New Palestinian Government Sworn In
By VOA News 19 May 2009
A new Palestinian government in the West Bank has been sworn in. The new cabinet took the oath of office Tuesday at Palestinian Authority headquarters in the West Bank town of Ramallah.
The government consists of about two dozen ministers and is composed mainly of members of the Palestinian faction Fatah - but none from its rival Hamas.
Hamas officials on Tuesday called the new government "illegal" and said it poses an obstacle to reconciliation talks between the two factions.
Officials say Western-backed Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad will maintain his position in the new government and will head the cabinet.
Ramallah: Fatah debates ban of new Palestinian government
05.20.09
The Fatah faction is currently convened in Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' Ramallah office, to discuss in motion to ban the new Palestinian government, headed by Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.
Fayyad's government was sworn in on Tuesday, sans Fatah members in attendance. Fatah ordered its delegates to the Palestinian Parliament not to serve under Fayyad. (Ali Waked)
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Detailed Analysis of Obama-Netanyahu Meeting/Part 2 What Netanyahu Said
By Barry Rubin
Obviously, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s job was to make a good impression including the flattery of President Barack Obama. He thus thanked him:
“For your friendship to Israel and your friendship to me. You’re a great leader--a great leader of the United States, a great leader of the world, a great friend of Israel, and someone who is acutely cognizant of our security concerns. And the entire people of Israel appreciate it, and I speak on their behalf.”
But this is more than flattery. Netanyahu is defining him as a great leader in part because he is a great friend of Israel. In other words, he is locking him in on his commitments to what Obama called an “extraordinary relationship.” This is the standard which the American president has set for the relationship and Netanyahu will hold him to it.
He also wants to define common interests: “We share the same goals and we face the same threats.” This happens to be true though it may take some time for Obama to recognize it.
Netanyahu also wants to stake out his own identity as a peacemaker:
“The common goal is peace. Everybody in Israel, as in the United States, wants peace. The common threat we face are terrorist regimes and organizations that seek to undermine the peace and endanger both our peoples.”
But how is peace to be obtained? Who is the common enemy?
A. The Iran issue
“In this context, the worst danger we face is that Iran would develop nuclear military capabilities. Iran openly calls for our destruction, which is unacceptable by any standard. It threatens the moderate Arab regimes in the Middle East. It threatens U.S. interests worldwide. But if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, it could give a nuclear umbrella to terrorists, or worse, it could actually give terrorists nuclear weapons. And that would put us all in great peril.”
This is broadening out the threat beyond Israel to encompass U.S. interests and those of moderate Arab regimes, as I have long argued.
So Netanyahu reinforced what he wanted to, without mentioning the engagement part:
“So in that context, I very much appreciate, Mr. President, your firm commitment to ensure that Iran does not develop nuclear military capability, and also your statement that you’re leaving all options on the table.”
B. Israel-Palestinian Negotiations
On this issue, Netanyahu stressed his eagerness to cooperate, his “desire to move the peace process forward.” Indeed, he was ready to move very fast: “And I want to start peace negotiations with the Palestinians immediately. I would like to broaden the circle of peace to include others in the Arab world, if we could….”
Here came Netanyahu’s most quoted lines, which should be quoted fully:
“I want to make it clear that we don’t want to govern the Palestinians. We want to live in peace with them. We want them to govern themselves, absent a handful of powers that could endanger the state of Israel. And for this there has to be a clear goal. The goal has to be an end to conflict. There will have to be compromises by Israelis and Palestinians alike. We’re ready to do our share. We hope the Palestinians will do their share, as well. If we resume negotiations, as we plan to do, then I think that the Palestinians will have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state; will have to also enable Israel to have the means to defend itself. And if those conditions are met, Israel’s security conditions are met, and there’s recognition of Israel’s legitimacy, its permanent legitimacy, then I think we can envision an arrangement where Palestinians and Israelis live side by side in dignity, in security, and in peace.”
Here is Netanyahu’s view of the two-state solution. If the Palestinians meet Israeli conditions, then there will be the “side by side” arrangement Obama has raised.
This is critical: a two-state solution is not something given as a present at the beginning of negotiations, it is a reward for the proper compromises that enable such a peace to succeed.
That is the key point of the Israeli position, regarding not just Netanyahu but in practice across much of the political spectrum.
Netanyahu fully recognizes the interrelationship of issues and says both are important:
“It would help, obviously, unite a broad front against Iran if we had peace between Israel and the Palestinians. And conversely, if Iran went nuclear, it would threaten the progress towards peace and destabilize the entire area, and threaten existing peace agreement.”
And so he concludes, “We see exactly eye to eye on this—that we want to move simultaneously and then parallel on two fronts: the front of peace, and the front of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear capability.”
Many might view this as papering over differences but it really isn’t. The point Netanyahu makes is that the two countries agree in principle whatever differences there are on details. And after all, this is the same basic position Obama has stated, though there is a bit of reversal on apparent priorities.
And then Netanyahu raises another key Israeli point: It is quite possible to make things far worse:
“If we end up with another Gaza -- the President has described to you there’s rockets falling out of Gaza -- that is something we don’t want to happen, because a terror base next to our cities that doesn’t call -- recognize Israel’s existence and calls for our destruction and asks for our destruction is not arguing peace.
“If, however, the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, if they -- if they fight terror, if they educate their children for peace and to a better future, then I think we can come at a substantive solution that allows the two people to live side by side in security and peace and I add prosperity, because I’m a great believer in this.”
What is the point, after all, of pushing through a two-state solution which:
--Makes Palestine a radical Islamist state tied to Iran and Syria.
--Creates a Palestine in which every school, mosque, and media institution teaches Palestinians that all of Israel is theirs and they must strive to conquer it. This would be a Palestine full of incitement to violence against Israelis which will inspire scores of people to become terrorists and thousands of others to support them.
