(19 mayo) Discurso Emboscada de Obama días antes

Emboscada de Obama antes de la comparecencia de Netanyahu en el Congreso de EEUU

El 11 de mayo se publica (más y más) que el Presidente de EEUU, Obama, podría hacer una amplias declaraciones sobre Oriente Medio y África del Norte (MENA), luego se confirma que lo hará el 19 de mayo ante el Departamento de Estado, ... lo que, en gran medida, puede tener por objetivo condicionar y coartar el discurso que prepara el Presidente de Israel, Netanyahu. 

Obama is clearly betting that by moving first, he will be able to coerce Netanyahu to make still more concessions of land and principles.

Tras publicarse que la Casa Blanca había filtrado a los israelíes el discurso de Obama, la Casa Blanca y los israelíes lo niegan, más o menos: White House denies draft of Obama's ME speech was leaked (Herb Keinon, Hilary Leila Krey, May 18, 2011)

Discurso de Obama (19 mayo)

El discurso comienza a las 18 horas del 19 de mayo. 

A pesar de su desafortunado contenido para Israel, ahora sabemos - Obama’s Peace Tack Contrasts With Key Aide, Friend of Israel (NYT, Helene Cooper y Mark Landler, May 21; comentado aquí y más aquí) - que el Presidente y su equipo lo quería aún más desafortunado y que solo la intervención de Dennis Ross, asesor del Presidente para asuntos de Oriente Medio, lo suavizó (el párrafo de la cita siguiente ha sido compuesto por Martin Kramer a partir de frases textuales del artículo enlazado):

"El curso dibujado por Obama fue mucho más modesto que el inicialmente defendido por sus asesores... George Mitchell y Hillary Clinton [sobre H. Clinton e Israel, Hillary: Triangulation on Israel (Martin Kramer, Nov 5, 2007)] alegaron a favor de una propuesta de EEUU completa que incluyera fronteras, seguridad, Jerusalén y refugiados. Pero Dennis Ross se revolvió, según funcionarios dela administración, argumentando que no sería bueno que pareciera que EEUU estaba rompiendo con Israel públicamente."

Texto del Discurso

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

May 19, 2011

Remarks by the President on the Middle East and North Africa

State Department, Washington, DC

12:15 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Thank you very much.  Thank you.  Please, have a seat.  Thank you very much.  I want to begin by thanking Hillary Clinton, who has traveled so much these last six months that she is approaching a new landmark -- one million frequent flyer miles.  (Laughter.)  I count on Hillary every single day, and I believe that she will go down as one 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 taking 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, by history and by faith.

Today, I want to talk about this change -- the forces that are driving it and how we can respond in a way that advances our values and strengthens our security.

Now, already, we’ve done much to shift our foreign policy following a decade defined by two costly conflicts.  After years of war in Iraq, we’ve removed 100,000 American troops and ended our combat mission there.  In Afghanistan, we’ve broken the Taliban’s momentum, and this July we will begin to bring our troops home and continue a 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.

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.

That story of self-determination began six months ago in Tunisia.  On December 17th, a young vendor named Mohammed Bouazizi was devastated when a police officer confiscated his cart.  This was not unique.  It’s 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 complaints, 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.

There are times in the course of history when the actions of ordinary citizens spark movements for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has been building 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 a 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.

And this lack of self-determination –- the chance to make 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, based on 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.

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 strategies of diversion will not work anymore.  Satellite television and the Internet provide a window into the wider world -– a world of astonishing progress in places like India and Indonesia and Brazil.  Cell phones and social networks allow young people to connect and organize like never before.  And so 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.” 

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 nonviolence, the people of the region have achieved more change in six months than terrorists have accomplished in decades.

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 there will bad days.  In some places, change will be swift; in others, gradual.  And as we’ve already seen, calls for change may give way, in some cases, to fierce contests for power.

The question before us is what role America will play as this story unfolds.  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.

We will continue to do these things, with the firm belief that America’s interests are not hostile to people’s hopes; they’re essential to them.  We believe that no one benefits from a nuclear arms race in the region, or al Qaeda’s brutal attacks.  We believe 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.

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 interests at their expense.  Given that this mistrust runs both ways –- as Americans have been seared by hostage-taking and 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 the Arab world.

And that’s why, two years ago in Cairo, I began to broaden our engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect.  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.

So we face a historic opportunity.  We have 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.

Of course, as we do, we must proceed with a sense of humility.  It’s not America that put people into the streets of Tunis or Cairo -– it was the people themselves who launched these movements, and it’s the people themselves that must ultimately determine their outcome. 

Not every country will follow our particular form of representative democracy, and there will be times when our short-term interests don’t align perfectly with our long-term vision for the region.  But we can, and we 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.  (Applause.)  

The United States supports a set of universal rights.  And these rights include free speech, the freedom of peaceful assembly, the 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 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.

Our support for these principles is not a secondary interest.  Today I want to make 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.

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 thus far been answered by violence.  The most extreme example is Libya, where Muammar Qaddafi launched a war against his own 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 try to impose regime change by force -– no matter how well-intentioned it may be.

But in Libya, we saw the prospect of imminent massacre, we 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 Qaddafi. He does not have control over his country.  The opposition has organized a legitimate and credible Interim Council.  And when Qaddafi inevitably leaves or is forced from power, decades of provocation will come to an end, and the transition to a democratic Libya can proceed.

