Dear friends,
Since I sent my last analysis on this same subject on Tuesday, I received three pertinent and very interesting items that shed more light on this all-important struggle for peace and co-existence in The Middle East:
- A post by Alice Rothchild, a Jewish physician, author, activist, who teaches at Harvard Medical School, "AIPAC: Dangerous for Jews and Other Living Things." The May 17, 2011 post was to Rabbi Brant Rosen's blog Shalom Rav.
- An article in NY Daily News, May 22, 2011 by Daniel Kurtzer, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel and Egypt, who teaches Middle East policy studies at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
- Netanyahu's address to a Joint Meeting of Congress on Tuesday, May 24, "This is real democracy." While we can have different positions about US policy, Israeli policy or Likud "intransigence," we all need to understand Netanyahu's position as the current leader of Israel.
Uri Avnery wrote "'No Palestinian state' means: no peace, not now, not ever. Everything else is, as the Americans say, baloney. All the pious phrases about happiness for our children, prosperity for the Palestinians, peace with the entire Arab world, a bright future for all, are just that – pure baloney. At least some in the audience must have noticed that, even with all that jumping.
"There is a Jewish joke about a hungry pauper who entered an inn and demanded food. Otherwise, he threatened, he would do what his father did. The frightened innkeeper fed him, and in the end asked timidly: 'But what did your father do?' Swallowing the last morsel, the man answered: 'He went to sleep hungry.'
"Somebody in Washington seems to be floating the idea of Obama coming to Jerusalem and addressing the Knesset. It would be direct retaliation – Obama talking with the Israeli public over the head of the Prime Minister, as Netanyahu has just addressed the American public over the head of the President.
"It would be an exciting event. As a former Member of the Knesset, I would be invited. But I would not advise it. I proposed it a year ago. Today I would not.
"The obvious precedent is Anwar Sadat’s historic speech in the Knesset. But there is really no comparison. Egypt and Israel were still officially at war. Going to the capital of the enemy was without precedent, the more so only four years after a bloody battle. It was an act that shook Israel, eliminating in one stroke a whole set of mental patterns and opening the mind for new ones. Not one of us will ever forget the moment when the door of the airplane swung open and there he was, handsome and serene, the leader of the enemy.
"Later, when I interviewed Sadat at his home, I told him: 'I live on the main street of Tel Aviv. When you came out of that plane, I looked out of the window. Nothing moved in the street, except one cat – and it was probably looking for a television set.'
"A visit by Obama will be quite different. He will, of course, be received politely – without the obsessive jumping and clapping – though probably heckled by Knesset Members of the extreme Right. But that will be all.
"Sadat’s visit was a deed in itself. Not so a visit by Obama. He will not shake Israeli public opinion, unless he comes with a concrete plan of action – a detailed peace plan, with a detailed timetable, backed by a clear determination to see it through, whatever the political cost.
"Another nice speech, however beautifully phrased, just will not do. After this week’s deluge of speeches, we have had enough. Speeches can be important if they accompany actions, but they are no substitute for action. Churchill’s speeches helped to shape history – but only because they reflected historic deeds. Without the Battle of Britain, without Normandy, without El Alamein, those speeches would have sounded ridiculous.
"Now, with all the roads blocked, there remains only one path open: the recognition of the State of Palestine by the United Nations coupled with nonviolent mass action by the Palestinian people against the occupation. The Israeli peace forces will also play their part, because the fate of Israel depends on peace as much as the fate of Palestine.
"Sure, the US will try to obstruct, and Congress will jump up and down, But the Israeli-Palestinian spring is on its way."
You will note Avnery's references to Anwar Sadat and Winston Churchill, this is particularly pleasing to me since I commented on that in three earlier entries in my blog, written in February and March, about the Israeli dilemma. Basically, the Middle East region is in dire, even desperate need of another Sadat. Yitzhak Rabin offered the best chance on the Israeli side since Menachem Begin, who with Sadat and then US President Jimmy Carter, achieved peace between Egypt and Israel in 1979. Unfortunately he was assassinated in 1995 for his peace initiative and particularly the signing of the Oslo Accords. Ultra-orthodox conservatives and Likud party leaders believed that withdrawing from any Jewish land was heresy. The assassination followed a string of rallies organized partially by the Likud party, with Likud leader, then Netanyahu, accusing Rabin’s government of being “removed from Jewish tradition ... and Jewish values.” It is important to note that in Rabin's pocket was a blood-stained sheet of paper with the words of the song Shir Lashalom ("Song to Peace"), which dwells on the impossibility of bringing a dead person back to life and, therefore, the need for peace.
Now, please see below the three items I referred to in the first paragraph.
Hussein
------------------------------
AIPAC: Dangerous for Jews and Other Living Things
<http://rabbibrant.com/2011/
"The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is holding its annual conference May 22-24, where Congress people and many of our national leaders will rush headlong into the committee’s open arms and bountiful coffers. In an increasingly bizarre time warp they will congratulate each other and kvell about Israel’s special relationship with the US, our strategic partnership, and Israel’s commitment to democratic ideals in a “sea of dictatorships” (to quote the website).
What they will not talk about is reality. US Jews are increasingly uncomfortable with a lobby that claims to represent us, but is deeply committed to the militaristic and right wing policies of successive Israeli governments. Jews in the US tend to be politically progressive, but we are being asked to suspend our liberal beliefs when it comes to Israel. While maintaining a steady dream beat for war against Iran and a world view that, “Israel continues to fulfill its ancient obligation as a ‘light unto the nations,’” AIPAC lobbyists with their Christian Zionist allies guarantee billions of dollars in military aid for Israel each year . Much of this goes towards buying US military weapons and machinery, cementing the massive, interconnected, and lucrative military-industrial-security complex that now exists between our two countries.
Not only has this made a brutal 43 year military occupation possible, but it also provides military and political support to the current Netanyahu government. Let’s be clear. Netanyahu is committed to building Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, undermining any possibility for a two-state solution. He is building Jewish settler-only roads and roads for Palestinians funded by USAID. He tightly controls Palestinian movement through checkpoints, permits, and the Separation Wall which has stolen thousands of acres of Palestinian land and destroyed the lives and livelihoods of people whose families have lived in the region for centuries. His idea of Palestinian statehood, (should he still have one), is a scattering of weak enclaves surrounded by Israeli military. The recently released Palestine Papers painfully documented the degree to which Palestinian negotiators were willing to sell their souls while Israeli negotiators refused to accept any concessions. The US was revealed twisting the arms of Palestinians diplomats to give up basic demands and the massive security coordination between the Israelis and the Palestinian Authority was exposed.
Within Israel, there is a right wing crackdown on human rights activists, and laws brewing in the Knesset that will criminalize:
- Nonviolent protests (in Israel and internationally) that advocate boycotts, divestments, and sanctions;
- Providing information that could lead to Israeli war crime charges;
- Any activity against Israeli soldiers or State symbols including nonviolent legitimate resistance to the occupation;
- Commemorations of the Nakba, the Palestinian experience of 1948.
At the same time there are over 20 laws that maintain the second class status for Palestinians with Israeli citizenship.
While Israeli activists worry about rising fascism in Israeli society, Palestinians are celebrating the Arab Spring that is blossoming in the region and Fatah and Hamas are gingerly talking about unity and democratic elections. Arabs from Tunisia to Yemen are putting their lives on the line for equality and freedom of speech. This breathtaking political moment is changing the political discourse in the Middle East and the US Congress needs to take notice and shake itself free of the world view that is promoted by AIPAC lobbyists. Fear of anti-Semitism and the traumas of the Holocaust do not justify Israeli exceptionalism, militarism, racism towards Arabs, or a belief in permanent Jewish victimization.
Peace in the Middle East is more urgent than ever, but it needs to be based on international law, human rights, and UN resolutions. AIPAC and its supporters are deluding themselves, promoting a perpetual state of war and hostility, living in a world that does not match reality. At the same time, over 100 peace organizations will be meeting in Washington. Under the call: Move Over AIPAC: Building a New US Middle East Policy, they will explore the impacts of US military aid and political cover, the demand to end the Israeli occupation, and the building of a solution that respects the rights and dignity of everyone in the region. There will be no big donors there, but Congress would do well to listen."
