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.
Caroline Glick coincide conmigo, aunque ella do dice un par de días después (May 13), y lo llama emboscada:
Obama is clearly betting that by moving first, he will be able to coerce Netanyahu to make still more concessions of land and principles.
Altos oficiales de EEUU dicen que el discurso no se centrará en las conversaciones israelo-palestinas ni se utilizará para lanzar nuevas conversaciones de paz
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)
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 preparado, esto es, como se escribió antes de que luego se pronunciara
Declaraciones a la prensa (Mark C. Toner, Acting Deputy Department Spokesman, May 23)
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
Es introducido por la Secretaria de Estado Hillary Clinton que destaca que el mundo necesita más que nunca el liderazgo de EEUU, pero que este lo ejerce de 'nuevas maneras'.
El Presidente de EEUU:
pueden caer nuevos gobernantes
la gente reclama sus Derechos Humanos
pierde el tiempo con Bin Laden
pierde el tiempo recordando la historia de Bouazizi
da lecciones de economía y se mete con los gobernantes MENA
se ratifica en su discurso de El Cairo de hace dos años
¿qué papel jugará EEUU en los cambios que se producen y producirán?
seguirán defendiendo los intereses de siempre,
pero además destaca que EEUU da la bienvenida al cambio a un 'mundo como debe ser' y para ello
se opone al uso de la violencia y agresión contra la gente
apoya los derechos humanos básicos
apoya y promoverá y animará las reformas políticas ("hacia la democracia") y económicas en MENA, pero no por la fuerza (y recuerda Irak), salvo en Libia,
y menciona a Túnez y Egipto, y luego... a Libia,
y luego a Siria (aunque solo pide a su gobierno que se reforme, no que se vaya, y le echa la culpa de todo a que Siria ha seguido las malas tácticas y prácticas de su aliado Irán)...
y a Yemen, donde pide al gobernante que cumpla su palabra de pasar el poder...
y Bahréin, a quien critica ligeramente y al que seguirán pidiendo que haga reformas mediante el diálogo con la oposición (y no con sus encarcelamiento),
... no menciona Arabia Saudita (escrito tras el final del discurso)
las divisiones sectarias no deben conducir necesariamente al enfrentamiento y la violencia
se refiere a Irak como elemento clave de la región
se opondrán al intento de algún grupo de eliminar o restringir los derechos de otros, especialmente las minorías,
y aplicados especialmente a las fes religiosas,
y a las mujeres,
destaca las causas y motivaciones económicas de los cambios en la región donde la gente a menudo no tiene qué llevarse a la boca
y la innovación tecnológica (y se refiere a Ghonim)
y que harán lo necesario para ayudar al comercio y las inversiones y promover, empezando por Túnez y Egipto, las reformas y la seguridad financiera con apoyo del IMF y el BM y el BEDR, y recuerda que condonará 1.000 MM$ a Egipto, ... y que promoverán los intercambios comerciales en la región y sus exportaciones
y ayudarán a los gobiernos a atacar la corrupción
al final se refiere a la búsqueda de la paz entre Israel y Palestinos,
empezando por hablar de
que el asunto ha sido central para la región
del temor con que han de vivir los israelíes y el odio a Israel que se enseña entre sus vecinos
y de la 'humillante ocupación' que sufren los palestinos que carecen de su propio estado
que Israel sigue con los asentamientos y los palestinos no han querido negociar
la resolución del conflicto es más urgente que nunca
las acciones simbólicas ante NNUU no traerán un estado palestino independiente y la deslegitimización palestina de Israel fracasará
la insistencia de Jamás en el terrorismo y rechazo de Israel no les traerá paz (añado yo: ni la buscan, buscan la victoria, esto es, acabar con la existencia de Israel)
los palestinos jamás lograrán su independencia negando a Israel su derecho a existir
compromiso inquebrantable de EEUU con la seguridad de Israel
y lo defenderán en los foros internacionales que quieran aislarlo
pero Israel no puede mantener el statu quo y debe buscar la paz
Israel no puede lograr su sueño manteniendo la ocupación permanente
deben ser israelíes y palestinos quienes se pongan en marcha, la paz no se les puede imponer
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....
objetivo: una Palestina viable y un Israel seguro
acuerdo final
reconocimiento mutuo de Israel y Palestina
fronteras permanentes de Palestina con sus vecinos y de Israel con Palestina, seguras y reconocidas
fronteras 1967 con swaps (mío: oh, la, la!!!)