While Libya has faced violence on the greatest scale, it’s 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.  It must release political prisoners and stop unjust arrests.  It must 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 will continue to be isolated abroad.

So far, Syria has followed its Iranian ally, seeking assistance from Tehran in the tactics of suppression.  And this speaks to the hypocrisy of the Iranian regime, which says it stand for the rights of protesters abroad, yet represses its own people at home.  Let’s remember that the first peaceful protests in the region 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.

Now, our opposition to Iran’s intolerance and Iran’s repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known.  But if America is to be credible, we must acknowledge that at times our friends in the region have not all reacted to the demands for consistent change -- with change that’s consistent with the principles that I’ve outlined today.  That’s true in Yemen, where President Saleh needs to follow through on his commitment to transfer power.  And that’s true today in Bahrain.

Bahrain is a longstanding 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 both publicly and privately that mass arrests and brute force are at odds with the universal rights of Bahrain’s citizens, and we will -- and such steps 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.  (Applause.)  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 multiethnic, multisectarian democracy.  The Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence in favor of a democratic process, even as they’ve taken full responsibility for their own security.  Of course, 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.  And 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 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.

For the fact is, real reform does 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 lone 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.  Let me be clear, America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard, even if we disagree with them.  And sometimes we profoundly 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 and not consent.  Because democracy depends not only on elections, but also strong and accountable institutions, and the 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 more peaceful when women are empowered.  And that’s 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.  The region will never reach its full potential when more than half of its population is prevented from achieving their full potential.  (Applause.)

Now, even as we promote political reform, even as we promote human rights in the region, our efforts can’t 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 are transitioning to democracy. 

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 people in the region wake up with few expectations other than making it through the day, perhaps hoping 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 those ideas. 

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.  For 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.

So, drawing from what we’ve learned around the world, we think it’s important to focus on trade, not just aid; on 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.  And we’re going to start with Tunisia and Egypt.

First, we’ve asked the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to present a plan at next week’s G8 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 disruptions 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’re working with Congress to create Enterprise Funds to invest in Tunisia and Egypt.  And 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 the 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 entire 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.  And 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 at anti-corruption -- by working with parliamentarians who are developing reforms, and activists who use technology to increase transparency and hold government accountable.  Politics and human rights; economic reform.

Let me conclude by talking about another cornerstone of our approach to the region, and that relates to the pursuit of peace.

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 be 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 to the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security and prosperity and empowerment to ordinary people.

For over two years, my administration has worked with the parties and the international community to end this conflict, building on decades of work by previous administrations.  Yet expectations have gone unmet.  Israeli settlement activity continues.  Palestinians have walked away from talks.  The world looks at a conflict that has grinded on and on and on, and sees nothing but 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 now.

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.  That’s certainly true for the two parties involved.

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.  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’s 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 one or two leaders -- must believe peace is possible.  The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.

Now, ultimately, it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action.  No peace can be imposed upon them -- not by the United States; not by anybody else.  But endless delay won’t make the problem go away.  What America and the international community can do is to 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, 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.  We believe 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 full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state. 

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.  And 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’m aware that these steps alone will not resolve the conflict, because two wrenching and emotional issues will 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 both Israelis and Palestinians. 

Now, let me say this:  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?  And 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.

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.  That father said, “I gradually realized that the only hope for progress was to recognize the face of the conflict.”  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.”

That is the choice that must be made -– not simply in the Israeli-Palestinian 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 the 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.

For all the challenges that lie ahead, we see many reasons to be hopeful.  In Egypt, we see it in the efforts of young people who led protests.  In Syria, we see it in the courage of those who brave bullets while chanting, “peaceful, peaceful.”  In Benghazi, a city threatened with destruction, we see it in the courthouse square where people gather to celebrate the freedoms that they had never known.  Across the region, those rights that we take for granted are being claimed with joy by those who are prying loose the grip of an iron fist.

For the American people, the scenes of upheaval in the region may be unsettling, but the forces driving it are not unfamiliar.  Our own nation was founded through a rebellion against an empire.  Our people fought a painful Civil War that extended freedom and dignity to those who were enslaved.  And I would not be standing here today unless past generations turned to the moral force of nonviolence as a way to perfect our union –- organizing, marching, protesting peacefully together to make real those words that declared our nation:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” 

Those words must guide our response to the change that is transforming the Middle East and North Africa -– words which tell us that repression will fail, and that tyrants will fall, and that every man and woman is endowed with certain inalienable rights. 

It will not be easy.  There’s no straight line to progress, and hardship always accompanies a season of hope.  But the United States of America was founded on the belief that people should govern themselves.  And now we cannot hesitate to stand squarely on the side of those who are reaching for their rights, knowing that their success will bring about a world that is more peaceful, more stable, and more just.

Thank you very much, everybody.  (Applause.)  Thank you. 

END 1:00 P.M. EDT

Mis notas del discurso según lo escucho

Aclaraciones y Reacciones en EEUU

Presidente Obama

Aclaraciones en su Discurso ante la AIPAC 2011 del 22 de mayo.