------------------------------
NY Daily News
Sunday, May 22nd 2011
Opinion
The border between reality and politics: What's new and what's not in Obama's stance on '67 border by Daniel Kurtzer
In his Middle East speech last week, President Obama argued forcefully for Israeli-Palestinian peace, emphasizing unshakable U.S. support for Israel's security and the need for an outcome that results in two states, Israel and Palestine, living within viable and secure boundaries — based on the pre-1967 borders, as amended by land swaps. The President broke little new ground in his remarks. Instead, the speech reflected this administration's basic approach to diplomacy: seek out the art of the possible through incremental change, while avoiding grand plans and big strategies.
Yet already, the remarks have become deeply controversial. Mitt Romney, a 2012 Republican presidential contender, said Obama threw Israel "under the bus." Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said, "President Obama has betrayed Israel." A statement by the Simon Wiesenthal Center referred to the 1967 lines as "the ‘Auschwitz' borders." Unnamed Israelis in Netanyahu's entourage said Obama just doesn't understand Israel and its situation.
A nasty U.S.-Israeli spat has erupted. It was laid bare in the unusually blunt remarks made by Netanyahu after meeting Obama on Friday, and is certain to impact both the President's speech today to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Netanyahu's address to Congress tomorrow.
What are we to make of the heated rhetoric in the wake of Obama's remarks? Is this about reality, politics or a little bit of both? Was Obama's statement a major break from previous U.S. policy or rather an incremental step forward?
First, a brief primer on a very complicated subject. Before 1967, the dividing line between Israel and the West Bank was the Armistice Line, negotiated between Israel and Jordan in 1949. Subsequently, Jordan annexed the West Bank but renounced its claim to this territory in 1988.
Israel occupied this territory in the 1967 war. Since the Madrid peace conference in 1991, Israel and the Palestinians have been negotiating the details of the transfer of these territories to the Palestinians. The expectation has been that the Palestinians would set up an independent state, and Israeli security requirements would be addressed.
Meantime, over the course of the last few generations, Israel has built settlements in the West Bank. (Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip, taken from Egyptian control in 1967, were evacuated unilaterally by Israel in 2005.) About 500,000 Israeli settlers live in settlements in the West Bank and in neighborhoods of Jerusalem considered by the international community to be settlements, although Israel considers those neighborhoods to be part of a sovereign united Jerusalem. About 80% of the Israeli settlers reside on about 5% of all settled land.
What will happen to those settlements, some of which sit on land that Israel believes to be vital to its capacity to defend itself, is one of the core issues in the peace negotiations. Israel insists upon retaining settlements in major blocs around Jerusalem and near the former Armistice lines. The Palestinians insist on regaining 100% of the West Bank or its equivalent.
Thus, we arrive at "swaps."
Words matter in diplomacy, and the President did use a new formulation to describe American policy regarding the location of the border: "The borders of Israel and Palestine," the President said, "should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreeable swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."
But Obama's words must be seen against the backdrop of formulations used by his two predecessors, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
In parameters for negotiations laid out in early 2001, Clinton spoke about land swaps to bridge Israeli desires to keep areas heavily settled since 1967 and Palestinian desires to get all the territories occupied in the 1967 war. Clinton suggested percentages of land that would be involved in the swaps.
Four years later, Bush sent a letter to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that approached the issue from a different angle, but with the same effect. Bush said the U.S. understands it is not realistic to expect Israel to withdraw "already existing major Israeli population centers" — a formulation widely believed to refer to the two or three largest Israeli settlement blocs — or to return to the 1949 Armistice lines; rather, Bush said, a peace agreement can be achieved only "on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities."
On one level, a central question is whether there is any fundamental difference between Bush's, Clinton's and Obama's ways of framing the issue.
The answer is somewhat yes, but mostly no. Obama talked about a starting point for the negotiations on the border, while Bush talked about an end point. Both statements assume that the basis for negotiating the border is the line of 1967 or the armistice line of 1949 — effectively the same line.