seguridad para que Israel pueda defenderse por sí y evitar la recurrencia del terrorismo - Palestina desmilitarizada
contigüeidad y soberanía del estado palestino
lo que dice el texto oficial:
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.
pide que se avance en estas cosas y dejar para luego los más difíciles asuntos de los Refugiados y Jerusalén
volver a la mesa de negociaciones será difícil, especialmente por el Acuerdo Fatah-Jamás y la negativa de Jamás a reconocer a Israel su derecho a exisitir
hay que optar entre amor y odio, futuro y pasado... en toda la región, por los líderes y la gente
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.)
"
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."
Diversos congresistas y senadores de EEUU manifiestan quejas e iniciativas derivadas del discurso:
Ron Paul Responds to President Obama’s Middle East Speech (May 19)
aquí: Sen. Rand Paul: Obama is 'fool's errand' on '67 border; Cantor: Obama's plan 'unworkable' (BibiReport, May 20) y
aquí: Even Ron Paul Unloads on Obama for Dictating to Israel (Omri Ceren, May 22)
Jewish Democrats cool on Barack Obama's 1967 border remarks (Jonatham Allen y Jake Sherman, May 20)
Rep. Michele Bachmann stands for Israel (June 13) (Video 5') - Nota de Caroline Glickman (June 22) sobre el video: "I cannot remember EVER hearing a more pro-Israel speech by ANY American presidential candidate in my life. I cannot remember EVER hearing a more cogent explanation of Israel's importance to the US by ANY American presidential candidate in my life."
Sen. Schumer: No One Should Set Preconditions For Peace Agreement (Jacob, May 30):
“Whatever boundaries might have to be negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians, should be negotiated by those two parties alone – and no one should set any preconditions on those negotiations.
That is not just my position, that is the position of the United States Senate, our leader Harry Reid said that at the AIPAC dinner Monday night, and I think it is the position of the overwhelming majority of both democrats and republicans in the congress, and that is why Bibi Netanyahu got such a strong reception when he visited the Congress last week.”
Rep. Louie Gohmert Has a Problem With ISNA Head Attending the Big Speech (audio del coloquio en el que también participa Walid Phares, para quien el discurso de Obama estaba exclusivamente dirigido a La Hermandad de Musulmanes).
El congresista de Texas Louie Gohmert objeta la presencia del imán Magid, cabeza de La Hermandad en EEUU, esto es, de la ISNA, entre la audiencia del Departamento de Estado :
“They are named in the pleadings in the Holyland Foundation trial. Frank, Imam Magid, the president of the Islamic Society of North America, the group from which we’ve got deposit slips, we’ve got plenty of evidence with the Judge in the Holyland Foundation case… Magid was at the speech! Obama had invited the president of a co-conspirator funding Hamas to come applaud his speech!
House lawmakers push back against Obama's stand on 1967 borders (Mike Lillis, May 21) -
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), presidente del:
"It would undermine Israel’s strategic depth, increasing its vulnerability to both military invasions and the sorts of rocket and missile attacks that Hamas carries out in Gaza"
"Doubling down on failed policies will not lead to the changes we need. It’s time for the Obama administration to change course.”
“Israel cannot be expected to concede on its borders without the assurance of its survival as a Jewish state," she said. "Yet, the President did not reaffirm the previous U.S. commitment that Palestinian refugees must not be resettled within the State of Israel, since that could mean the end of Israel’s existence as a Jewish state."
Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.):
"[1967 borders] were simply not defensible, and Israel must not be made to return to them."
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."
Rep. Steve Rothman (D-N.J.) argumenta que volver a las fronteras de 1967 solo animará a Jamás a lanzar más cohetes:
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) se ha comprometido a proponer una resolución rechazando la posición de Obama sobre las fronteras - Utah Sen. Hatch condemns Obama's stance on Israel border, plans disapproval measure (Daniel Strauss, May 20):
"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 non-starter."
"Rather than stand by Israel against consistent unprovoked aggression by longtime supporters of terrorism, President Obama is rewarding those who threaten Israel’s very right to exist,"
"This is not only ridiculous, but dangerous."
Pero el Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), uno de los miembros importantes del panel de AAEE, afirma que es difícil tomar por radical la estrategia de Obama:
"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."
Pro-Israel push for magic words from Obama (Ben Smith, May 21):
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.
