells that were caused by the Hamas missiles.
That is the choice that must be made – not simply in this conflict, but across the entire region – a choice between hate and hope; between the shackles of the past, and the promise of the future. It’s a choice that must be made by leaders and by people, and it’s a choice that will define the future of a region that served as the cradle of civilization and a crucible of strife.
Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment