I didn't like it, I loved it.
This paragraph is about as truthful as it gets:
"For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers - for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security."
Everyone in the world with an objective and educated understanding of the Middle East knows that two states is the only solution. Only those people too emotionally involved or religiously deluded see it differently. How unfortunate it is that we have an American president who finally "gets it," but must deal with local leaders who, as usual, "don't get it." At a time where Israel is governed by a right-wing coalition and Palestinians are completely divided, Obama's idealistic vision for the Middle East will probably fall unto deaf ears.
2 comments:
Jaron,
You know I love you, but you are nuts. Publicly deriding Israel, the US' only democratic ally in the region, regarding settlements and the "daily humiliation of occupation" is not only counterproductive, but dangerous for Israel and its continued diplomatic efforts in the region and around the world. There is a huge difference between public and private diplomatic pressure. You place private diplomatic pressure on allies, and public pressure on others. Moreover, the issue of two states is merely academic at this moment. Who would the other state be run by, Hamas? The PA should be called the "P" because they no longer have "A" - authority. They don't control their people or the government any longer. So, it begs the question, if there were two states, who would run the other state? The point is that this is a domestic Israel issue, and to the extent the US wants to be involved in these issues, it must be done privately. Calling out Israel like that does NOTHING but rile up the troops and the arab street. Also, I think Bibi's speech today was right on point: recognize Israel's right to exist and demilitarize. Translation: stop killing innocent civilians and we can talk peace. simple concept, seemingly impossible application.
Gabe
Gabe,
I thought it was a nice speech in the sense that soft power is once again being used as a diplomatic weapon in the US arsenal, after 8 years of Arabs only seeing US bullets. Sadly in this region, like Bibi's speech, it may prove to be totally academic. I believe that US-Israel relations needed to be reconsidered. Instead of a kneejerk approval to everything Israel does, the US needs to be a real friends and call out the Israelis when their policies are counterproductive to peace.
From my perspective and that of much of the world, Israel has gone overboard in terms of their Judaization of the West Bank (or as Bibi calls it Judea and Samaria). This land is where a Palestinian state must one day be.
Post a Comment