--Sets off a new Israel-Palestine cross-border war, with the Palestine government either looking the other way or actively assisting terrorists.
--Creates a Palestine that invites in Iranian, Syrian, or other armies, or gets missiles from them targeted at Israeli cities.
--Extends the conflict another generation by using the state as a base for a “second stage” to finish off Israel.
And if Israel were to take risks and make concessions will they be reciprocated? And if the United States and Europe makes promises to Israel will they be kept?
After all, the 1990s’ peace process taught Israelis the answer was “no” on both counts.
This is Israel’s central point: peace, yes, but only a real, lasting, and stable situation which makes things better rather than worse.
A two-state solution only if it isn’t a two-mistake anti-solution
--------------
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. See the GLORIA/MERIA site at www.gloria-center.org.
By Barry Rubin
Obviously, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s job was to make a good impression including the flattery of President Barack Obama. He thus thanked him:
“For your friendship to Israel and your friendship to me. You’re a great leader--a great leader of the United States, a great leader of the world, a great friend of Israel, and someone who is acutely cognizant of our security concerns. And the entire people of Israel appreciate it, and I speak on their behalf.”
But this is more than flattery. Netanyahu is defining him as a great leader in part because he is a great friend of Israel. In other words, he is locking him in on his commitments to what Obama called an “extraordinary relationship.” This is the standard which the American president has set for the relationship and Netanyahu will hold him to it.
He also wants to define common interests: “We share the same goals and we face the same threats.” This happens to be true though it may take some time for Obama to recognize it.
Netanyahu also wants to stake out his own identity as a peacemaker:
“The common goal is peace. Everybody in Israel, as in the United States, wants peace. The common threat we face are terrorist regimes and organizations that seek to undermine the peace and endanger both our peoples.”
But how is peace to be obtained? Who is the common enemy?
A. The Iran issue
“In this context, the worst danger we face is that Iran would develop nuclear military capabilities. Iran openly calls for our destruction, which is unacceptable by any standard. It threatens the moderate Arab regimes in the Middle East. It threatens U.S. interests worldwide. But if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, it could give a nuclear umbrella to terrorists, or worse, it could actually give terrorists nuclear weapons. And that would put us all in great peril.”
This is broadening out the threat beyond Israel to encompass U.S. interests and those of moderate Arab regimes, as I have long argued.
So Netanyahu reinforced what he wanted to, without mentioning the engagement part:
“So in that context, I very much appreciate, Mr. President, your firm commitment to ensure that Iran does not develop nuclear military capability, and also your statement that you’re leaving all options on the table.”
B. Israel-Palestinian Negotiations
On this issue, Netanyahu stressed his eagerness to cooperate, his “desire to move the peace process forward.” Indeed, he was ready to move very fast: “And I want to start peace negotiations with the Palestinians immediately. I would like to broaden the circle of peace to include others in the Arab world, if we could….”
Here came Netanyahu’s most quoted lines, which should be quoted fully:
“I want to make it clear that we don’t want to govern the Palestinians. We want to live in peace with them. We want them to govern themselves, absent a handful of powers that could endanger the state of Israel. And for this there has to be a clear goal. The goal has to be an end to conflict. There will have to be compromises by Israelis and Palestinians alike. We’re ready to do our share. We hope the Palestinians will do their share, as well. If we resume negotiations, as we plan to do, then I think that the Palestinians will have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state; will have to also enable Israel to have the means to defend itself. And if those conditions are met, Israel’s security conditions are met, and there’s recognition of Israel’s legitimacy, its permanent legitimacy, then I think we can envision an arrangement where Palestinians and Israelis live side by side in dignity, in security, and in peace.”
Here is Netanyahu’s view of the two-state solution. If the Palestinians meet Israeli conditions, then there will be the “side by side” arrangement Obama has raised.
This is critical: a two-state solution is not something given as a present at the beginning of negotiations, it is a reward for the proper compromises that enable such a peace to succeed.
That is the key point of the Israeli position, regarding not just Netanyahu but in practice across much of the political spectrum.
Netanyahu fully recognizes the interrelationship of issues and says both are important:
“It would help, obviously, unite a broad front against Iran if we had peace between Israel and the Palestinians. And conversely, if Iran went nuclear, it would threaten the progress towards peace and destabilize the entire area, and threaten existing peace agreement.”
And so he concludes, “We see exactly eye to eye on this—that we want to move simultaneously and then parallel on two fronts: the front of peace, and the front of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear capability.”
Many might view this as papering over differences but it really isn’t. The point Netanyahu makes is that the two countries agree in principle whatever differences there are on details. And after all, this is the same basic position Obama has stated, though there is a bit of reversal on apparent priorities.
And then Netanyahu raises another key Israeli point: It is quite possible to make things far worse:
“If we end up with another Gaza -- the President has described to you there’s rockets falling out of Gaza -- that is something we don’t want to happen, because a terror base next to our cities that doesn’t call -- recognize Israel’s existence and calls for our destruction and asks for our destruction is not arguing peace.
“If, however, the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, if they -- if they fight terror, if they educate their children for peace and to a better future, then I think we can come at a substantive solution that allows the two people to live side by side in security and peace and I add prosperity, because I’m a great believer in this.”
What is the point, after all, of pushing through a two-state solution which:
--Makes Palestine a radical Islamist state tied to Iran and Syria.
--Creates a Palestine in which every school, mosque, and media institution teaches Palestinians that all of Israel is theirs and they must strive to conquer it. This would be a Palestine full of incitement to violence against Israelis which will inspire scores of people to become terrorists and thousands of others to support them.
--Sets off a new Israel-Palestine cross-border war, with the Palestine government either looking the other way or actively assisting terrorists.
--Creates a Palestine that invites in Iranian, Syrian, or other armies, or gets missiles from them targeted at Israeli cities.
