From a Washington Post story today about Obama’s speech at the United Nations:
In his remarks, Obama sought to celebrate the Arab Spring–the popular revolutions that have upended the political order of the Middle East–but his lack of support for the Palestinians’ U.N. bid may put him at odds with the region’s proponents of democracy. He has sometimes struggled to convince many Arab protesters that he supports their movements, in part because the United States has a long history of backing autocratic rulers in the region.
Perhaps they remain unconvinced not merely because of that “long history” but because present U.S. policy has mostly not been on their side either–despite corporate media assurances to the contrary.
Totally agree…thank you to the Green Party for supporting Palestine at the U.N. Very disappointed in the U.S. stance. Hope they read the necessary history before vetoing and before making a decision where they feel they have to be involved in negotiations.
Obama should just read Netanyahu’s speech to the UN off his best friend the teleprompter, and claim it as his own(people may think him smart again).It put the situation into perfect perspective .
Palestinian leadership joining with Hamas makes them a terrorist government bent on the destruction of Israel and the annihilation of the jews.They would be a disgrace in the UN.They should fully accept the state of Israel ,and renounce their beliefs on her destruction.That would be a pre req for any considerations.
michael e – just because the President’s speech is on a teleprompter, what makes you think it is not his speech. He, and his aides, and maybe even his wife, wrote the speech and it get transmitted to the teleprompter.
The Palestinisns (many of them) dissociate themselves from Hamas the terrorists. But during that original election they won, the Palestinian Authority were doing very little to help their people, seemed corrupt to their own people. While Hamas, though terrorists, did much more to actually assist their people with food, clothing, blankets. It was probably a ploy to gain their vote (like good old Tammany Hall of New York City so long age) but it worked and they got voted in. Why not try to see an airing of the documentary “Budrus”, shown at Sundance and many other places to hear a Palestinian point of view. Budrus is the name of a Palestinian village near Ramallah.
Judith I think I was saying I really was impressed by the Israeli leaders speech.And I wished Obama could make as strong a presentation.
As far as the Palestinians I think what Clinton experienced is close to how i feel.At camp david he thought he had a deal when at the literal minute before it was to be signed -Arafat claimed all of the holiest areas.Clinton was livid.The Israeli leader threw up his hands and went home.I believe in peace the Palestinians would of gotten so much more.Every terrorist act.Every missile fired.Every war, and hateful propaganda brought them further away.Their government has placed those nails in the coffin.Now they may never get the 80% of their historic lands from the Arab countries surrounding them.It has never even been discussed.But one country is and has been willing to parlay ,and give land though they have so little to give.And remember every time they have traded land for peace, they have been attacked from that land.Listen to that speech.I believe Israel wants peace.i still believe the Palestinian(leadership) would favor the destruction of israel over peace.Since day one Israel could have accomplished that with the palestinians.Yet since day one the Palestinian birth rate , and those living inside Israel has grown exponentially.They do live daily together.I of course do not see many Jews in arab /muslim countries.It is not healthy you see.
For “michael [‘name one Arab we can trust’] e” and anyone else who may ask his question (in far better English than “e” does, I hope), here is the answer.
The Committee For a Just Peace In Israel writes this on its website (http://www.twopeoplesonefuture.org/background/solutions-to-the-conflict/):
“Didn’t Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak make the most generous offer in history to the Palestinians? Why did they reject it?
“Phyllis Bennis points out, â┚¬Ã…“President Clinton, understanding the difficulties and potential pitfalls that lay ahead, had promised both parties that he would not blame either side if the talks collapsed. But when the talks broke down he pointed his finger squarely at Yasir Arafat and the Palestinians. Perhaps the most widely repeated claim after Camp David was that of Barak’s â┚¬Ã…“generous offerâ┚¬Ã‚ to the Palestinians.â┚¬Ã‚Â[ Bennis, Phyllis. Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict â┚¬“ A Primer. Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press, 2007. 145-147. Print.]
“The Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions offers an incisive analysis of the issues at play at Camp David: â┚¬Ã…“ The second Intifada broke out because there was no generous offer (or any other). The â┚¬Ã…“generous offerâ┚¬Ã‚ is an urban myth. It stems from the â┚¬Ã…“Clinton Parametersâ┚¬Ã‚ under which Israel would withdraw from 96% of the Occupied Territories, but came much too late in the process to be implemented. The very idea, however, rests on the mistaken assumption that the more territory the Palestinians get the more sovereignty and economic viability they get. This is not the case. The Palestinians could receive that much land yet still not have a viable state. Keeping only a strategic 5% (in reality more like 10-15% when â┚¬Ã…“eastâ┚¬Ã‚ Jerusalem, settlement blocs, â┚¬Ã…“no-man’s landâ┚¬Ã‚ and other areas are factored in), Israel could control borders, movement of people and goods in and out and within the Palestinian territories, water, the airspace and the communications sphere, not to mention its main settlement blocs. (Barak’s â┚¬Ã…“generous offerâ┚¬Ã‚ included 80% of the settlers within an expanded Israel.) It could also control the Palestinian economy, the most important religious and cultural sites of the Palestinians (like the Haram/Temple Mount and other holy places in and around Jerusalem). And it would still leave the refugee issue unresolved. Arafat had solid reasons for rejecting Barak’s â┚¬Ã…“offerâ┚¬Ã‚ at Camp David â┚¬“ which, by the way, violated the very process of the Oslo agreements by halting Israeli withdrawals, thus ensuring that the Palestinians enter into negotiations from an extremely weak position on the ground.â┚¬Ã‚Â[Halper, Jeff, Johnson, Jimmy and Schaeffer, Emily. â┚¬Ã…“The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Challenging Slogans through Critical Reframing.â┚¬Ã‚ Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions. 2009. Web. August 14, 2010.]