Democrats join Republicans in questioning Obama’s policy on Israel (Peter Wallsten, May 25)
Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe Questions Obama's Frame Of Mind Over Israel Rhetoric (Hugh Hewitt, May 26)
Eric Cantor at AIPAC (video) - House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va) speaking at the AIPAC convention. The speech is in two parts.
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:
The US will oppose any effort to challenge or undermine the legitimacy of the State of Israel within internationally recognized borders.
The US will work for the establishment of a sovereign and viable Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, subject only to agreed, minor and equal land swaps to take into account areas adjoining the former Green Line heavily populated by Israelis. Unilateral changes to the 1967 borders will not be accorded US recognition or legitimacy.
The US will support a solution to the refugee problem that is consistent with the principle of two states for two peoples and addresses the Palestinian refugees’ sense of injustice, providing them with meaningful opportunities for resettlement and financial compensation. Proposals that undercut the principle of two states for two peoples—such as proposals for unlimited entry of Palestinian refugees into the State of Israel—will be opposed by the US.
The US believes both states must enjoy strong security guarantees. In this context, the US will support the establishment of a nonmilitarized Palestinian state together with security mechanisms that address legitimate Israeli concerns while respecting Palestinian sovereignty. The US will support the presence of a US-led multinational force to oversee security provisions and border crossings.
The US believes that Jerusalem should be home to both states’ capitals, with Jewish neighborhoods falling under Israeli sovereignty and Arab neighborhoods under Palestinian sovereignty. Arrangements should be arrived at between the parties regarding the Old City that provide for each side respectively to control its holy places and to have unimpeded access by each community to them.
The US will encourage the reconciliation of Fatah and Hamas on terms compatible with these principles and UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.
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)
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.
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."
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Obama speech greeted with wariness, apathy in Mideast (Ernesto Londono y Liz Sly, May 19)
Reaction in Arab Capitals Is Muted and Mixed (David Kirkpatrick, May 19)
The Obama Speech: Israel rejects peace plan, Palestinians wary, Arabs indiffent (Mustapha Ajbaili, May 20)
Middle East Reactions to Obama's Speech (IPT, May 20)
Obama speech: Mid-East reaction (BBC, May 20)
How the Muslim World Heard Obama's Speech (Heather Horn, May 20)
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)
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."
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)
Martin Kramer destaca que no ha hecho ni una mención a los musulmanes ni a los islamistas, como si no existieran (May 19)
Dore Gold Responds to President Obama 1967 Lines (May 19) (video)
President Obama, the 'Winds of Change,' and Middle East Peace (Robert Satloff, May 19) - sustancioso artículo - "Specifically, the peace process principles he articulated constitute a major departure from long-standing U.S. policy. Not only did President Obama's statement make no mention of the democracy-based benchmarks injected into this process by President Bush in his June 2002 Rose Garden speech (which might have been appropriate, given the overall theme of his speech), he even included significant departures from the 'Clinton Parameters' presented to the parties by the then president in December 2000. President Obama is the first sitting president to say that the final borders should be 'based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.' (...) Perhaps more than anything else, the most surprising aspect of the president's peace process statement was that it moved substantially toward the Palestinian position just days after the Palestinian Authority decided to seek unity and reconciliation with Hamas."
Obama alters U.S. policy, tells Israel to start with ‘67 borders (Josh Rogin, May 19) - Refiriéndose a la frase de Obama sobre las fronteras de 1967 dice: "That's one step further the position outlined by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in April at the U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Washington, when she called for such an outcome to be the product of negotiations: 'We believe that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.'(...) '[According with Former Congressman Robert Wexler] it certainly was a difficult decision, but ultimately the president determined that a call for reform in the Middle East and an American proscription for engagement with the Arab nations would seem hollow if [Obama] did not provide direction on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well.'"
President Obama’s Speech to the State Department Means New Dangers for Israel (Ron Radosh, May 19)
President Obama's Mistake (Alan M. Dershowitz, May 19) (traducido al español: El Error del Presidente Obama) Y, unos días después Obama Explains - And Makes It Worse (Alan M. Dershowitz, May 25, 2011)
Obama's Failed Middle East Speech (Daniel Pipes, May 19, 2011) -"(...) one line sums up Obama's mistake, where he declares that 'The status quo is unsustainable, and Israel … must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.' Note how he demands that Israel alone 'must act boldly,' code words for making concessions to enemies sworn to eliminate the Jewish state. This is not policy; this is folly."