Aclaraciones en su visita al Reino Unido (May 25). En su conferencia de prensa con el Primer Ministro David Cameron, explicó sus insistencia en que el primer paso para la solución dos estados debe ser un acuerdo por el que Israel acepte las fronteras 1967 con intercambios:

"It is going to require wrenching compromise from both sides. In the last decade, when negotiators have talked about how to achieve that outcome, there have been typically four issues that have been raised. One is the issue of what would the territorial boundaries of a new Palestinian state look like. Number two: how could Israel feel confident that its security needs would be met? Number three: how would the issue of Palestinian refugees be resolved; and number four, the issue of Jerusalem. The last two questions are extraordinarily emotional. They go deep into how the Palestinians and the Jewish people think about their own identities. Ultimately they are going to be resolved by the two parties. I believe that those two issues can be resolved if there is the prospect and the promise that we can actually get to a Palestinian state and a secure Jewish state of Israel."

A lo que Alan M. Dershowitz le responde en Obama Explains - And Makes It Worse (May 25):

This recent statement clearly reveals the underlying flaw in Obama's thinking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is no way that Israel can agree to borders without the Palestinians also agreeing to give up any claim to a "right of return." As Palestinian Prime Minister Salaam Fayyed once told me: each side has a major card to play and a major compromise to make; for Israel, that card is the West Bank, and the compromise is returning to the 1967 lines with agreed-upon adjustments and land swaps; for the Palestinians, that card is "the right of return," and the compromise is an agreement that the Palestinian refugees will be settled in Palestine and not in Israel; in other words, that there will be no right to "return" to Israel.

También se comenta esa conferencia de prensa en dos artículos difundidos por la Embajada de EEUU en el Reino Unido: U.S., U.K. Support Historic Change in Middle East, North Africa (MacKenzie C. Babb, May 25) y Obama Says U.S., U.K. Stand Together for Freedom (Stephen Kaufman, May 25).

La embajada también difunde el Discurso de Obama ante el Parlamento Británico (May 25)

Y la Casa Blanca cuelga esta 'propaganda' en su sitio: President Obama: Advancing Israel's Security and Supporting Peace, aunque casi al tiempo Obama no traslada la embajada de EEUU a Jerusalén - sobre el tema, también ZOA Criticizes President Obama For Again Refusing To Move U.S. Embassy To Jerusalem

(Morton A. Klein, June 7, 2011), donde dan detalles sobre la normativa useña sobre el tema, la Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (aquí su tramitación y aquí normativa relacionada con o derivada de ella, incluida la Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Implementation Act of 1995 que nunca llegó a aprobarse, aquí su texto y aquí asuntos relacionados con ella). Más sobre el tema en este sitio.

Rahm Emanuel: Obama doesn't mean return to 1967 lines (JPost, June 3, 2011):

"[Obama] reminded us that every president and many Israeli elected leaders have recognized that the borders are one starting point for negotiations, not the end point" . "That statement does not mean a return to 1967 borders."

"No workable solution envisions that. Land swaps offer the flexibility necessary to ensure secure and defensible borders and address the issue of settlements."

"["As the "son of an Israeli immigrant," Emanuel explains his] deep, abiding commitment to the survival, security and success of the state of Israel."

[Obama understands] the shifting sands of demography... are working against the two-state solution needed to end generations of bloodshed."

"Israel’s survival as a Jewish, democratic state is at stake,"

"[Obama's] goal has been one shared by a succession of Israeli and American leaders: two nations, the Jewish state ofIsrael and Palestine for the Palestinian people, living side by side, in peace and security."

Barry Rubin comenta el artículo de Rahm Emanuel y saca estas conclusiones: Rahm Emanuel Tries to Build Up Obama on Israel But Digs Him Into a Deeper Hole (Barry Rubin, June 4, 2011):

"You know that President Barack Obama understands he’s got problems with Israel (and, more importantly for him, with its supporters in the United States) when he trots out Rahm Emanuel to write an op-ed in defense of the president’s alleged love for Israel."

(...)

"Notice something interesting here. Unlike the peace process rhetoric of the 1993-2000 period, nobody dares to talk about how wonderful life for Israel would be if it turned over all of the territory captured in 1967 and accepted a Palestinian state. They can only say that things will be worse if it doesn’t. People in Israel don’t believe this, and for good reason. Let me be clear here. For one of Obama’s closest advisors and cronies to write something like this in a major newspaper--with the text approved, no doubt, by the White House -shows these people are totally out of touch with the facts and situation.

(...)

What are 'the shifting sands...'? (...) It is the Obama Administration inability to understand that the failure to achieve peace is not based on borders or Jerusalem but on the continued refusal of Arabs and Muslims generally to cease trying to wipe Israel off the map. Indeed, partly thanks to Obama’s policies, they are more confident of doing so than they were ten or twenty years ago. (They’re wrong but they are—literally—going to die trying.)

"

Departamento de Estado

State Department: “We Clearly Have a Plan” (Alana Goodman, May 24) - State Department Spokesperson Mark Toner carefully explains: "But there’s—I mean, we clearly have a plan. It was laid out by the President that we want to see negotiations move forward. We don’t want to see the Palestinians seek action at the UN. We don’t believe that that’s a constructive path. We want to see both parties return to the negotiating table, where they can address these issues and reach a framework agreement."

Congresistas de EEUU

Diversos congresistas y senadores de EEUU manifiestan quejas e iniciativas derivadas del discurso:

Ackerman (D-NY)

“The President should begin by calling for peace between Israel and the Palestinians based on two states with secure and recognized boundaries, to be arrived at only throughdirect negotiations. President Obama should absolutely adhere to this longstanding, bipartisan U.S. position, which is not only consistent with the policy of every Presidentsince Lyndon Johnson, but it‟s also Prime Minister Netanyahu‟s position as well.

