BitterLemons-International today published this article by Debra DeLee, APN's President and CEO:
Obama means what he says
Debra DeLee
Israeli leaders say they're bewildered by the Obama administration's "obsession" with West Bank
settlement growth. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was recently quoted asking/grumbling "what do they want from
me?" His aides told reporters and American Jewish leaders that Washington's position on settlements is "childish",
"stupid" and "delusional" and that the Obama team should "come to its senses."
I don't think that Netanyahu and his aides are genuinely perplexed or mystified by the administration's demand that Israel stop all settlement construction in the West Bank. They know why settlements are an obstruction to earnestly negotiating a peace deal with the Palestinians. They know that settlements are an obstacle to the implementation of a two-state solution and therefore an impediment to America's policy in the region. They also know that Israel is committed to the roadmap peace plan, which calls for freezing all settlement activity including "natural growth".
What they apparently refuse to understand is that this president, unlike his predecessors in the White House, really means it. He genuinely means it when he says he intends to push vigorously for a comprehensive Middle East peace deal that includes the creation of a Palestinian state. This president means what he says and says what he thinks. President Barack Obama promised Americans to always tell them the truth. He is doing the same with his interlocutors overseas.
Israelis who know about my experience with the Democratic Party and with Chicago politics often ask me what Barack Obama is really trying to achieve in the Middle East and why he insists on an Israeli settlement freeze. What is really behind it, they ask. I tell my Israeli friends that they don't need my expertise. The answer is simple. There is no hidden agenda. There is no need to guess or read the tea leaves. Obama's public policy is his real policy. What you see is what you get. Straight and simple.
Furthermore, Obama resents the politics of winks-and-nods. He resents the years of saying one thing and doing another that characterized Israel-US relations, particularly with regard to the construction of West Bank settlements. He says it. "Part of being a good friend is being honest," Obama recently told National Public Radio. "And I think there have been times where we are not as honest as we should be about the fact that the current direction, the current trajectory in the region is profoundly negative, not only for Israeli interests but also US interests." Settlements, he said, are a part of that.
In a recent interview with the New York Times' Thomas Friedman, Obama correctly pointed out that "there is a Kabuki dance going on constantly" with regard to Middle East peace efforts. He boldly added: "That is what I would like to see broken down. I am going to be holding up a mirror and saying: 'Here is the situation, and the US is prepared to work with all of you to deal with these problems.'" He then said: "Leaders have to lead, and, hopefully, they will get supported by their people."
Obama is leading. He is doing so boldly and transparently, with the kind of credibility and charisma--both domestically and internationally--that many of his predecessors lacked. I believe that if regional and international leaders rise to the challenge and the promise of President Obama, they may find in him the one who will finally broker lasting peace between Jews and Arabs.
If Netanyahu and his team seriously consider the president's agenda, they may realize--as well they should--that it constitutes a rare opportunity for ending, once and for all, the Arab-Israel conflict, including Israel's conflict with the Palestinians. President Obama clearly stated why a freeze on settlements is imperative. He is seeking meaningful negotiations toward a final resolution of the conflict. For such negotiations to be held in earnest, Israel cannot take measures that prejudge their outcome and should not engage in actions that Palestinians and their Arab brethren throughout the Middle East view as provocative and aggressive.
Obviously, the Palestinians should take steps to show that they are serious about peace negotiations and Arab governments should do their part to support peace efforts, and the president is pushing on these fronts. But what the Arabs do or not do doesn't change what Israel should do.
We at Americans for Peace Now, and our friends at Israel's Peace Now movement, believe that for the sake of its security, stability and long-term wellbeing, Israel should immediately reverse the settlement enterprise. And now, particularly now, instead of seeking "shticks and tricks" to evade a settlement freeze--in the words of New York Congressman Gary Ackerman, a staunch friend of Israel--Netanyahu should do whatever it takes to take advantage of the opportunity that Obama proposes.
As we see it, no Israeli leader can afford to turn his or her back at such an opportunity. Generations of Israelis will demand explanations from leaders who missed opportunities for peace because they insisted, instead, on entrenching Israel's devastating occupation of the West Bank.- Published 16/7/2009 © bitterlemons-international.org
Debra DeLee, formerly chair of the Democratic National Committee, is the president and CEO of Americans for Peace Now.