--Extends the conflict another generation by using the state as a base for a “second stage” to finish off Israel.
And if Israel were to take risks and make concessions will they be reciprocated? And if the United States and Europe makes promises to Israel will they be kept?
After all, the 1990s’ peace process taught Israelis the answer was “no” on both counts.
This is Israel’s central point: peace, yes, but only a real, lasting, and stable situation which makes things better rather than worse.
A two-state solution only if it isn’t a two-mistake anti-solution
--------------
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. See the GLORIA/MERIA site at www.gloria-center.org.
Detailed Analysis of the Obama-Netanyahu Meeting/Part 1: Obama’s Statement
By Barry Rubin, director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. See the GLORIA/MERIA site at www.gloria-center.org. May 19, 2009
So what did President Barack Obama say after the meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and what does it mean?
First, Obama went to great lengths to stress his belief in the special relationship between the two countries, knowing his fealty to it has been (understandably and rightfully) challenged. He consciously escalated it by calling it an “extraordinary relationship” adding “historical ties, emotional ties,” “only true democracy of the Middle East,” “a source of admiration and inspiration for the American people.” He then went on to say Israel’s security “is paramount” in his policy.
No signal to Arab regimes or Iran here of eroding support. This is the part they will look at and he knew it. This is not mere boiler plate. By setting the bar so high he is saying that the relationship is central and important, one not to be lightly undermined. That doesn’t mean he won’t do anything in that direction but it is publicly limiting himself from making any fundamental shift.
Of course, he and his administration can, and will, justify things they do as being for Israel’s own good. But again, opening with this statement is important and very purposeful.
A. The Iran Issue
He then focused on “the deepening concern around the potential pursuit of a nuclear weapon by Iran.” Some have focused on his following remark that Netanyahu “has been very vocal in his concerns about” this as if Obama was being sarcastic, but he added this “is a concern that is shared by his countrymen and women across the political spectrum.” In other words, he is associating America’s stance with this view.
A key word, of course, is “potential.” Does this mean he doesn’t believe Tehran is trying to get nuclear weapons? No, but he is arguing that the outcome is still open, that is his belief he can talk them out of it.
That, of course, is a mistake.
But Obama added:
“Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon would not only be a threat to Israel and a threat to the United States, but would be profoundly destabilizing in the international community as a whole and could set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that would be extraordinarily dangerous for all concerned, including for Iran.”
That’s a pretty strong statement. He then spoke of how the United States will try to talk Iran out of doing this without foreclosing tougher actions in future.
Whatever concerns one has about this—and I have them—this is the best possible statement one could have expected out of this American president. Remember he is not just talking to Netanyahu but to the Iranian regime and the whole region in so defining the U.S. stance.
Obama even added:
“The one thing we’re also aware of is the fact that the history, of least, of negotiation with Iran is that there is a lot of talk but not always action and follow-through. And that’s why it is important for us, I think, without having set an artificial deadline, to be mindful of the fact that we’re not going to have talks forever. We’re not going to create a situation in which talks become an excuse for inaction while Iran proceeds with developing a nuclear -- and deploying a nuclear weapon. That’s something, obviously, Israel is concerned about, but it’s also an issue of concern for the United States and for the international community as a whole.”
Here, he is saying he isn’t naïve and won’t let Iran fool him. Whether that’s true in practice remains to be seen but at least he is aware of this issue.
On another issue, however, he still doesn’t get it, asked whether his efforts at talking and compromising might be perceived by America’s enemies as weakness he responded:
“Well, it’s not clear to me why my outstretched hand would be interpreted as weakness.”
Unfortunately, this shows he doesn’t understand the Middle East. His basic mantra is: toughness has been tried and hasn’t worked so let’s try being nice. If Obama is ever going to avoid disaster in the region, much less accomplish anything, he’s going to have to get beyond this simple-minded concept.
B. Israel-Palestinian
On Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, Obama said it was in everyone’s interest “to achieve a two-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians are living side by side in peace and security.”
I think the way this was phrased is very important. The great majority of Israelis can agree—even Netanyahu, in my opinion, would do so—that a two-state solution that really worked would be a good outcome.
The problem is that most Israelis don’t believe at this point that a two-state solution would work because the Palestinian Authority, Fatah, Hamas, Iran, Syria, Hizballah and other forces either would ensure it never came about in the first place or would be quickly destabilized.
So the way Obama put it—and it was deliberate—is not in contradiction to Israeli views and interests.
Note also how he phrased his discussion of something else:
“Those obligations [of both sides] were outlined in the road map; they were discussed extensively in Annapolis.”
Remember that Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman was criticized for saying that Israel adhered to the road map but not to Annapolis. This position accepts that view. The road map presents the obligations; Annapolis is non-binding, a mere discussion. That phrasing was very deliberate.
And then of course Obama added that everyone should seize this opportunity for progress and mentioned five specific points, a list weighted in Israel’s favor: assures Israel’s security, stops terrorism and rocket attacks, and economic development for the Palestinians (which is Netanyahu’s emphasis) along with having an independent Palestinian state.
Indeed, Obama went even further in accommodating Netanyahu’s standpoint. He did not only—despite what I have read in some analyses—talk about Israeli concessions or obligations but also very much about Palestinian ones, his:
“Recognition that the Palestinians are going to have to do a better job providing the kinds of security assurances that Israelis would need to achieve a two-state solution; that the leadership of the Palestinians will have to gain additional legitimacy and credibility with their own people, and delivering services. And that’s something that the United States and Israel can be helpful in seeing them accomplish.”
This is something extremely important and he even said that he would convey this point to Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the PA, when he visited Washington.
On Israel’s side he said settlements have to be stopped—though there are no new settlements or expanding of settlements in territorial terms, a point that often is forgotten. There has to be reconstruction of Gaza along with an end to rocket attacks, which means a loosening of border controls.