“The President should slam the Palestinians for refusing to deal directly with Israel and condemn out of hand their proposal to make an end run around negotiations by proposing to take their case to the UN General Assembly in September. He must blast Palestinian efforts to delegitimize Israel. He needs to reject any possibility of Palestinian statehood while Hamas terrorism continues and he has to defend Israel‟s objection to negotiating with anyone that refuses to accept its right to exist. He ought to emphasize that any deal on territory must be “mutually agreed,” effectively giving American backing to an Israeli veto over any new lines. Moreover, he should make plain that America‟s goal is for Israel to remain both a Jewish and a democratic state, which would speak VOLUMES concerning the Palestinians‟ so-called 'right of return.'

“He should powerfully recommit the United States to our vital role as Israel's steadfast partner on the all important issue of security and in the battle against terrorism. And further, he should unhesitatingly adopt Israel‟s position that any Palestinian state must be demilitarized. It is critical that he endorse Israel‟s right to defend itself, by itself, and he should focus hard on Israel‟s security, telling the Palestinians in no uncertain terms that all security arrangements leading to two states must to be demonstrably effective before any Israeli efforts can be expected to wind down. “That‟s what the President should say. “No doubt, even if the President accepted these pro-Israel policies, even if he gave a strongly pro-Israel speech that included every single last one of them, I suspect I know what some would say: all the right-wing attack outlets, the partisan hacks, the political

nut-jobs and espousers of “the Rapture” as a foreign policy are going to allege everything from “a betrayal” to “a hit-job” to “throwing Israel under the bus.” No matter what the President says, his automatic opponents are going to be opposed. “But their objections are not in fact going to have anything to do with Israel or Israel‟s security. Their true contention, as has been illustrated by the whole stupid birth certificate thing, is that the President is alien,“ illegitimate and untrustworthy. That‟s their smear and they‟re sticking to it. Israel for them is just another brush they can use to spread slime. “I know that if the President were to give this kind of strongly pro-Israel speech, that the pro-Israel community, which is very savvy, would surely be smart enough to say “thanks for the cake” instead of “but where‟s the icing on top?"

Berman (D-CA)

“President Obama‟s speech is an eloquent and inspiring affirmation of American values as applied to the movements for sweeping transformation of the Middle East. In particular, he has given Syrian President Asad a stark choice, reform or go. Now we must find an effective way to press President Asad to make that choice. “The peace process dimension of the speech puts the ball squarely in the Palestinian court. The Palestinians must resolve their Hamas problem once and for all: either jettison Hamas or do the seemingly impossible and change them into a respectable, anti-violence organization that recognizes Israel and accepts all previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements as the basis for going forward. “The Palestinians must show they‟re serious about peace-making. That means no games at the UN, no partnership with terrorists, no threats to take Israel to the International Criminal Court, and no boycott of negotiations. When the current phase of Palestinian posturing ends, we can begin to address some of the serious issues the President and others have raised. That is my major take away from the President‟s speech. “Also important was the President‟s pledge regarding Israeli security – that Israel must have the ability to “defend itself – by itself – against any threat.” His insistence that any final settlement ensure Israel‟s “right to oppose terrorism and prevent the infiltration of weapons” sets down critical parameters for negotiations.

“It has been my expectation for many years, dating to the end of the Clinton Administration, that the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would involve a border that is close to that of 1967 but with agreed upon land swaps. That is fully consistent with Israel‟s right to have defensible borders and to retain its settlement blocs, positions for which there is overwhelming support in Washington. It is critical as we go forward, however, that we consult closely with both parties but especially with our friend and ally Israel, starting with Prime Minister Netanyahu‟s trip this week. Without such

close consultation, no formulation we propose will be successful. “This speech will be – and already has been – subject to criticism by various parties regarding this point or that. In my view, this speech was not intended to be a comprehensive statement on all aspects of Israeli-Palestinian relations or US relations with both parties. For example, I have full confidence that the Administration would veto a unilateral Palestinian bid for statehood at the UN Security Council. “What was important was for the President to underscore the basics: our support for Israeli security, our rejection of Palestinian terrorism, and the need for the parties to commit to negotiations as the means of resolving this problem. With this speech, he has done all these things.”

Andrews (D-NJ)

"Today, President Obama laid out a set of principles that wisely align American interests in the Middle East with democracy and human rights. My support for these principles is precisely the reason that I disagree strongly with the proposal to employ US influence to compel Israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 borders. Israel's acquisition of territory since that date has been for one reason alone-- to defend herself against aggression that threatens the existence of the only state in the Middle East that practices democracy and respects human rights. I am committed to use my voice and my vote to oppose this policy. Instead, I will stand for measures that reward states like Israel that reflect American values and oppose states and organizations like the Hamas faction that rules the Palestinians--that practice murder and other violent attacks on human rights. A policy forcing Israel to withdraw to pre-1967 borders does not foster democracy and human rights-it promotes the interests of those who favor the weapons of death over the instruments of democracy."