Further, Obama said a number of things in his speech specifically supportive of what Netanyahu has been demanding. He said Hamas is not a partner for peace as long as it does not recognize Israel or renounce terrorism. By implication, the President thus effectively opposed the recent reconciliation agreement between Fatah, which renounced terrorism in the 1993 Oslo Accords, and Hamas, which has not renounced terrorism. Obama also criticized the Palestinians for considering a unilateral declaration of statehood. Most importantly, Obama associated the U.S. fully with the importance of recognizing Israel as a democratic and Jewish state; and he spoke at some length about the imperative of meeting Israel's security requirements in a manner that would give Israel the confidence that it could defend itself by itself.
It was thus surprising that Netanyahu reacted so swiftly and harshly to the President's speech, saying America did not understand Israel's situation and emphasizing that the 1967 borders are "indefensible."
Netanyahu implied that Obama had called for Israel to withdraw to the 1967 lines —which Obama did not do — and repeated demands that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state and accept an Israeli military presence along the Jordan River.
Even before arriving in Washington to discuss the President's policy, the Prime Minister felt compelled to oppose it.
In effect, Netanyahu's reaction to Obama's words revealed far more about the politics of the peace process in both countries than about the nuances of American policy. Netanyahu, like all Israelis, wants peace, but it is unclear whether he or his coalition wants a peace process. The prime minister has laid out a series of preconditions and demands that are not unreasonable as outcomes of negotiations, but effectively serve as roadblocks to getting to negotiations.
Netanyahu has also made what can only be considered a fundamental political gaffe by seeking support for his position within the domestic politics of the U.S. It is both usual and acceptable for Israel or others to argue their case before the American people; it is quite another matter to seek to pit the opposition against the President.
This has never worked in the past — witness then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir's attempt to reach over the head of President George H. W. Bush to the Congress to secure loan guarantees for Soviet immigrants, an effort that failed. Netanyahu has been unwise to try this again, and the Republicans have been unwise to take this bait. The peace process, for many years immune to the partisanship that besets so much of our national discourse, has now become just another political pawn in the partisan squabbling between our parties.
In all of this Israeli-American infighting, can it be assumed that the Palestinians will cheer the President's speech? Clearly not. Palestinians President Mahmoud Abbas has called an "emergency meeting" to decide how to react, reflecting the fact that Obama's speech contains much that the Palestinians will find troublesome. Abbas himself complicated matters in an op-ed published earlier this week in The New York Times that has been roundly criticized for its misrepresentation of history and its unyielding position on core elements of the conflict.
We should all hope that the U.S.-Israeli consultations over the weekend and the Palestinian deliberations in Ramallah will result in a common decision to resume peace negotiations. This diplomatic foreplay, related far more to politics than substance, ought to give way to the far more important challenge of making peace in the Middle East.
Kurtzer, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel and Egypt, teaches Middle East policy studies at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
------------------------------
'This is real democracy'
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu delivered on Tuesday, May 24, the following address to a Joint Meeting of Congress:
Vice President Biden, Speaker Boehner, distinguished senators, members of the House, honored guests, I’m deeply moved by this warm welcome. And I’m deeply honored that you’ve given me the opportunity to address Congress a second time.
Mr. Vice President, do you remember the time that we were the new kids in town?
And I do see a lot of old friends here, and I see a lot of new friends of Israel here, as well -- Democrats and Republicans alike.
Israel has no better friend than America, and America has no better friend than Israel. We stand together to defend democracy. We stand together to advance peace. We stand together to fight terrorism.
Congratulations, America. Congratulations, Mr. President. You got bin Laden. Good riddance.
In an unstable Middle East, Israel is the one anchor of stability. In a region of shifting alliances, Israel is America’s unwavering ally. Israel has always been pro-American. Israel will always be pro-American.
My friends, you don’t have to -- you don’t need to do nation-building in Israel. We’re already built.
You don’t need to export democracy to Israel. We’ve already got it.
And you don’t need to send American troops to Israel. We defend ourselves.
You’ve been very generous in giving us tools to do the job of defending Israel on our own. Thank you all, and thank you, President Obama, for your steadfast commitment to Israel’s security.