This is not so difficult for Israel to accomplish: close down some outposts, remove new settlement efforts, and revise the border controls on Gaza. These are all things Netanyahu is quite prepared to do to maintain good relations with the United States.
Another important point on which Obama just doesn’t get it because of lack of knowledge about the Middle East regards linkage:
“To the extent that we can make peace with the Palestinians -- between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with a potential Iranian threat….Imagine how much less mischief a Hezbollah or a Hamas could do if in fact we had moved a Palestinian-Israeli track in a direction that gave the Palestinian people hope. And if Hezbollah and Hamas is weakened, imagine how that impacts Iran’s ability to make mischief, and vice versa.”
As I have explained elsewhere, such efforts would actually strengthen Iran, Hizballah and Hamas because any compromise agreement—even assuming such a thing were to be possible—would inflame radicalism. Again, failing to understand that, Obama doesn’t get the Middle East….Yet, at least.
Overall, though, the meeting was a success. It is important to emphasize that this was not just true on the atmospherics or the surface. Obama’s original ideology and the original intentions of his administration have been modified by taking into account Israel’s views and interests as well as some touch of reality about the region.
In other respects, it has not been so modified. The needle has moved from “catastrophic” to “very bad” on the region in general, and from “confrontational” to “pretty good” on the bilateral U.S.-Israel front. The rest depends on whether the administration insists on putting the priority on its ideas or on its experiences in future.
By Barry Rubin, director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. See the GLORIA/MERIA site at www.gloria-center.org. May 19, 2009
So what did President Barack Obama say after the meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and what does it mean?
First, Obama went to great lengths to stress his belief in the special relationship between the two countries, knowing his fealty to it has been (understandably and rightfully) challenged. He consciously escalated it by calling it an “extraordinary relationship” adding “historical ties, emotional ties,” “only true democracy of the Middle East,” “a source of admiration and inspiration for the American people.” He then went on to say Israel’s security “is paramount” in his policy.
No signal to Arab regimes or Iran here of eroding support. This is the part they will look at and he knew it. This is not mere boiler plate. By setting the bar so high he is saying that the relationship is central and important, one not to be lightly undermined. That doesn’t mean he won’t do anything in that direction but it is publicly limiting himself from making any fundamental shift.
Of course, he and his administration can, and will, justify things they do as being for Israel’s own good. But again, opening with this statement is important and very purposeful.
A. The Iran Issue
He then focused on “the deepening concern around the potential pursuit of a nuclear weapon by Iran.” Some have focused on his following remark that Netanyahu “has been very vocal in his concerns about” this as if Obama was being sarcastic, but he added this “is a concern that is shared by his countrymen and women across the political spectrum.” In other words, he is associating America’s stance with this view.
A key word, of course, is “potential.” Does this mean he doesn’t believe Tehran is trying to get nuclear weapons? No, but he is arguing that the outcome is still open, that is his belief he can talk them out of it.
That, of course, is a mistake.
But Obama added:
“Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon would not only be a threat to Israel and a threat to the United States, but would be profoundly destabilizing in the international community as a whole and could set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that would be extraordinarily dangerous for all concerned, including for Iran.”
That’s a pretty strong statement. He then spoke of how the United States will try to talk Iran out of doing this without foreclosing tougher actions in future.
Whatever concerns one has about this—and I have them—this is the best possible statement one could have expected out of this American president. Remember he is not just talking to Netanyahu but to the Iranian regime and the whole region in so defining the U.S. stance.
Obama even added:
“The one thing we’re also aware of is the fact that the history, of least, of negotiation with Iran is that there is a lot of talk but not always action and follow-through. And that’s why it is important for us, I think, without having set an artificial deadline, to be mindful of the fact that we’re not going to have talks forever. We’re not going to create a situation in which talks become an excuse for inaction while Iran proceeds with developing a nuclear -- and deploying a nuclear weapon. That’s something, obviously, Israel is concerned about, but it’s also an issue of concern for the United States and for the international community as a whole.”
Here, he is saying he isn’t naïve and won’t let Iran fool him. Whether that’s true in practice remains to be seen but at least he is aware of this issue.
On another issue, however, he still doesn’t get it, asked whether his efforts at talking and compromising might be perceived by America’s enemies as weakness he responded:
“Well, it’s not clear to me why my outstretched hand would be interpreted as weakness.”
Unfortunately, this shows he doesn’t understand the Middle East. His basic mantra is: toughness has been tried and hasn’t worked so let’s try being nice. If Obama is ever going to avoid disaster in the region, much less accomplish anything, he’s going to have to get beyond this simple-minded concept.
B. Israel-Palestinian
On Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, Obama said it was in everyone’s interest “to achieve a two-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians are living side by side in peace and security.”
I think the way this was phrased is very important. The great majority of Israelis can agree—even Netanyahu, in my opinion, would do so—that a two-state solution that really worked would be a good outcome.
The problem is that most Israelis don’t believe at this point that a two-state solution would work because the Palestinian Authority, Fatah, Hamas, Iran, Syria, Hizballah and other forces either would ensure it never came about in the first place or would be quickly destabilized.
So the way Obama put it—and it was deliberate—is not in contradiction to Israeli views and interests.
Note also how he phrased his discussion of something else:
“Those obligations [of both sides] were outlined in the road map; they were discussed extensively in Annapolis.”
Remember that Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman was criticized for saying that Israel adhered to the road map but not to Annapolis. This position accepts that view. The road map presents the obligations; Annapolis is non-binding, a mere discussion. That phrasing was very deliberate.
And then of course Obama added that everyone should seize this opportunity for progress and mentioned five specific points, a list weighted in Israel’s favor: assures Israel’s security, stops terrorism and rocket attacks, and economic development for the Palestinians (which is Netanyahu’s emphasis) along with having an independent Palestinian state.