Berkley (D-NV)

“I am extremely troubled by President Obama‟s call for Israel to „act boldly‟ for peace. It is not Israel who has welcomed a terrorist organization into its government. It is not Israel that has steadfastly refused to negotiate over the last several years. Sadly, it is the Palestinians who have done that, to the detriment of their own people and to world peace. “And while I appreciate the President‟s recognition of how difficult it will be for Israel to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority now that Hamas is part of that government, we must go a step further and demonstrate our clear opposition to any negotiations with Hamas: the U.S. must immediately cut off funding to the Palestinian Authority until that government recognizes Israel‟s right to exist, agrees to abide by past agreements, renounces terrorism and releases Gilad Shalit. “I am also deeply concerned by any calls for Israel to return to the armistice line that existed before 1967. That line left Israel far too vulnerable to outside attack, and without access to many of the Jewish holy sites on the other side of the line. Past experience demonstrates that when the Arabs have controlled the Jewish holy sites they have not permitted access to Jews. It is therefore essential that any „mutually agreed swaps,‟ as the President described them, must leave Israel more secure than it already is. “At the same time, I noted that the President re-affirmed the United States‟ unshakeable commitment to Israel‟s security and the US‟s strong opposition to any Palestinian attempts to unilaterally declare a state. He also made it clear that efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure and opposed any action at the United Nations to predetermine the outcome of the negotiations.

Deutch (D-FL)

"Yesterday, the President made clear that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with a party that does not recognize Israel‟s right to exist, and he forcefully rejected Palestinian efforts to delegitimize and isolate Israel at the United Nations. President Obama also reiterated the United States‟ unwavering commitment to Israel‟s security as a Jewish, democratic state with the right 'to defend its borders against any threat.' "The peace process will only advance when the United States works in close cooperation with our steadfast ally Israel and, therefore, today‟s meeting between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu was essential to discuss these critical issues. "Yesterday, the President also spoke of the 1967 lines and land swaps. Should Israel find a partner for peace who is willing to join Prime Minister Netanyahu at the negotiating table, Israel cannot be expected to make any territorial concessions that do not acknowledge the reality on the ground. The 1967 borders are indefensible. References to

'land swaps' must mean that major Israeli population areas in the post-Six Day War territory, including the Jewish suburbs of Jerusalem, will forever continue to be a part of the Jewish state of Israel. "Let us never forget that the lack of progress thus far in the peace process stems directly from the Palestinians‟ outrageous refusal to directly negotiate after historic Israeli concessions. Rather than choose dialogue, the Palestinians have instead partnered with a terrorist organization that intentionally targets and murders Israeli citizens, continues to hold Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit prisoner, and denies Israel‟s very right to exist. Hamas is not a partner for peace; they are a prescription for terrorism. "Israel, our closest ally and the one true democracy in the region, is surrounded on all borders by nations undergoing dramatic change brought on by the „Arab Spring.' Any discussions about an Israeli-Palestinian peace process cannot mask the ongoing ArabIsraeli conflict and the fact that Israel is surrounded by states that deny her existence and repeatedly attack her borders. "As a Member of Congress, I understand that the bond between the United States and Israel was born not just from our mutual security interests, but from our shared core values of freedom, equality, and democracy. I will continue to work tirelessly, as I have throughout my life, to ensure Israel's security is never compromised."

Engel (D-NY)

“The President today sent strong and positive signals that the United States would stand on the side of freedom in the Arab world. He also was clear with the worst abusers, including Syria, that the United States would impose increasing pressure until they respect the rights of their people. On both points, President Obama has my full support. “I was very pleased with one clear point of the President‟s speech. He unambiguously stated that Israel is a Jewish state and the homeland of the Jewish people.“However, the speech also omitted or glossed over several themes.“First, I am unclear as to why the President did not recount the three conditions of the Quartet, comprised of the United States, the United Nations, the European Union, and Russia, for dealing with Hamas. (1) Hamas must recognize Israel‟s right to exist, (2) Hamas must renounce terrorism, and (3) Hamas must commit to all of the agreements signed by Israel and the Palestinians. Those conditions, laid down in 2006, establish the foundation of our policy toward Hamas and must not be disregarded or glossed over. Further, we cannot expect Israel to negotiate with a Palestinian Authority which has Hamas, a terrorist organization, as a working partner until Hamas accepts these conditions. “Second, the 1967 armistice lines were simply not defensible, and Israel must not be made to return to them. Moreover, United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which forms the basis of any future peace between Israelis and Palestinians, does not require Israel to withdraw to the 1967 lines in exchange for peace. The President is correct that land swaps built into a peace agreement could make Israel‟s borders safe and secure, but make no mistake about it – such territorial adjustments would be very significant so that Israel would no longer be 9 miles wide at its narrowest point. “The reason that there has been no progress toward a peace agreement is that the Palestinians have refused to sit down with Israel and have used every excuse under the sun to refuse to negotiate. President Abbas, with all his talk of moderation, has been anything but. It is time to tell the Palestinians that the only way to statehood is through negotiations at the bargaining table, not through unilateral actions. “The President still has the opportunity to elaborate on these points when he speaks on Sunday about the Israeli – Palestinian dispute, and I, for one, will listen carefully to what he has to say.”

Leahy (D-VT)

This is an historic time in the political geography of the Middle East, and this is a crucial time for our relations with the people in that region. The President movingly expressed our nation‟s support for universal human rights, and for those who are protesting for better governance and a better future. It was a speech that gave voice to American values, while identifying our national interests as the Arab Spring unfolds. I will review the President‟s proposal to provide additional aid for Egypt. Many details have yet to be decided. There is a need to consider our national interest in supporting the Egyptian people during this difficult transition period, while reserving the bulk of our support until we have seen free and fair elections and until a new government is in place committed to the rule of law and to improving the lives of its people. The President is right to impose sanctions against the Syrian Government. President Assad had the chance to demonstrate that he is a reformer, willing to respond to the legitimate demands of the Syrian people. Instead he chose the path of his father – ruthless repression against defenseless civilians. The President identified key issues at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the difficult choices the two parties face. He is right that it is up to the parties to act, and that the United States cannot impose a solution. I hope the Administration finds ways to play an effective role, with our considerable influence, to encourage the parties to end this deadly and contagious conflict.