Tweet
Email a friend
feed
twitter
facebook
Obama is uniting the people of Israel in a way that hasn't been seen since the Six-Day War. This piece is from Yoel Marcus, the pre-eminent opinion writer in Ha'aretz. Both he and the newspaper are "pro-peace", "anti-Likud", "anti-religious" and "anti-settler".
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1100876.html
Did you note what he said about the Bible?
Debra's comments that Obama is the first to "really" want peace in the Middle East is preposterous. Clinton didn't work hard for it? Sure he did And Bush personally assured the King of Saudi Arabia that he would create a Palestinian state. He even got a Likud government to destroy Jewish settlements in Judea/Samaria. Did he get peace? No. BECAUSE THE ARABS DON'T WANT PEACE, regardless of what Israel does. Israel will not kowtow to Obama. Marcus' column shows there is a national consensus against capituating to his demands.
Here is a piece by former Prime Minister Olmert in the Washington Post pointing out that Obama and Clinton are NOT telling the truth in claiming there are no agreements with Israel about allowing continued building the in the Jewish settlements in Judea/Samaria.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/16/AR2009071603584.html
"...what the Arabs do or not do doesn’t change what Israel should do."
Great article. I hope you are right. And I hope that there enough pro-Israel-pro-peace Jewish leaders that give him the political cover to insist upon dismantling the settlements, without being demonized as anti-Israel.
@YBD Your two comments contradict one another. The first post tried to assert that both Clinton and Bush worked hard for peace. And then your second comment demonstrates how feckless their efforts really were by showing that they actually undermined the peace process by not demanding Israel take the hard but necessary steps for peace, and by making statements that Israel can no point to as unofficial support for Israel's policies.
Certainly there was a lot of effort, but most of it was for show since they were not willing to insist upon the most important core issues that must be enforced for real peace, e.g. unconditional end to all settlement growth, and in fact evacuation from the settlements. The peace process was little more than a game, that America played to try to retain credibility in the region while not really imposing the full weight of it's diplomatic pressure on Israel to fulfill it's end of the bargain. It was a charade. After all, America is responsible for Israel's ability to continue flaunting international law and the United Nations repeated calls for withdrawal to pre-1967 borders, by vetoing every single U.N. resolution and subverting international law in the process. America is a terrible friend to Israel in that regard, because it hasn't told Israel the hard truth, and it has allowed it to behave irrationally and self-destructively.
Bush is quoted in 2004 as saying, "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949." [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/world/middleeast/04israel.html] This was an endorsement of the settlements and it demonstrates that while there was a lot of action, America's involvement in the peace process was theatre, in the end we never intended to persuade both parties to pursue a just resolution to the conflict. We just bought more time for Israel to continue it's illegal settlement activity. And in this war, time favors Israel. The longer the settlements are allowed to stay, the more generations of people that live across the Green Line, the harder it will be to demand that they leave. This conversation is evident of that fact. If they had been pushed to withdraw in 1967, or 1973, it would have been much easier for Israel to do so. Now most people think it's impossible and unreasonable to ask Israel to do this. And this breeds more hostility, and more violence from Palestinians, which in turn, unfortunately, is used to justify the occupation as a means to ensure Israel's "security". But the fact remains, it is the Just thing to do. The settlements were ill conceived to begin with, a hostile act against the Palestinian people, that undermined Israel's moral advantage, and threatens the fabric of the Jewish state. And the Settlements will continue to be a raw source of hostility between the two nations, as long as the they exist.
Chadwick stated:
--------------------------------------
Settlements will continue to be a raw source of hostility between the two nations, as long as the they exist.
-----------------------------------------
If, by "settlements" you mean Tel Aviv, Beersheva, Ashdod, Ashqelon, Lod, Ramla, etc, you are right. It was THOSE settlements that caused Arab hostility and caused all the wars (1948, 1956 and 1967 plus all the terrorist attacks in that period), long before Israel built any settlements in Judea/Samaria after 1967. Giving up these new settlements only means more war because by giving them up, it convinces the Arabs that eventually, by a war of attrition, Israel will flee Tel Aviv as well. By STRENGTHENING the settlements, Israel will prove to the Arabs that it is here to stay.
There is only one way to persuade Israel that the U.S. means business. That is to deny loan guarantees and condition foreign aid on NO SETTLEMENT BUILDING.
If Israel builds, then it can't complain about the results. Israel is a terrible disappointment. If only Israelis would live IN ISRAEL instead of the OPT and put the wall on the Green Line, then it would see security finally. The trouble is, Israel is not interested in security; only more land.