Indeed, Obama went even further in accommodating Netanyahu’s standpoint. He did not only—despite what I have read in some analyses—talk about Israeli concessions or obligations but also very much about Palestinian ones, his:
“Recognition that the Palestinians are going to have to do a better job providing the kinds of security assurances that Israelis would need to achieve a two-state solution; that the leadership of the Palestinians will have to gain additional legitimacy and credibility with their own people, and delivering services. And that’s something that the United States and Israel can be helpful in seeing them accomplish.”
This is something extremely important and he even said that he would convey this point to Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the PA, when he visited Washington.
On Israel’s side he said settlements have to be stopped—though there are no new settlements or expanding of settlements in territorial terms, a point that often is forgotten. There has to be reconstruction of Gaza along with an end to rocket attacks, which means a loosening of border controls.
This is not so difficult for Israel to accomplish: close down some outposts, remove new settlement efforts, and revise the border controls on Gaza. These are all things Netanyahu is quite prepared to do to maintain good relations with the United States.
Another important point on which Obama just doesn’t get it because of lack of knowledge about the Middle East regards linkage:
“To the extent that we can make peace with the Palestinians -- between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with a potential Iranian threat….Imagine how much less mischief a Hezbollah or a Hamas could do if in fact we had moved a Palestinian-Israeli track in a direction that gave the Palestinian people hope. And if Hezbollah and Hamas is weakened, imagine how that impacts Iran’s ability to make mischief, and vice versa.”
As I have explained elsewhere, such efforts would actually strengthen Iran, Hizballah and Hamas because any compromise agreement—even assuming such a thing were to be possible—would inflame radicalism. Again, failing to understand that, Obama doesn’t get the Middle East….Yet, at least.
Overall, though, the meeting was a success. It is important to emphasize that this was not just true on the atmospherics or the surface. Obama’s original ideology and the original intentions of his administration have been modified by taking into account Israel’s views and interests as well as some touch of reality about the region.
In other respects, it has not been so modified. The needle has moved from “catastrophic” to “very bad” on the region in general, and from “confrontational” to “pretty good” on the bilateral U.S.-Israel front. The rest depends on whether the administration insists on putting the priority on its ideas or on its experiences in future.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Transcript of the Obama and Netanyahu press conference
Commentary: Decoding Bibi and Barack
Netanyahu on Iran: Israel has the right to defend itselfPublished: 05.18.09, 23:27 / Israel News
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel has the right to defend itself against Iran. Netanyahu's statement was made to Israeli reporters in Washington following the prime minister's meeting with US President Barack Obama. (Yitzhak Benhorin, WASHINGTON)
Commentary: Decoding Bibi and Barack
Netanyahu on Iran: Israel has the right to defend itselfPublished: 05.18.09, 23:27 / Israel News
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel has the right to defend itself against Iran. Netanyahu's statement was made to Israeli reporters in Washington following the prime minister's meeting with US President Barack Obama. (Yitzhak Benhorin, WASHINGTON)
Obama: No deadline on talks to stop Iran nuclear program
May. 18, 2009 Hilary Leila Krieger and Jpost staff , THE JERUSALEM POST
The United States will not adhere to "artificial deadlines" when negotiating to end Teheran's nuclear ambitions, but talks must not be an excuse for inaction, and that tougher sanctions may be imposed to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, President Barack Obama said following a meeting with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at the White House.
"I believe that it is not only in interest of the international community [that Iran cease its nuclear activities,]" Obama told reporters following the meeting. "I firmly believe it is not in Iran's interest to develop nuclear weapons. It would trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, and it would destabilize the region."
"Iran can achieve security, international respect, and prosperity for its people through other means," the president promised. "I'm prepared to make what I think to be a persuasive argument [regarding this matter]."
However, the United States would not continue talks with Iran forever, Obama said, and even as he suggested that America would assess its policy of engagement by the end of the year to see if progress has been made.
In his remarks, Netanyahu praised the president's remarks on Iran, saying that he appreciated the American "commitment on the matter."
"The worst danger we face is that Iran develops nuclear capabilities," the premier said. "Iran openly calls for our destruction, which is unacceptable by our standards. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it would put us all in peril."
Both leaders also talked about the importance of continuing peace negotiations with the Palestinians. Obama stressed the need for a "two-state solution," a phrase that Netanyahu pointedly did not use in his own remarks. For his part, the prime minister said that "the terminology would take care of itself," and talked about two peoples living side-by-side in peace, never mentioning, however, a Palestinian state.
Netanyahu said that "compromise" would be necessary from both sides, and that Israel is willing to take those steps.
Asked about recent comments by Israeli officials who stated that progress with the Palestinians was contingent on progress with curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions, Obama said he saw the issue of linkage the other way around. He suggested that improvement with the Israel-Palestinian conflict would make it easier to enlist broader support with the international community to keep Iran from acquiring weapons, but nodded his head when Netanyahu added that neither country was linking the policy between the two issues.
Obama called the meeting, which was extended well beyond its originally scheduled time, "extraordinarily productive."
May. 18, 2009 Hilary Leila Krieger and Jpost staff , THE JERUSALEM POST
The United States will not adhere to "artificial deadlines" when negotiating to end Teheran's nuclear ambitions, but talks must not be an excuse for inaction, and that tougher sanctions may be imposed to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, President Barack Obama said following a meeting with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at the White House.
"I believe that it is not only in interest of the international community [that Iran cease its nuclear activities,]" Obama told reporters following the meeting. "I firmly believe it is not in Iran's interest to develop nuclear weapons. It would trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, and it would destabilize the region."
"Iran can achieve security, international respect, and prosperity for its people through other means," the president promised. "I'm prepared to make what I think to be a persuasive argument [regarding this matter]."
However, the United States would not continue talks with Iran forever, Obama said, and even as he suggested that America would assess its policy of engagement by the end of the year to see if progress has been made.