Obama and the Middle East: Taking sides (J.E. Dyer, May 19)
Obama and His Muslim Outreach (Mark Silverberg, May 19)
Heat is back on Bibi, Netanyahu says No to 1967 borders (Bibireport, May 19)
Obama Pledges Support for Democratic Uprisings in the Middle East (Josh Voorhees, May 19) - But will his speech be overshadowed by his endorsement of a key Palestinian border demand?
Obama's Bold, Uneven Mideast Vision (Robert Danin, May 19)
Obama Delivers Solid Speech on Middle East, Must Be Reinforced By Action (Mary McGuire, May 19)
Arabs wonder if Obama can deliver on fine words (Edmund Blair, May 19)
Snap analysis: Obama's Mideast speech had political message too (Jeff Mason, May 19)
Jewish groups respond to Obama’s Mideast speech (Daniel Treim, May 19)
Obama's speech stuns Israelis. Netanyahu rejects 1967 line (DebkaFiles, May 19)
A Variety of Responses to Obama's Middle East Speech (Challahuhakbar. May 19)
Obama Abroad: Ambitious Realism (Frank Loy, May 19)
Obama’s Speech was a Rebuke to J Street and Arab Hardliners (Eldad Tzioni, May 19)
What we must do (Kori Schake, May 19)
Jewish Donors Warn Obama on Israel (Laura Meckler, May 19)
Obama’s faithless pledges to Israel (Washington Times Editorial, May 20) - The White House has thrown the Jewish state under the bus
The issue isn't "1967 lines." It is the Jordan Valley (ElderofZyon, May 20)
State Deptartment statement separates J’lem from Israel (Herb Keinon, May 20)
Bush aide: Barack Obama rewrote history on support for Arab democracy (Josh Gerstein, May 20)
Obama the Zionist (Sever Plocker, May 20) - Op-ed: American president adopted essence of Israeli-Zionist narrative in his latest speech
Understanding Obama’s shift on Israel and the ‘1967 lines’ (Glenn Kessler, May 20) - Analiza con detalle y referencias históricas la siguiente afirmación del discurso de Obama: "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.”
Arab Indifference Shows the Pointlessness of Obama’s Speech (Jonathan S. Tobin, May 20)
Bibi and Obama: Who’s the One Being Disrespected? (Jonathan S. Tobin, May 20)
Obama's abandonment of America (Caroline Glick , May 20)
Obama's Middle East Speech: The Opposite of Strategy Is Catastrophe (Barry Rubin, May 20) - analiza extensamente la parte dedicada y 'no dedicada' a árabes y musulmanes en el discurso de Obama, especialmente; en este otro analiza lo enfocado en Israel: ........; en este otro analiza un detalle del discurso: Obama Middle East Speech: A Big and Revealing Mistake That Nobody Has Noticed (Barry Rubin, May 20); y un par de días antes se había anticipado al propio discurso con: The Myth of President Obama's Middle East Speech (Barry Rubin, May 18) - Después, Obama Speech: Not Intended To Bash Israel But Did So Anyway (Barry Rubin, May 21), en el que dice: "The Associated Press report on the speech said: "President Barack Obama on Thursday endorsed a key Palestinian demand for the borders of its future state. Obama's urging that a Palestinian state be based on the 1967 lines was a significant shift in the U.S. approach." But that's flatly untrue! The Palestinian demand is precisely the 1967 borders with no changes. Obama endorsed changes. And said Israel must agree to the borders. And it is not a shift, much less a significant shift, in U.S. policy! It is pretty shocking that both sides in the debate can't even comprehend accurately a single sentence spoken by Obama. Want proof? Here's, for example, the November 2009 State Department statement that pleased Israel: "We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements."