I know economic times are tough. I deeply appreciate this.
Some of you have been telling me that your belief has been reaffirmed in recent months that support for Israel’s security is a wise investment in our common future, for an epic battle is now underway in the Middle East between tyranny and freedom. A great convulsion is shaking the Earth from the Khyber Pass to the Straits of Gibraltar. The tremors have shattered states. They’ve toppled governments. And we can all see that the ground is still shifting.
Now, this historic moment holds the promise of a new dawn of freedom and opportunity. There are millions of young people out there who are determined to change their future. We all look at them. They muster courage. They risk their lives. They demand dignity. They desire liberty. These extraordinary scenes in Tunis and Cairo evoke those of Berlin and Prague in 1989. Yet, as we share their hopes...
[A protester]
You know, I take it as a badge of honor, and so should you, that in our free societies you can have protests. You can’t have these protests in the farcical parliaments in Tehran or in Tripoli. This is real democracy.
[Applause.]
Thank you.
So as we share the hopes of these young people throughout the Middle East and Iran that they’ll be able to do what that young woman just did -- I think she’s young; I couldn’t see quite that far... We must also remember that those hopes could be snuffed out, as they were in Tehran in 1979. You remember what happened there. The brief democratic spring in Tehran was cut short by a ferocious and unforgiving tyranny. And it’s this same tyranny that smothered Lebanon’s democratic Cedar Revolution and inflicted on that long-suffering country the Medieval rule of Hezbollah.
So today the Middle East stands at a fateful crossroads. And like all of you, I pray that the peoples of the region choose the path less traveled, the path of liberty.
No one knows what this path consists of better than you. Nobody.
This path of liberty is not paved by elections alone. It’s paved when governments permit protests in town squares, when limits are placed on the powers of rulers, when judges are beholden to laws and not men, and when human rights cannot be crushed by tribal loyalties or mob rule.
Israel has always embraced this path in a Middle East that has long rejected it. In a region where women are stoned, gays are hanged, Christians are persecuted, Israel stands out. It is different.
And this was seen...
There was a great English writer in the 19th century, George Eliot. It’s a she. That was a pseudonym in those days. George Eliot predicted over a century ago that once established, the Jewish state -- here’s what she said, “The Jewish state will shine like a bright star of freedom amid the despotisms of the East.” Well, she was right. We have a free press, independent courts, an open economy, rambunctious parliamentary debates.
Now, don’t laugh. Ah, you see, you think you’re tough on another -- on one another here in Congress? Come spend a day in the Knesset. Be my guest.
Courageous Arab protesters are now struggling to secure these very same rights for their peoples, for their societies. We’re proud in Israel that over one million Arab citizens of Israel have been enjoying these rights for decades. Of the 300 million Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa, only Israel’s Arab citizens enjoy real democratic rights.
Now, I want you to stop for a second and think about that. Of those 300 million Arabs, less than one-half of one percent are truly free -- and they’re all citizens of Israel. This startling fact reveals a basic truth: Israel is not what is wrong with about the Middle East; Israel is what is right about the Middle East. Israel fully supports the desire of Arab peoples in our region to live freely. We long for the day when Israel will be one of many real democracies in the region -- in the Middle East.
Fifteen years ago, I stood at this very podium. By the way, it hasn’t changed. I stood here and I said that democracy must start to take root in the Arab world. Well, it’s begun to take root. And this beginning holds the promise of a brilliant future of peace and prosperity. Because I believe that a Middle East that is genuinely democratic will be a Middle East truly at peace.
But while we hope for the best and while we work for the best, we must also recognize that powerful forces oppose this future. They oppose modernity. They oppose democracy. They oppose peace.
Foremost among these forces is Iran. The tyranny in Tehran brutalizes its own people. It supports attacks against American troops in Afghanistan and in Iraq. It subjugates Lebanon and Gaza. It sponsors terror worldwide.
When I last stood here, I spoke of the consequences of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Now time is running out, the hinge of history may soon turn, for the greatest danger of all could soon be upon us: a militant Islamic regime armed with nuclear weapons.
Militant Islam threatens the world. It threatens Islam.