In his remarks, Netanyahu praised the president's remarks on Iran, saying that he appreciated the American "commitment on the matter."
"The worst danger we face is that Iran develops nuclear capabilities," the premier said. "Iran openly calls for our destruction, which is unacceptable by our standards. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it would put us all in peril."
Both leaders also talked about the importance of continuing peace negotiations with the Palestinians. Obama stressed the need for a "two-state solution," a phrase that Netanyahu pointedly did not use in his own remarks. For his part, the prime minister said that "the terminology would take care of itself," and talked about two peoples living side-by-side in peace, never mentioning, however, a Palestinian state.
Netanyahu said that "compromise" would be necessary from both sides, and that Israel is willing to take those steps.
Asked about recent comments by Israeli officials who stated that progress with the Palestinians was contingent on progress with curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions, Obama said he saw the issue of linkage the other way around. He suggested that improvement with the Israel-Palestinian conflict would make it easier to enlist broader support with the international community to keep Iran from acquiring weapons, but nodded his head when Netanyahu added that neither country was linking the policy between the two issues.
Obama called the meeting, which was extended well beyond its originally scheduled time, "extraordinarily productive."
Anti-Semitic violence erupts in Buenos Aires
May 18, 2009 www.jta.org
BUENOS AIRES (JTA) -- A violent anti-Semitic demonstration erupted in downtown Buenos Aires during a public celebration of Israel's 61st anniversary.
On late Sunday afternoon, shortly after Jewish families and their non-Jewish neighbors began Independence Day celebrations at a “Buenos Aires Celebrates” event, a group of about 20 people came out of a subway depot with anti-Semitic banners and signs and fighting broke out.
According to the organizers, a number of Jews were beaten and required medical attention, the French news agency AFP reported.
“In the middle of the cultural festival, the group attacked with complete impunity," Aldo Donzis, the DAIA Jewish local political umbrella institution president, told JTA. "Five police officers who were standing in a corner took a long time before acting. Two people from the public were hurt as well as a policeman. Many of the aggressors ran away, but five of them were caught by the policemen and others from the public who chased them.”
DAIA officials said the group will take legal action against the five aggressors.
“It was really a very violent act,” said Donzis.
The Israeli festival, held a block away from the central Plaza de Mayo, is part of a series of events "celebrating Buenos Aires' diversity and the pluralism that builds our identity,” Claudio Avruj, the head of the city’s Institutional Relations General Direction office, told JTA. A Greek festival was held in March and a Russian celebration is planned for June.
The demonstration lasted a few minutes and the celebration -- which included Israeli music, poetry, crafts and dance -- continued as scheduled.
“People stayed and redoubled the will to celebrate,” said Avruj.
May 18, 2009 www.jta.org
BUENOS AIRES (JTA) -- A violent anti-Semitic demonstration erupted in downtown Buenos Aires during a public celebration of Israel's 61st anniversary.
On late Sunday afternoon, shortly after Jewish families and their non-Jewish neighbors began Independence Day celebrations at a “Buenos Aires Celebrates” event, a group of about 20 people came out of a subway depot with anti-Semitic banners and signs and fighting broke out.
According to the organizers, a number of Jews were beaten and required medical attention, the French news agency AFP reported.
“In the middle of the cultural festival, the group attacked with complete impunity," Aldo Donzis, the DAIA Jewish local political umbrella institution president, told JTA. "Five police officers who were standing in a corner took a long time before acting. Two people from the public were hurt as well as a policeman. Many of the aggressors ran away, but five of them were caught by the policemen and others from the public who chased them.”
DAIA officials said the group will take legal action against the five aggressors.
“It was really a very violent act,” said Donzis.
The Israeli festival, held a block away from the central Plaza de Mayo, is part of a series of events "celebrating Buenos Aires' diversity and the pluralism that builds our identity,” Claudio Avruj, the head of the city’s Institutional Relations General Direction office, told JTA. A Greek festival was held in March and a Russian celebration is planned for June.
The demonstration lasted a few minutes and the celebration -- which included Israeli music, poetry, crafts and dance -- continued as scheduled.
“People stayed and redoubled the will to celebrate,” said Avruj.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Predictions favor positive meeting btw Obama, Netanyahu
Yogi Berra said it best: "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."
There is a meeting scheduled for Monday between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. All sorts of dire speculation is circulating about the meeting, given the differences in approach between the two participants. There are in fact parties that would enjoy nothing better than to see a clash between Obama and Netanyahu, mirrored by a clash between the US and Israel.
But most speculation, as of today, seems to be that no head-on collision will occur. Here are three indicators supporting that more positive prediction:
Obama won't be throwing Israel under the bus. (Part I)by Meryl Yourish
And DebkaFile's Washington infighting mutes Netanyahu-Obama differences
Most of all, the following from Cong. Robert Wexler
Wexler: Obama, Netanyahu not headed for clash
May. 10, 2009 Herb Keinon , THE JERUSALEM POST
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama are not headed for a "train wreck," but rather will "figure out how to work collaboratively" during their meeting next week, US Congressman Robert Wexler, a close political ally of Obama and a stalwart Israel supporter, told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday.
Wexler, who in March 2007 was the first Jewish politician outside of Obama's home state of Illinois to endorse his presidential campaign, said after emerging from a meeting with Netanyahu that both the prime minister and Obama understand that "cooperatively we can enhance each other's strategic interest, better than we can separately."
Wexler, a liberal Democrat from South Florida, dismissed concern that has been reflected in the media in recent weeks that Israeli-US ties are headed for a crisis.
"I can say unequivocally that the anxiety is not warranted," said Wexler, who has spoken to the US president about Middle East issues, and speaks regularly with top White House staffers dealing with the matter, including National Security Adviser Gen. (ret.) James Jones.