Lieberman (D-CT)

“President Obama delivered an eloquent and important speech yesterday that rightly aligned the United States with the winds of democratic change that are blowing across the Middle East. In his unequivocal support for the right of people everywhere to choose their leaders for themselves, President Obama evoked the best bipartisan, values-based foreign policy tradition that unites great Democratic presidents like Harry Truman, John

F. Kennedy, and Bill Clinton, with Republican counterparts like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. I also strongly support the economic measures the President announced to support the democratic transitions in Egypt and Tunisia, including the establishment of enterprise funds and the extension of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) to the Middle East and North Africa. “I am also grateful that the President at last spoke out about the campaign of murder and repression by Bashar al Assad in Syria. This was the first time the President personally addressed the deteriorating human rights situation in Syria since the uprising there began nearly two months ago. I hope the President in the days ahead continues to speak out about Syria and makes clear that it is time for Assad to go. I regret that he did not seize the opportunity to do so yesterday. “Unfortunately, President Obama's important and constructive speech embracing and supporting the peaceful, democratic revolutions in the Arab world was also undermined by an unhelpful and surprising set of remarks about Israel and the Palestinians that will not advance the peace process and in fact is likely to set it back. “While the President made some strong statements about the "unshakeable" support for Israel's security and rightly criticized the Palestinian pursuit of a symbolic statehood declaration at the UN in September, his unilateral call for negotiations on the basis of the 1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps -- the first time any president has adopted this position -- was profoundly ill-advised. As in the case of the President's counterproductive demand for a settlement freeze two years ago, unilateral statements of this sort do nothing to bring the two parties back to the negotiating table and in fact make it harder for them to do so. They also damage the relationship of trust that is critical to

peacemaking. “In particular, the President's remarks have revived and exacerbated fears in Israel about the commitment and understanding of this Administration with regard to their unique security situation. The fact is, while the exciting and hopeful new reality in the Arab world is the Arab spring, the newest reality in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is not hopeful. It is the threatening new unity government between the leadership of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, a group which the U.S. government has long designated as terrorist because it is committed to violence and the destruction of Israel. “In the days ahead, I hope President Obama will make clear Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with a Fatah-Hamas unity government until Hamas accepts the Quartet conditions. I also hope that the President will make clear that his Administration recognizes the 1967 borders themselves are no longer an acceptable endpoint for negotiations because they do not allow Israel to defend itself, and that any peace 

agreement must reflect new realities on the ground, including the major new Israeli communities that have grown up since 1967, and the need for an extended presence by the IDF in the Jordan River Valley. “In the past few months, the forces of freedom and self-determination have begun to move inexorably through the region. It is in that movement where we can find the greatest hope for peace between neighbors in the region, including Israelis and Palestinians.”

Nadler (D-NY) and Sheldon Silver

NY Daily News: Rep. Jerry Nadler: President Not Anti-Israel, But...

By Celeste Katz

Today's big international story is certainly President Obama's comments on resolving the strife in the Middle East -- notably his argument that Israel and Palestine should settle their differences based on their 1967 border. Asked about the issue at a news conference with Mayor Bloomberg today, here's what 

Rep. Jerrold Nadler and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver had to say, per our City Hall Bureau Chief, Erin Einhorn:

Nadler: “The real question is security for Israel. I mean almost everybody recognizes that if Israel is going to be a Jewish and democratic state, you have to have a separate Palestinian state. The real question is to provide adequate security for Israel. The president mentioned that, but of course didn‟t say how we were going to do that, and I would have been happier if the president had addressed the other issue – he simply said we‟d have to negotiate the question of the Palestinian refugees. "I would have been happier if he had... directly stated that the Palestinians have to give up any notion of a right of return because there‟s going to be a Jewish state and a Palestinian state – not two Palestinan states. They have to give it up and so far, Chairman Abbas and the others have not been willing to concede that, and without that, there will be no agreements," he continued. Responding to another question about Obama, Nadler replied, "No, I don‟t think he‟s taking an anti-Israel stance. The question is whether or not … It‟s certainly not antiIsrael. In fact, Israel needs a settlement … I would have been happier if the president had said to the Palestinians, „Knock off this stuff about trying to get a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state in the United Nations,‟ because that, frankly, is a formula for more strife and war … [There has] got to be with proper security for israel and agreed upon borders, not decreed by the UN or anyone else." 

Said Silver: “All I would say is I‟d like to see the president broker a peace. The idea of constantly putting out preconditions for Israel to meet is not the way to be an honest broker. I think in his heart the president wants to see peace in the region. I think he is sincere in recognizing that Israel is our strongest ally and most importantly, I think the preconditions or the conditions of the peace should be done at the peace table between the parties. And it‟s perfectly appropriate for our country to act as a broker, but ultimately it‟s the parties that count. I have seen so many messages of hate, so many messages of destruction from the Arab side of the equation that, you know, it seemed to me if you want to put preconditons out, those are the kind of things that you should address certainly as well if not exclusively.