Now, I have no doubt, I’m absolutely convinced that it will ultimately be defeated. I believe it will eventually succumb to the forces of freedom and progress. It depends on cloistering young minds for a given amount of years, and the process of opening up information will ultimately defeat this movement.
But like other fanaticisms that were doomed to fail, militant Islam could exact an horrific price from all of us before its eventual demise. A nuclear-armed Iran would ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. It would give terrorists a nuclear umbrella. It would make the nightmare of nuclear terrorism a clear and present danger throughout the world.
I want you to understand what this means, because if we don’t stop it, it’s coming.
They could put a bomb anywhere. They could put it in a missile. They’re working on missiles that could reach this city.
They could put it on a -- on a ship, inside a container. It could reach every port. They could eventually put it in a suitcase or in a subway.
Now, the threat to my country cannot be overstated. Those who dismiss it are sticking their heads in the sand. Less than seven decades after six million Jews were murdered, Iran’s leaders deny the Holocaust of the Jewish people, while calling for the annihilation of the Jewish state. Leaders who spew such venom should be banned from every respectable forum on the planet.
Now there’s something that makes the outrage even greater. And you know what that is? It’s the lack of outrage. Because in much of the international community the calls for our destruction are met with utter silence. It’s even worse, because there are many who rush to condemn Israel for defending itself against Iran’s terror proxies.
Not you. Not America.
You’ve acted differently. You’ve condemned the Iranian regime for its genocidal aims. You’ve passed tough sanctions against Iran. History will salute you, America.
President Obama has said that the United States is determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The president successfully led the Security Council at the U.N. to adopt sanctions against Iran. You in Congress passed even tougher sanctions.
Now, these words, and these, are vitally important. Yet the ayatollah regime briefly suspended its nuclear weapons program only once, in 2003, when it feared the possibility of military action. In that same year, Moammar Gadhafi gave up his nuclear weapons program and for the same reason. The more Iran believes that all options are on the table, the less the chance of confrontation. And this is why I ask you to continue to send an unequivocal message that America will never permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
Now, as for Israel, if history has taught the Jewish people anything, it is that we must take calls for our destruction seriously. We are a nation that rose from the ashes of the Holocaust. When we say, “Never again,” we mean never again. Israel always reserves -- Israel always reserves the right to defend itself.
My friends, while Israel will be ever-vigilant in its defense, we’ll never give up our quest for peace. I guess we’ll give it up when we achieve it. Because we want peace. Because we need peace.
Now, we’ve achieved historic peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, and these have held up for decades.
I remember what it was like before we had peace. I was nearly killed in a firefight inside the Suez Canal -- I mean that literally -- inside the Suez Canal. I was going down to the bottom with a 40-pound pack --ammunition pack on my back, and somebody reached out to grab me. And they’re still looking for the guy who did such a stupid thing. I was nearly killed there. And I remember battling terrorists along both banks of the Jordan.
Too many Israelis have lost loved ones, and I know their grief. I lost my brother. So no one in Israel wants to return to those terrible days.
The peace with Egypt and Jordan has long served as an anchor of stability and peace in the heart of the Middle East. And this peace... this peace should be bolstered by economic and political support to all those who remain committed to peace. The peace agreements between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan are vital, but they’re not enough. We must also find a way to forge a lasting peace with the Palestinians. Two years ago, I publicly committed to a solution of two states for two peoples: a Palestinian state alongside a Jewish state. I’m willing to make painful compromises to achieve this historic peace. As the leader of Israel it’s my responsibility to lead my people to peace.
Now, this is not easy for me. It’s not easy... because I recognize that in a genuine peace, we’ll be required to give up parts of the ancestral Jewish homeland. And you have to understand this: In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers. We’re not the British in India. We’re not the Belgians in the Congo. This is the land of our forefathers, the land of Israel, to which Abraham brought the idea of one God, where David set out to confront Goliath, and where Isaiah saw a vision of eternal peace. No distortion of history -- and boy, am I reading a lot of distortions of history lately, old and new -- no distortion of history could deny the 4,000-year-old bond between the Jewish people and the Jewish land.