He arrived in Israel on Friday for a series of meetings in Jerusalem and in the Palestinian Authority, and will return to Washington on Monday.
"I am in constant contact with those in the administration responsible for policy in this region, and nothing could be further from the truth," he said, regarding reports that the US and Israel are on a collision course.
"As someone who was with Barack Obama from the very beginning of his campaign, I am not going to be surprised or fall prey to the too often false representation of now President Obama; and likewise I think the degree of angst also misrepresents Prime Minister Netanyahu's policies as well," said Wexler, who spoke of Obama's pro-Israeli credentials as one of the featured speakers at the Democratic National Convention in Denver last summer.
"These two men are not headed for a train wreck," he said. "They are not. Both men want the relationship to be as strong, if not stronger - if that is possible - than it has been in the past."
Wexler, who has been in Congress since 1997, has a long-standing relationship with Netanyahu, as well as with Obama.
Wexler said that while he did not expect Obama to pressure Netanyahu in their meeting next Monday, but rather to lay out his view of US policy toward Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian track, he did expect the US under Obama to get considerably tougher with the Saudis.
"The Saudis have had a bit of a free ride in Washington of late," Wexler said. "They get to argue that they proposed the Arab peace initiative. I think that most Israelis have issues, exceptions, to the Arab peace initiative, and so do I, and we, in America. But it is time to test them."
He said it was time to say to Saudi King Abdullah, "You have provided an outline to normalization and how we get there. Israel has put forth some idea in terms of what they can do. What are you willing to do, King Abdullah? We are not going to only hear from you only at the end of the process, that is not how you build trust on the Israel and American sides. What, King Abdullah, are you willing to do next week?"
Wexler said that, rather inexplicably, the Saudis had not made good on financial pledges and commitments to bolster the PA and the government of Fuad Saniora in Lebanon. While the Saudi failure to help the moderates in the PA and in Lebanon was counterintuitive and counterproductive, that was exactly what was happening on the ground, he said.
"Some people have suggested that the Saudis are entertaining a new dynamic or relationship with Syria that would result in Syria being less attached to Iran. But as laudable as that goal may be, it is a bizarre way to try to achieve it," Wexler said.
"People say very loosely that Israelis must take risks for peace," he added. "Well, what risk is the king of Saudi Arabia willing to take? And if he is not willing to take any risk for peace, then what does he bring to the table?" he asked.
The US would not only call out the Saudis about this, but "insist" on the Saudis taking immediate action to show their commitment to the diplomatic process. The Obama administration, he said, "will insist upon it to the point where if it is not met with a satisfactory response, then we will find out once and for all what value Saudi Arabia and the Arab League present to this process. And it is better to learn that early, not late."
Despite linkage some key Obama administration figures have made in recent weeks between progress on the Israeli-Palestinian track and stopping Iran's nuclear march, Wexler said there was no "package."
"There is no quid pro quo, there is no package," he said. "However, it would be absurd to conclude that progress or lack of progress on the Israeli-Palestinian track does not have ramifications or impact upon the ability to be successful in thwarting Iran's nuclear program."
It would be naïve, he said, "to think that issues that are happening at the same time do not impact on one another." But he did not think Obama would "pressure" Netanyahu.
"I think President Obama will present a compelling case as to the direction the US will take with regard to Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian track, and will listen to Prime Minister Netanyahu make his case, and the two leaders will figure out how we will work collaboratively. I don't think it is a question of pressure," Wexler said.
Alluding to the large number of US-Israeli meetings that have been taking place in recent weeks in preparation for the Obama-Netanyahu talks, Wexler said, "I think the communication between the parties has been open and clear enough that both principals understand the parameters in which they are operating, and will make certain at the end of their meeting and in their public statement that they are close enough to be able to demonstrate to the world that Israel and the US continue to have an unbreakable bond, and that collaboratively we will pursue on mutual interests."
Wexler said Obama would present Netanyahu with "an American policy with respect to Iran that is designed to thwart the Iranian nuclear program."
No one in Washington had come to terms with an Iranian nuclear weapon, and "there is no contingency plan that is being operated upon in Washington regarding acceptance of an Iranian nuclear program, just the opposite. America is implementing a process of carrots and sticks, of engagement with Iran that respects the urgency of the situation and which I believe will be time-limited," he said.
Obama would provide Netanyahu with "clarity" on the issue at their meeting, even if he didn't give a precise date as to when the engagement with Iran would end if the Iranians did not end their uranium enrichment, Wexler said.
"I think the president is going to lay out a strong policy of engagement that is rooted in realism, and predicated on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon is unacceptable to the United States," he said. "And I think he is going to outline a policy that has one design, and that is to provide both the incentives and consequences of continuing to pursue nuclear weapons."
Asked whether he thought Obama would give an okay for military action if his policy failed, Wexler said, "I don't think we need to address that hypothetical situation yet, other than to say that the president has said repeatedly that a military option with respect to an Iranian nuclear program is not off the table, and I don't know how more direct he could be in a responsible fashion than that."
This article can also be read at
[ Back to the Article ]
There is a meeting scheduled for Monday between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. All sorts of dire speculation is circulating about the meeting, given the differences in approach between the two participants. There are in fact parties that would enjoy nothing better than to see a clash between Obama and Netanyahu, mirrored by a clash between the US and Israel.
But most speculation, as of today, seems to be that no head-on collision will occur. Here are three indicators supporting that more positive prediction:
Obama won't be throwing Israel under the bus. (Part I)by Meryl Yourish
And DebkaFile's Washington infighting mutes Netanyahu-Obama differences
Most of all, the following from Cong. Robert Wexler
Wexler: Obama, Netanyahu not headed for clash
May. 10, 2009 Herb Keinon , THE JERUSALEM POST
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama are not headed for a "train wreck," but rather will "figure out how to work collaboratively" during their meeting next week, US Congressman Robert Wexler, a close political ally of Obama and a stalwart Israel supporter, told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday.