“Phyllis Bennis also argues against the â┚¬Ã…“generous offerâ┚¬Ã‚ conventional wisdom: â┚¬Ã…“It was, we were told over and over again, the most generous offer any Israeli official had ever made. That statement, technically, is absolutely true. It is also, however, absolutely irrelevant. The standard against which any serious diplomatic offer made by a country illegally occupying another must be viewed, is not how well it compares to earlier offers made by that same illegal occupying power. It must be judged against the requirements of international law. And from that standard, Barak’s offer was far from generous. The â┚¬Ã…“generous offerâ┚¬Ã‚ was a myth.
“What was more important than how generous it was compared to earlier Israeli offers, was the simple fact that, according to Clinton negotiator Robert Malley, it was simply not true that â┚¬Ã…“Israel’s offer met most if not all of the Palestinians’ legitimate aspirations.â┚¬Ã‚ That was the reason Palestinians rejected the offer. One can certainly question the wisdom of a diplomatic strategy [of the Palestinians] that did not provide an immediate counter-proposal to an unacceptable offer. But there should be little difficulty in understanding why Palestinian negotiators would reject an offer based on a set of disconnected pieces of territory amounting to only 80 percent of the remaining 22 percent of historic Palestine; a network of roads, bridges and tunnels accessible only to Israeli settlers and permanently guarded by Israeli soldiers; permanent loss of water resources; no shared sovereignty in Jerusalem; the right of return for refugees not even up for discussion; and with 80 percent of the illegal settlers to remain in place.â┚¬Ã‚Â[Bennis, Phyllis. Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict â┚¬“ A Primer. Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press, 2007. 145-147. Print.[5] Bennis, Phyllis. Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict â┚¬“ A Primer. Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press, 2007. 178-179. Print.]”
Look at it this way: if someone took over your house, and then “offered” to give you some of the bedrooms back, along with the living room — but kept the full control of all of the halls and the kitchen while moving his family into your den and placing soldiers at the door of the den, who would also demand that you show ID to use the toilet, allowing access only on Sundays and between the hours of 1:00 pm and 2:00 pm, you might get a sense of the “generous offer” Arafat was “given”. If this is the best you could get, calling it “best” (while remaining silent on the deal’s content itself) can give it a gloss of apparent “generosity”. But I suppose that is far more “generous” than the occupier crowding your family into a single closet at gunpoint.
I hope that clears THAT up.
You’re very welcome.
Donald my quote was “Name one arab LEADER we can trust”.And by the way that question still stands.And no it does not clear “THAT up’.You keep quoting Phyllis Bennis .Well don’t.She is a person who has always fallen squarely on the side of Palestinian rights over Israeli “aggression”.So I will stay with what president Clinton said( and continues to say)over what happened at that time, in those negotiations.I have never cared for her interpretations on the Israeli /Palestinian question.
michael [‘name one Arab we can trust, before I amended that demand to include the word LEADER, so that I can fool you into thinking that I am not a racist asshole when I really am’] e,
what you don’t care for is of little matter here. What does matter is the facts — something you are not aqcuainted with. Read the Israeli scholars such as Benny Morris and Avi Shlaim, and a book called “Shattered Dreams: The Failure of the Peace Process in the Middle East, 1995-2002”, which contains interviews with the participants and minutes of the negotiations. Its author is Charles Enderlin.
No Bennis in sight — even though I recommend reading her, too (and I would bet that you don’t even read her anyway).
Oh, yes, one more thing: most of the rest of the planet Earth favors “Palestinian rights over Israeli ” ‘aggression’ “. The reason is that the latter is an illegal attack upon the former.
Face it, “e” — you are an ignoramus and a dunderhead. Every time you come to this site you prove this truth.
Again, you are welcome.
Don thanks for telling me what i really meant to say.And you “meant” to say all jews should die.Great talking for each other isn’t it?As for your experts…i will still believe Clinton .Benny Morris is one of the disgraced new historians.So is Avi Shlaim.Stop picking these morons(Bennis included) out of the dirt to hold them up thinking i wont know them.
Israel has been home to the Jews for thousands of years.Their claim is as good as any.Historically as well as under the UN charter.And let me state my position clearly.Before i listen to one word from any country in the world regarding Israeli aggression,i would have them demand the return of 87 % of so called Palestinian lands now in the hands of her arab neighbors.THen ,and only then -should they ask for the spit of land in israeli hands.Arabs first…Israel second.Israel has given up land and promptly been attacked from it.Fool me once…..How many time should Israel play this game?Enough already.
You are an anti semite and probably a socialist moron to boot Don.You don’t need to come on this sight to prove that.Either way i would bet you voted for Obama.Christ what kind of horses butt you must feel.Bet you are a liberal.Slippery slope is the only slope!Bet you believe most of the unbelievable drivel spouted by the left. What school did you entertain with your genius?What job keeps you from irritating people all day long?How is your bank account pounding along ?I Figure the business of being an Enemy Combatant must be lucrative.And what a great help to your country you must be.I did like your use of the word dunderhead.Not bad for a simpleton.