But there is another truth: The Palestinians share this small land with us. We seek a peace...in which they’ll be neither Israel’s subjects nor its citizens. They should enjoy a national life of dignity as a free, viable and independent people living in their own state. They should enjoy a prosperous economy where their creativity and initiative can flourish.
Now, we’ve already seen the beginnings of what is possible. In the last two years, the Palestinians have begun to build a better life for themselves. By the way, Prime Minister Fayyad has led this effort on their part and I-- I wish him a speedy recovery from his recent operation.
We’ve helped, on our side, we’ve helped the Palestinian economic growth by removing hundreds of barriers and roadblocks to the free flow of goods and people, and the results have been nothing short of remarkable. The Palestinian economy is booming. It’s growing by more than 10 percent a year. And Palestinian cities -- they look very different today than what they looked just few -- a few years ago. They have shopping malls, movie theaters, restaurants, banks. They even have e-businesses, but you can’t see that when you visit them.
That’s what they have. It’s a great change. And all of this is happening without peace. So imagine what could happen with peace.
Peace would herald a new day for both our peoples, and it could also make the dream of a broader Arab-Israeli peace a realistic possibility.
So now here’s the question -- you’ve got to ask it -- If the benefits of peace with the Palestinians are so clear, why has peace eluded us?
Because all six Israeli prime ministers since the signing of the Oslo accords agreed to establish a Palestinian state, myself included. So why has peace not been achieved?
Because so far the Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Palestinian state if it meant accepting a Jewish state alongside it. You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It’s always been about the existence of the Jewish state. This is what this conflict is about. In 1947 the U.N. voted to partition the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews said “Yes.” The Palestinians said “No.”
In recent years, the Palestinians twice refused generous offers by Israeli prime ministers to establish a Palestinian state on virtually all the territory won by Israel in the Six-Day War. They were simply unwilling to end the conflict.
And I regret to say this: They continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to name public squares after terrorists. And, worst of all, they continue to perpetuate the fantasy that Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of Palestinian refugees.
My friends, this must come to an end.
President Abbas must do what I have done. I stood before my people -- and I told you it wasn’t easy for me. I stood before my people, and I said,“I will accept a Palestinian state.”
It’s time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say, “I will accept a Jewish state.”
Those six words will change history. They’ll make it clear to the Palestinians that this conflict must come to an end, that they’re not building a Palestinian state to continue the conflict with Israel, but to end it. And those six words will convince the people of Israel that they have a true partner for peace. With such a partner, the Palestinians -- or, rather, the Israeli people will be prepared to make a far-reaching compromise; I will be prepared to make a far-reaching compromise.
This compromise must reflect the dramatic demographic changes that have occurred since 1967. The vast majority of the 650,000 Israelis who live beyond the 1967 lines reside in neighborhoods and suburbs of Jerusalem and greater Tel Aviv. Now, these areas are densely populated, but they’re geographically quite small. And under any realistic peace agreement these areas, as well as other places of critical strategic and national importance, will be incorporated into the final borders of Israel.
The status of the settlements will be decided only in negotiations. But we must also be honest. So I’m saying today something that should be said publicly by all those who are serious about peace: In any real peace agreement, in any peace agreement that ends the conflict, some settlements will end up beyond Israel’s borders. Now, the precise delineation of those borders must be negotiated. We’ll be generous about the size of the future Palestinian state. But as President Obama said, the border will be different than the one that existed on June 4th, 1967. Israel will not return to the indefensible boundaries of 1967.
So I want to be very clear on this point: Israel will be generous on the size of a Palestinian state, but we’ll be very firm on where we put the border with it. This is an important principle; shouldn’t be lost.
We recognize that a Palestinian state must be big enough to be viable, to be independent, to be prosperous.
All of you, and the president, too, have referred to Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people, just as you’ve been talking about a future Palestinian state as the homeland of the Palestinian people. Well, Jews from around the world have a right to immigrate to the one and only Jewish state. And Palestinians from around the world should have a right to immigrate,if they so choose, to a Palestinian state.
And here’s what this means: It means that the Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside the borders of Israel.