Q. Are you concerned about the call for the return to the '67 borders?

Silver: “I didn‟t hear the speech. I don‟t know how he said it. you know, when you deal with the Middle East, every word‟s important so, you know, without hearing, without hearing any context, I can‟t comment on it."

Pallone (D-NJ)

“Yesterday the President delivered a speech to outline United States policy towards the Middle East. I appreciate that the President is making efforts to bring peace to a decades long conflict between Israel and Palestine. However, there are a number of principals that need to be part of the process towards peace and which the United States should adopt as we move forward. “First is a full recognition of the Israeli state by the Palestinian government. The recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises serious questions about a Palestinian government‟s willingness to agree to this principal. The Quartet principles laid out by the United States, the European Union and Russia require Hamas to 

recognize Israel‟s right to exist and to renounce violence. In order to make a strong statement and to ensure this principal is not compromised I have co-sponsored H. Res. 244, which calls for the prohibition of aid to a Palestinian government that includes Hamas, until Hamas publicly commits to the Quartet principles. “The President was right when he said that symbolic efforts at the UN will not create a Palestinian state. Once again, the United States must take a strong principled stand, which is why I have co-sponsored H.R. 1592 which would prohibit funds from being provided to the Palestinian Authority if they unilaterally declare a Palestinian state. “Israel's 1967 borders are not defensible. No process can move forward unless Israel can be assured that they will be able to defend against the constant aggression they face. “Jerusalem must remain the undivided capital of the State of Israel. I support the Jerusalem Embassy and Recognition Act of 2011 [follow its tract] which would make this U.S. policy."

Rothman (D-NJ)

"I commend President Obama for reiterating to the entire world -- including the 22 Arab countries that surround Israel -- that the United States has an unshakable commitment to the safety and security of the Jewish State of Israel. I agree with the President that the United Nations is not the place to negotiate the final parameters of peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, and that Israel should not be forced to talk with parties, such as Hamas, that don't recognize its right to exist and seek to drive it into the sea. A two-state solution agreed upon by the Israelis and Palestinians should be negotiated through direct talks, but it is important to remember that a full return to the 1967 borders will be indefensible for Israel and that talking with terrorists who want to destroy Israel is a nonstarter.

Otros antecedentes y consecuentes

Carta al Presidente Obama (January 24, 2011)

El 24 de enero de 2011 unos cuantos escriben al Presidente Obama ofreciéndole una "Propuesta de Marco de referencia para un acuerdo permanente sobre el staus [Israelo-Palestino]" (PROPOSED FRAMEWORK FOR A PERMANENT STATUS ACCORD en su terminología) y pidiéndole que adoptara un camino incluso más adverso para Israel que el finalmente adoptado; tras el discurso vuelven a escribirle publicando el 13 de junio una escolio en el NYBRoB, Aquí ambos documentos juntos: A Letter to President Obama. El referido Marco dice así:

Entre los firmantes se encuentra una magistrada del Tribunal Supremo, lo que ha levantado no pocas críticas, entre ellas: Beyond the Bounds of Ethical Norms? (Matthew J. Franck, June 9, 2011), Yes, Beyond the Bounds of Ethical Norms (Again) (Ed Whelan, June 9, 2011) y Justice O'Connor joins Israel letter (Ben Smith, June 14, 2011).

Aquí contestan a esa carta con medidas claras, 'devuélvase al remitente': Return To Sender (Elliott Abrams , June 21, 2011)

Reacciones del Gobierno y la Oposición de Israel

Netanyahu

El Primer Ministro de Israel, Benyamin Netanyahu, hace la siguiente declaración reaccionando al discurso (May 19):

Israel appreciates President Obama’s commitment to peace. 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, 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.

Those commitments also ensure Israel’s well-being as a Jewish state by making clear that Palestinian refugees will settle in a future Palestinian state rather than in Israel.

Without a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem outside the borders of Israel, no territorial concession will bring peace.

Equally, the Palestinians, and not just the United States, must recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people, and any peace agreement with them must end all claims against Israel.

Prime Minister Netanyahu will make clear that the defense of Israel requires an Israeli military presence along the Jordan River.

Prime Minister Netanyahu will also express his disappointment over the Palestinian Authority’s decision to embrace Hamas, a terror organization committed to Israel’s destruction, as well as over Mahmoud Abbas’s recently expressed views which grossly distort history and make clear that Abbas seeks a Palestinian state in order to continue the conflict with Israel rather than end it.

Ministerio de AAEE

El viceministro de AAEE de Israel, Danny Ayalon, piensa que se trata de un desacuerdo entre amigos (Jpost, May 21):

"Obama remains committed to Israel as a Jewish state and even demanded answers from the Palestinians regarding the reconciliation deal with Hamas,"

"The president stood up for Israel's right to self-defense," "[as well as for] the need for defensible borders and the end to [all] claims."

"It is clear from Obama's speech that no agreement will be forced upon Israel and that unilateral measures will fail."

"It's a type of disagreement [refiriéndose a la mención de las fronteras de 1967 hecha por Obama] between good friends that has not influenced the past and will not influence the deep friendship and natural alliance."