So Obama said nothing new in his one sentence on borders. I don’t believe that Obama “hates” Israel. I think he has zero comprehension of Israel and isn’t interested in learning more. In addition, he has zero warm feelings toward the country. Thus, he is callously indifferent to its problems, needs, and interests. Obama has given Israel ample reason to mistrust him, and that is why the "borders" sentence has become such a big deal. But the big problem is his failure to recognize the threat of revolutionary Islamism to Israel and others; his deliberate blindness toward the radicalism that still dominates Palestinian politics, ignorance about what Turkey’s Islamist regime is doing, and weakness toward America’s enemies. These all injure Israel indirectly, as well as America’s Arab allies and also the Iranian and Turkish people.". Y aún después, U.S. Policy: To Understand the Middle East Why Not Study The Real Middle East? (Barry Rubin, May 22) y Arab Spring: What Does It Really Mean? (Barry Rubin, May 22) y Obama At AIPAC: Beneath The Flattery, He Revealed His Indifference to Israel’s Needs and His Tilt Against It (Barry Rubin, May 23) - "Examine this speech and you see everything wrong—far more than in his Cairo or State Department speeches on the Middle East—with Obama’s view of Israel and why he cannot be trusted on this issue. (...) Incidentally, can you imagine Obama talking about how Palestinian and Arab behavior might create an “impulse” of Israel “to abandon negotiations”? Of course not. (...) On the surface, President Obama’s speech to AIPAC will reassure many about his care and commitment to Israel. Yet a careful reading of the speech shows the exact opposite.", y Why The Issue of Land Landed President Obama In Trouble With Israel (Barry Rubin, May 25) en el que resume su interpretación de lo que Obama exige a Israel en sus dos discursos, ante el departamento de Estado y la AIPAC: "1. Israel gives up all West Bank first and then negotiates on borders. 2. Israel loses leverage for getting something in exchange for basically accepting 1967 borders. 3. Encourages the PA--as has now happened--to demand Israel accepts 1967 borders before negotiating. 4. Would rule out the Jordan Valley security zone he wants. 5. Palestinians don't have to accept an end of conflict, no right of return, or Israel as a Jewish state in exchange for getting a big thing they want. In short, Israel is being pressed toward a concession. What is the PA pressed to do? To talk with Israel and thus get a big concession! 6. In discussing swaps, Obama didn't mention settlement blocs so he has dropped assurances to Israel that it would get specific pieces of land it wants. 7. And of course he cannot be depended upon to back Israel on its needs but he can be depended on to demand more Israeli concessions.8. The regional situation is very dangerous and it is not a time to be turning over territory to an unstable, hostile entity." Y aún luego Obama Forgets History And Thus Makes Future History Disastrous (Barry Rubin, May 25) Y, dejando pasar otros, luego The Key to Obama’s Foreign Policy: The World Turned Upside Down (Barry Rubin, May 29) y Here In One Sentence is What Obama Doesn't Understand About the Middle East (Barry Rubin, May 30): "For Obama, the "Arab Spring" means moderation and democracy. To most Arabs and Muslims, it represents a resurgence of Islamism and nationalism, the prelude for getting rid of Israel and U.S. influence in the region."
From praise to anger, Jewish response to Obama’s speech runs the gamut (Ron Kampeas, May 20)
Yes, We Can’t. What Obama got right, and wrong, in his Middle East speech. (Yossi Klein Halevi, May 20)
Obama Puts the Onus on Hamas, Where It Belongs -- and 1967 Borders, With Swaps, Makes Sense (Matthew Levitt, May 20)
Obama Gives Everything, Netanyahu Wants More (Yousef, May 20)
Obama's Middle East Speech: The Message Was Not Received (Ibrahim Sharqieh, May 20)
Condemning the President (David A. Harris, May 20)
Obama’s policy is different — and terrible for Israel (FresnoZionism, May 20)
Obama's speech, AIPAC's problem (James Besser, May 20)
Obama’s failure to internalize Palestinian intolerance (David Horovitz, May 20)
Mideast Bristles at U.S. Stance (Charles Levinson y Matt Bradley, May 21) - President Obama's Peace Gambit and the Israeli Retort Provoked Sharp Reactions Across the Region
Obama Insists on '1967 Borders' Sends Israel Into Turmoil As Netanyahu Says No Way (Intellicept3, May 21) - Enlaces sobre el tema
The New Arafat (P.David Hornik, May 21) - Foto de Obama con turbante.
President Obama's Virtual Reality (Yoram Ettinger, May 21)
Why Israel cannot trade land for peace (Joshua Lipana, May 21) - President Obama's call for Israel's return to 1967 boarders is an abomination.
The 1967 Line of Fire (WSJ Opinion, May 21) - Obama creates a needless furor over Israel's borders.