Wexler, who in March 2007 was the first Jewish politician outside of Obama's home state of Illinois to endorse his presidential campaign, said after emerging from a meeting with Netanyahu that both the prime minister and Obama understand that "cooperatively we can enhance each other's strategic interest, better than we can separately."
Wexler, a liberal Democrat from South Florida, dismissed concern that has been reflected in the media in recent weeks that Israeli-US ties are headed for a crisis.
"I can say unequivocally that the anxiety is not warranted," said Wexler, who has spoken to the US president about Middle East issues, and speaks regularly with top White House staffers dealing with the matter, including National Security Adviser Gen. (ret.) James Jones.
He arrived in Israel on Friday for a series of meetings in Jerusalem and in the Palestinian Authority, and will return to Washington on Monday.
"I am in constant contact with those in the administration responsible for policy in this region, and nothing could be further from the truth," he said, regarding reports that the US and Israel are on a collision course.
"As someone who was with Barack Obama from the very beginning of his campaign, I am not going to be surprised or fall prey to the too often false representation of now President Obama; and likewise I think the degree of angst also misrepresents Prime Minister Netanyahu's policies as well," said Wexler, who spoke of Obama's pro-Israeli credentials as one of the featured speakers at the Democratic National Convention in Denver last summer.
"These two men are not headed for a train wreck," he said. "They are not. Both men want the relationship to be as strong, if not stronger - if that is possible - than it has been in the past."
Wexler, who has been in Congress since 1997, has a long-standing relationship with Netanyahu, as well as with Obama.
Wexler said that while he did not expect Obama to pressure Netanyahu in their meeting next Monday, but rather to lay out his view of US policy toward Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian track, he did expect the US under Obama to get considerably tougher with the Saudis.
"The Saudis have had a bit of a free ride in Washington of late," Wexler said. "They get to argue that they proposed the Arab peace initiative. I think that most Israelis have issues, exceptions, to the Arab peace initiative, and so do I, and we, in America. But it is time to test them."
He said it was time to say to Saudi King Abdullah, "You have provided an outline to normalization and how we get there. Israel has put forth some idea in terms of what they can do. What are you willing to do, King Abdullah? We are not going to only hear from you only at the end of the process, that is not how you build trust on the Israel and American sides. What, King Abdullah, are you willing to do next week?"
Wexler said that, rather inexplicably, the Saudis had not made good on financial pledges and commitments to bolster the PA and the government of Fuad Saniora in Lebanon. While the Saudi failure to help the moderates in the PA and in Lebanon was counterintuitive and counterproductive, that was exactly what was happening on the ground, he said.
"Some people have suggested that the Saudis are entertaining a new dynamic or relationship with Syria that would result in Syria being less attached to Iran. But as laudable as that goal may be, it is a bizarre way to try to achieve it," Wexler said.
"People say very loosely that Israelis must take risks for peace," he added. "Well, what risk is the king of Saudi Arabia willing to take? And if he is not willing to take any risk for peace, then what does he bring to the table?" he asked.
The US would not only call out the Saudis about this, but "insist" on the Saudis taking immediate action to show their commitment to the diplomatic process. The Obama administration, he said, "will insist upon it to the point where if it is not met with a satisfactory response, then we will find out once and for all what value Saudi Arabia and the Arab League present to this process. And it is better to learn that early, not late."
Despite linkage some key Obama administration figures have made in recent weeks between progress on the Israeli-Palestinian track and stopping Iran's nuclear march, Wexler said there was no "package."
"There is no quid pro quo, there is no package," he said. "However, it would be absurd to conclude that progress or lack of progress on the Israeli-Palestinian track does not have ramifications or impact upon the ability to be successful in thwarting Iran's nuclear program."
It would be naïve, he said, "to think that issues that are happening at the same time do not impact on one another." But he did not think Obama would "pressure" Netanyahu.
"I think President Obama will present a compelling case as to the direction the US will take with regard to Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian track, and will listen to Prime Minister Netanyahu make his case, and the two leaders will figure out how we will work collaboratively. I don't think it is a question of pressure," Wexler said.
Alluding to the large number of US-Israeli meetings that have been taking place in recent weeks in preparation for the Obama-Netanyahu talks, Wexler said, "I think the communication between the parties has been open and clear enough that both principals understand the parameters in which they are operating, and will make certain at the end of their meeting and in their public statement that they are close enough to be able to demonstrate to the world that Israel and the US continue to have an unbreakable bond, and that collaboratively we will pursue on mutual interests."
Wexler said Obama would present Netanyahu with "an American policy with respect to Iran that is designed to thwart the Iranian nuclear program."
No one in Washington had come to terms with an Iranian nuclear weapon, and "there is no contingency plan that is being operated upon in Washington regarding acceptance of an Iranian nuclear program, just the opposite. America is implementing a process of carrots and sticks, of engagement with Iran that respects the urgency of the situation and which I believe will be time-limited," he said.
Obama would provide Netanyahu with "clarity" on the issue at their meeting, even if he didn't give a precise date as to when the engagement with Iran would end if the Iranians did not end their uranium enrichment, Wexler said.
"I think the president is going to lay out a strong policy of engagement that is rooted in realism, and predicated on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon is unacceptable to the United States," he said. "And I think he is going to outline a policy that has one design, and that is to provide both the incentives and consequences of continuing to pursue nuclear weapons."
Asked whether he thought Obama would give an okay for military action if his policy failed, Wexler said, "I don't think we need to address that hypothetical situation yet, other than to say that the president has said repeatedly that a military option with respect to an Iranian nuclear program is not off the table, and I don't know how more direct he could be in a responsible fashion than that."
This article can also be read at
[ Back to the Article ]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)