Oposición

No obstante, la líder de la oposición israelí, tan atinada ella, alaba a Obama y ataca a Netanyahu: Livni praises Obama, blasts Netanyahu (JTA, May 20, 2011)

Reacciones Palestinas y Musulmanas

Jamás

El Ministro de AAEE de Jamás debe estar encantado - Hamas Foreign Minister: We Accept Two-State Solution With '67 Borders (Eyder Peralta, May 17) - , y no sería para menos, pues si les dan dos estados en las indefendibles fronteras de 1967 sin más condiciones, ya se encargarán ellos de, sin haberse siquiera desgastado, seguir luego su batalla a por el resto, pero desde mejores condiciones y con más facilidades, muchas más, para atacar a Israel.

En su sitio en árabe, Jamás responde "desaprobando y condenando" los comentarios del Presidente Obama (traducción de IPT) que considera:

"groseramente inclinados a favor de la ocupación Sionista a costa de los derechos nacionales palestinos."

"[La postura americana] carece de cualquier aproximación novedosa al tema palestino," lo que "demuestra la credibilidad de la posición del grupo [de Jamás]."

Un alto responsable de Jamás, Mahmoud Zahar: We Don't Care About 1967, We Want 1948

Hamas responds to Obama: "We will never recognize Israel" (ElderofZyon, May 20)

OLP

Palestinians: Israel must accept 1967 border as basis for negotiations (JTA, May 22) - Saeb Erekat, jefe de los negociadores palestinos y miembro del Comité Central de Fatah, ha dicho:

"If Netanyahu agrees, we shall turn over a new leaf. If he doesn't then there is no point talking about a peace process. We're saying it loud and clear,"

"Once Netanyahu says that the negotiations will lead to a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, then everything will be set,”

Palestinians Set Obama’s 1967 Border Guidelines as Precondition to Talks (Omri Ceren, May 22) Y en la misma línea: Erekat: Negotiations will restart If PM accepts 1967 lines (Jpost, June 8): Chief Palestinian negotiator says that Netanyahu must accept Obama's pre-'67 lines with land swaps formulation to be peace partner.

The President's Speech and the AP (CAMERA, May 19)

Irán y Siria

Ahmadineyad a Obama: Eres un muñeco! [quiere decir, marioneta] (Elder of Zyon, May 25, 2011) (original en árabe en Palestine Times)

Iran, Syria say Obama speech on Middle East shows US ‘despair,’ ‘arrogance’ (Mustapha Ajbaili, May 20)

Turquía

US has wrong approach to Israel, Turkish FM says (May 20)

Turkey Hails Obama's Tack on Israel (Marc Champion , May 20)

Turkey president: Hamas must be 'rational' about Israel's right to exist (Haaretz, May 21) - En entrevista con el WSJ, Abdullah Gul loa el discurso de  Obama sobre Oriente Medio.

Otras y variadas reacciones musulmanas

Reacciones del Cuarteto y del G-8

Cuarteto

Reacciones del Cuarteto (May 20) y de su representante Tony Blair (May 19)

Mideast Quartet envoy Tony Blair: Obama anxious about Israel's fate (AP, May 26) - Former U.K. prime minister says Obama offered new Mideast peace initiative since he sees the current situation as 'particularly dangerous' ahead of a Palestinian state vote in September.

Tony Blair: President Obama is 'worried' for Israel (Jennifer Epstein, May 26)

G-8

G8 urges an end to violence in Syria, Libya and peace talks between Israel and Palestine (Dina Al-Shibeeb, May 26)

G-8 supports President: We Support Obama’s Vision (May 26)

Leaders of 8 industrialized countries [G-8] convening in Dauville, France, voiced support of Obama’s call to establish a Palestinian state along the ’67 borders.

Aunque parece que el Primer Ministro de Canadá, Stephen Harper, miembro del G-8, no opina lo mismo: On Israel, Harper stands alone at G8 summit (Doug Sanders, May 25-26). Y finalmente la posición delG-8 no mencionó las fronteras de 1967... y los irreductibles de Haaretz señalan a Netanyahu por ello: Netanyahu asked Canada PM to thwart G8 support for 1967 borders (Barak Ravid, May 29):

"The senior government official said Netanyahu told Harper that mentioning the issue of the 1967 borders in the statement, without mentioning the other issues, such as Israel as a Jewish state or opposition to the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel, will be detrimental to Israeli interests and a reward to the Palestinians. (...) Since a decision on the statement requires consensus, Canada's efforts led to a release of the statement without reference to the 1967 borders. The statement released expressed general support for the Obama speech, but called for the establishment of a Palestinian state through negotiations, not unilaterally, and for Hamas to accept the Quartet's conditions."

Reacciones en Europa

EU President: We Support Obama’s Vision (May 26)

Leaders of 8 industrialized countries [G-8] convening in Dauville, France, voiced support of Obama’s call to establish a Palestinian state along the ’67 borders. The President of the EU, Herman Van Rompuy demanded Israel and the Palestinians return to negotiations at once.

Statement by EU HR Ashton on the speech of President Obama (May 20, 2011)

EU urges 'early meeting' of Quartet to spur Mideast peace (Ahramonline, May 23, 2011) - La Unión Europea, dando la bienvenida el giro político sobre Oriente Medio de Obama, el 23 de mayo llama a una 'pronta reunión' del Cuarteto, grupo de poderes del mundo en busca de un acuerdo de paz entre Israel-Palestina.

Jean Asselborn, Ministro de AAEE de Luxemburgo, socialdemócrata: EU Backs Obama's Mideast Offensive. 'Netanyahu's Rejection Is Self-Important and Arrogant' (Jean Asselborn entrevistado en Der Spiegel, May 25)

Otros Comentarios y Reacciones al discurso