Israel's 1967 Borders Aren't Defensible (Dore Gold, May 21) - Fair observers have never considered the old armistice line as a non-negotiable starting point for peace talks
Obama’s Mania for the “Peace Process” (Max Boot, May 21)
Obama's virtual reality (Yoram Ettinger, May 21) - President’s idealistic vision ignores Arab tradition of tyranny, political violence
Obama's Israel speech fodder for the presidential election (Peter Nicholas, May 22) - Though polling shows the president is still in good standing with Jewish voters, Republicans are using the speech to appeal to other pro-Israel voters, such as evangelical Christians.
Even Ron Paul Unloads on Obama for Dictating to Israel (Omri Ceren, May 22)
Tel Aviv protesters to Obama: Israel won’t committee suicide (Tovah Lazaroff, May 22) - Right-wing activists demonstrate holding banner "Israel won't commit suicide" referring to proposal for negotiations based on 1967 lines.
Obama. Los árabes y la cuadratura del círculo (GEES, May 23)
Land now, peace...TBD (J. Schachter, May 23) - For decades, the Israeli and US approaches to resolving the conflict have rested on the assumption that Palestinian self-determination and an agreement are two sides of the same coin.
Update: Former Arab advisor to US presidents: Obama has adopted Arab position on 242 (IMRA, May 24) - "[Gamal Hamal told IMRA late Monday 23.5.2011 that the English version of his remarks, as reported by Asharq Al-Awsat, has an error in the quote that "Actually and practically, what Obama has said about the 1967 being the
basis of the negotiations is completely different from the Arab and Palestinian stance." What he actually said was that President Obama has adopted the Arab position on 242 by apparently embracing the French version of 242 [AL: the English version is the official binding version of 242] that includes the word "the" in "the territories" - thus requiring complete withdrawal in contrast to the English 242 that does not include the word "the" and thus a withdrawal of some kind is required but not a complete withdrawal. "This new thesis, which President Obama presented in his Thursday's speech,supports the Arab viewpoint, and is a basic hindrance for the Israeli side,
which links the size of Israel before 1967 to the ability to defend it, as the Israelis say that if Israel is of small area, it will be difficult to defend it.""
Our World: Obama’s diversionary tactics (Caroline Glick, May 23)
Borderline Views: Nothing new on the peace front (David, Newman, May 23) - For over 20 years now, the same topics – borders, settlements, refugees, Jerusalem, water – have been debated ad nauseam. The problem is not the issues, it’s the willingness, or lack thereof, to solve them.
Obama’s Bow to the Muslim World, Round II (Bruce Thornton, May 24)
An Anti-Israel President (Bret Stephens, May 24) - The president's peace proposal is a formula for war: ""Obama called for Israel to make concessions to some approximation of the '67 lines before an agreement on refugees and Jerusalem. 'Moving forward now on territory and security,' he said, 'provides a foundation to resolve these two issues in a way that is just and fair.' (...) But the essence of his [Obama's] proposal is that Israel should cede territory, put itself into a weaker position, and then hope for the best. This doesn't even amount to a land-for-peace formula.
Obama vs Netanyahu, Round Three (Daniel Pipes, May 24, 2011) - Recuerda anteriores meteduras de pata de Obama con Israel y dice: "I predict that a "routed and humiliated" Obama will regret his ill-chosen fight over the 1967 lines and, if he follows his prior schedule, should be crawling back to the prime minister in about four months' time, or September 2011. In conclusion: As someone opposed to Arab-Israeli negotiations while war is underway and to Obama's presidency, I take solace in his making a hash of diplomacy and politics. This way, Israel is less likely to make more counterproductive "painful concessions" and, with a slew of former Obama supporters abandoning him, Obama has hurt his chances for reelection."
Obama's Undue Pressure On Israel? (Jonathan Schanzer, May 24)
The Problem With Obama’s Middle East Speech (Josef Joffe, May 24) - How it reflects the diffidence of his world view
3 Things for Obama's Opponents to Do Now That Netanyahu Has Created a New Israeli-Palestinian Dynamic (Amb. John Bolton, May 24)
Key Jewish Donor Breaks With Obama (Alana Goodman, May 25) - Se refiere a Haim Sabam que había dicho Obama Must Do More For Israel: Billionaire Entrepreneur (Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, May 24)
The Thin Green Line (Daniel Perez, May 25)
Obama's Peace Vision: Israel's Suicide (Mudar Zahran, May 25)
Bachmann ad attacks Obama on Israel (Ben Smith, May 25)
Shadowboxing Israel into a Corner (Benny Morris, May 25, 2011)
No Springtime for Palestinians? (Sol Stern, May 25)
Obama's senior moment (Michael Freund, May 25) - comenta a partir del error 'senil' de Obama al firmar en el libro de honor de Westminster Abbey en su visita al Reino Unido y fecharlo en 2008 en lugar de 2011, y lo vincula a su deseo de volver a la palabrería incomprometida de cuando era candidato, alejándose de sus comprometidas obligaciones presidenciales.