You know, everybody knows this. It’s time to say it. It’s important. And as for Jerusalem, only a democratic Israel has protected the freedom of worship for all faiths in the city. Throughout the millennial history of the Jewish capital, the only time that Jews, Christians and Muslims could worship freely, could have unfettered access to their holy sites, has been during Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem.
Jerusalem must never again be divided. Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel.
I know this is a difficult issue for Palestinians, but I believe that with creativity and with good will, a solution can be found. So this is the peace I plan to forge with a Palestinian partner committed to peace. But you know very well that in the Middle East the only peace that will hold is a peace you can defend. So peace must be anchored in security.
In recent years, Israel withdrew from South Lebanon and from Gaza. We thought we’d get peace. That’s not what we got. We got 12,000 rockets fired from those areas on our cities, on our children, by Hezbollah and Hamas. The U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon, they failed to prevent the smuggling of this weaponry. The European observers in Gaza, they evaporated overnight. So if Israel simply walked out of the territories, the flow of weapons into a future Palestinian state would be unchecked. And missiles fired from it could reach virtually every home in Israel in less than a minute. I want you to think about that, too. Imagine there’s a siren going on now, and we have less than 60 seconds to find shelter from an incoming rocket.
Would you live that way? Do you think anybody can live that way?
Well, we’re not going to live that way, either.
The truth is that Israel needs unique security arrangements, because of its unique size. It’s one of the smallest countries in the world.
Mr. Vice President, I’ll grant you this: It’s bigger than Delaware. It’s even bigger than Rhode Island. But that’s about it. Israel on the 1967 lines would be half the width of the Washington Beltway.
Now, here’s a bit of nostalgia. I came to Washington 30 years ago, as a young diplomat. It took me a while, but I finally figured it out: There is an America beyond the Beltway. But Israel on the 1967 lines would be only nine miles wide. So much for strategic depth.
So it’s therefore vital, absolutely vital, that a Palestinian state be fully demilitarized. And it’s vital, absolutely vital, that Israel maintain a long-term military presence along the Jordan River. Solid security arrangements on the ground are necessary not only to protect the peace, they’re necessary to protect Israel in case the peace unravels. Because in our unstable region, no one can guarantee that our peace partners today will be there tomorrow. And, my friends, when I say “tomorrow,” I don’t mean some distant time in the future. I mean tomorrow.
Peace can only be achieved around the negotiating table. The Palestinian attempt to impose a settlement through the United Nations will not bring peace. It should be forcefully opposed by all those who want to see this conflict end.
I appreciate the president’s clear position on this issue. Peace cannot be imposed. It must be negotiated.
But peace can only be negotiated with partners committed to peace, and Hamas is not a partner for peace.
Hamas -- Hamas remains committed to Israel’s destruction and to terrorism. They have a charter. That charter not only calls for the obliteration of Israel, it says kill the Jews everywhere you find them. Hamas’ leader condemned the killing of Osama bin Laden and praised him as a holy warrior.
Now, again, I want to make this clear: Israel is prepared to sit down today and negotiate peace with the Palestinian Authority. I believe we can fashion a brilliant future for our children. But Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian government backed by the Palestinian version of Al Qaida. That we will not do.
So I say to President Abbas, “Tear up your pact with Hamas, sit down and negotiate, make peace with the Jewish state. And if you do, I promise you this: Israel will not be the last country to welcome a Palestinian state as the new member of the United Nations. It will be the first to do so.”
My friends, the momentous trials of the last century and the unfolding events of this century attest to the decisive role of the United States in defending peace and advancing freedom. Providence entrusted the United States to be the guardian of liberty. All people who cherish freedom owe a profound debt of gratitude to your great nation. Among the most grateful nations is my nation, the people of Israel, who have fought for their liberty and survival against impossible odds in ancient and modern times alike.
I speak on behalf of the Jewish people and the Jewish state when I say to you, representatives of America, thank you.
Thank you. Thank you for your unwavering support for Israel. Thank you for ensuring that the flame of freedom burns bright throughout the world.
May God bless all of you, and may God forever bless the United States of America.
Source:
The contents of this site are © 2011 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.
© Dr Hussein A Amin 2011