The Dreamer Goes Down For The Count (Walter Russell Mead, May 25) - "As so often in the past, but catastrophically this time, he found the “sour spot”: the position that angers everyone and pleases none. He moved close enough to the Israelis to infuriate the Palestinians while keeping the Israelis at too great a distance to earn their trust. One can argue (correctly in my view) that US policy must at some level distance itself from the agendas of both parties to help bring peace. But that has to be done carefully, and to make it work one first needs to win their trust. Obama lost the trust of the Israelis early in the administration and never earned it back; he lost the Palestinians when he was unable to deliver Israeli concessions he led them to expect."
Pro-Palestinian-in-Chief. Obama’s hard-Left tilt is real (Stanley Kurtz, May 26) - Hace un resumen de los pasados lazos propalestinos de Obama. Su conclusión: "Decades of intimate alliances in a hard-Left world are a great deal harder to fake than a few years of speeches at AIPAC conferences. The real Obama is the first Obama, and depending on how the next presidential election turns out, we're going to meet him again in 2013." Stanley Kurtz, author of "Radical-in-Chief".
The Mideast Peace Process: Washington Makes Things Worse (NYT Editorial, May 26) - comentado en The New York Times Propagating Anti-Jewish Sentiment? Time to Boycott? (Richard TelAviv, May 28)
What Obama did to Israel (Charles Krauthammer, May 27http://exteriores.libertaddigital.com/obama-traiciona-a-israel-1276239049.html) (en español) - "For 2 1/2 years, the Obama administration has refused to recognize and reaffirm these assurances. Then last week in his State Department speech, President Obama definitively trashed them. He declared that the Arab-Israeli conflict should indeed be resolved along 'the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.' Nothing new here, said Obama three days later. 'By definition, it means that the parties themselves — Israelis and Palestinians — will negotiate a border that is different' from 1967.It means nothing of the sort. 'Mutually' means both parties have to agree. And if one side doesn’t? Then, by definition, you’re back to the 1967 lines. Nor is this merely a theoretical proposition. Three times the Palestinians have been offered exactly that formula, 1967 plus swaps — at Camp David 2000, Taba 2001, and the 2008 Olmert-Abbas negotiations. Every time, the Palestinians said no and walked away.And that remains their position today: The 1967 lines."
The Mideast History Lesson Obama So Desperately Needs (Seth Mandel, May 27)
New Wave Poll: 60% of Israeli's Oppose Obama proposal for negotiations (IMRA, May 27)
Is Obama a "Zionist Agent"? (Khaled Abu Toameh, May 27) - comentando las reacciones palestinas hacia Obama, públicas las de Jamás y mayoritariamente dichas solo en privado las de Fatah.
The Obumbler gives something for nothing (again) (Israel Matzav, May 30)
The Preemptive Cringe (David Price-Jones, May 30)
Where Obama is leading Israel (Caroline Glick, May 31)
It’s Official: I Announce My Candidacy to be Middle East Czar for the U.S. Government (Barry Rubin, June 2)
Barack Hussein Obama v. the People of Israel (June 5, 2011) (video 8' 28") - Rabbi Chaim Richman rips President Barack Hussein Obama's recent speeches.
200 Words: How Obama Destroyed Any "Peace Process" And Sabotaged Himself in the Middle East (Barry Rubin, June 8) - Me perdonará el señor Rubin que en vez de citarlo reproduzca sus 200 palabras: "1. Obama demands freeze on all Israeli construction in existing settlements, undoing 16 years of U.S. and Palestinian Authority (PA) acceptance of that policy. PA makes that its basic demand and won't talk. No sanctions by Obama against PA. No talks. 2. Israel calls bluff and freezes; PA won't talk. Obama demands freeze extended to Jerusalem. Israel complies. PA still won't talk. Freeze expires and PA won't talk unless new freeze. No sanctions by Obama against PA. No talks. 3. Obama calls for 1967 borders with swaps. His plan: Israel turns over the entire West Bank, then they talk about the swaps! PA makes that their basic demand and won't talk. (You can fill in the next two sentences). 4. PA makes merger deal with Hamas, antisemitic, anti-American, terrorist group that advocates genocide; expels Christians from the Gaza Strip; teaches children to be suicide bombers; rejects the peace process; and is client of Iran, Syria, and Muslim Brotherhood. (You can fill in the next two sentences). 5. PA forces Obama to veto unilateral independence demand at the UN making US "more unpopular" in Arab and Muslim world, destroying what has been just about his highest foreign policy priority. (You can fill in the next two sentences)."
Why History Matters: The 1967 Six-Day War (David Harris, June 8) - ... when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict, dismissing the past as if it were a minor irritant at best, irrelevant at worst, won't work.
Obama’s Not Done Hammering Israel on 1967 Lines (Jonathan S. Tobin, June 12, 2011)
What to Do With Lemons (Tom Friedman, June 18, 2011) - Para avanzar en el proceso de paz y romper el rincón en el que están las negociaciones israelo-palestinas, y la posición de EEUU respecto de palestinos e Israel, el autor propone una solución que califica de 'muy simple', consistente en volver a la partición de la AG 181 de 1947, y que EEUU abandere en el Consejo de Seguridad de NNUU la siguiente resolución:
“This body reaffirms that the area of historic Palestine should be divided into two homes for two peoples — a Palestinian Arab state and a Jewish state. The dividing line should be based on the 1967 borders — with mutually agreed border adjustments and security arrangements for both sides. This body recognizes the Palestinian state as a member of the General Assembly and urges both sides to enter into negotiations to resolve all the other outstanding issues.” Very simple.
Parece que el autor, como muchos, palestinos y no palestinos, no ha entendido que cuando Israel requiere a los palestinos que reconozcan a Israel como estado judío no lo hacen porque Israel lo necesite, que no lo necesitan y en todo caso es cosa que compete a los israelíes exclusivamente decidir, sino para darles una salida, para facilitarles que renuncien al imposible 'retorno de los refugiados' sin tener que hacerlo con tales palabras, como en dos líneas nos recuerda Martin Kramer (June 19, 2011), al contestar a Friedman:
Dear Tom: Israel doesn't need anyone's recognition as a Jewish state. Israel's proposal that the Pals recognize Israel as Jewish was an Israeli concession to the Pals—a ladder to climb down from the 'right of return' without explicitly renouncing it. As they won't climb down, Israel should keep it simple and just insist they renounce the 'right of return.' Is Israel Jewish? That's up to Israelis to decide—alone.
Otra respuesta a Friedman: Tom Friedman’s Lemonade Stand (Jonathan S. Tobin, June 19, 2011): Friedman starts by giving a frank and accurate evaluation of the Obama administration’s record in the Middle East. He’s right when he says, “They’ve alienated all sides and generated zero progress.” But he heads quickly downhill from there as he sinks yet again into the quicksand of moral equivalence that renders his evaluation of the situation as useless as those of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Y una más: Lying for Peace: An Addendum (Barry Rubin, June 19, 2011): Friedman could not get the leader of a single Arab state to pledge such a deal. So when he presents this to his readers as a way of solving the conflict he is lying. Yet this is the daily diet served up in terms of Middle East analysis.
‘Land Swaps’ and the 1967 Lines (Dore Gold, June 20, 2011) - uno de los grandes expertos en el tema, el exembajador autor del artículo hace un poco de historia y pone en contexto el tema.
Y otra más, la guasona de Latma (July 1, 2011) (video 5'35''), con canción y todo.
Y aun otra, Mark Levin Rips Apart NYT' Thomas Friedman on Israel & Obama (June 30, 2011) (video 5'31'')
Pawlenty to give rebuttal to Obama’s Middle East speech (Josh Rogin, June 27, 2011) - "There's a frustration the governor feels with President Obama, that there's no strategic coherence to his foreign policy. Whether it's the Arab Spring, the Middle East peace process, Iran, or Syria there's an ad hoc approach to what they're doing. And the learning curve never seems to get flatter," Pawlenty's senior foreign policy advisor Brian Hook told The Cable. "The governor's speech will set forth a strategically coherent approach to the Middle East and he will discuss a better way forward in the Middle East peace process."