Why Obama Left MidEast Peace Out of His Speech
In spending only nine minutes of his State of the Union speech last night on national security, according to the New York Times, President Barack Obama “spared little time for the subject of America’s relations with the world,” notably uttering “no mention at all of stalled Middle East peace proposals.”
Americans right now are “wounded and looking inward,” the Times quoted former Clinton administration official David Rothkopf.
Left-wing pundit Ralph Nader was more blunt, telling Al Jazeera that Obama had “given up” on Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, an issue “at the core of so much of our problems in the Middle East, spreading all throughout the Islamic world.”
![President Barack Obama devoted only nine minutes in his SOTU speech to foreign policy. [AP photo]](http://trueslant.com/eileenread/files/2010/01/Barack-Obama-addresses-Co-002.jpg "Barack-Obama-addresses-Co-002")
President Barack Obama devoted only nine minutes in his State of the Union speech to foreign policy. [AP photo
The surprising omission came despite a plea from a Jewish-American group friendly to the administration, Americans for Peace Now, asking Obama to use the State of the Union speech “to boldly and decisively lead the way to peace.” This was accompanied by congressional pressure: 54 Democratic members of Congress, including two Jewish Americans, signed a letter asking Obama to take action on the Gaza blockade; while California Rep. Howard Berman, the powerful House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, in a speech to the Democratic-leaning J Street political action committee, decried “the immense toll the occupation is taking on Israel.”
Probably the President’s advisors considered the Israeli-Palestinian issue too sensitive and complex right now. given the enormity of three sets of stalled negotiations (peace process/withdrawal from the occupied territories, prisoner exchange of Gilad Shalit with Hamas, and Fatah-Hamas peace agreement), cool relations with the right-wing regime in Tel Aviv, and the need to respect the Holocaust Remembrance Day events going on all over Europe (with some Palestinian politicians attending.)
Obama apparently preferred to speak via his diplomats on this issue at the United Nations Security Council yesterday, joining diplomats from France and Turkey, and Assistant-Secretary-General Oscar Fernandez-Taranco in decrying settlements, home demolitions, and other issues plaguing occupied East Jerusalem.
Yet our president and of these folks apparently missed one of the most important admissions of reality “on the ground” in Israel-Palestine by Israeli Defense Minister (and former Labor Prime Minister) Ehud Barak. Barak has puzzled may MidEast watchers by participating in, and willingly supporting, the human-rights and political excesses of the Netanyahu coalition that took over Israel nearly a year ago from the center-right, pro-peace-process Olmert government. But yesterday, at a university lecture in Tel Aviv, Barak, as Reuters reported, sounded more like his old self:
“In the absence of a solution” involving an Israeli and a Palestinian state, “any other situation — and not an Iranian bomb or any other external threat — is the most serious threat to Israel’s future,” Barak said in his lecture.
In his speech putting peace ahead of concerns over Iran, Labor Party member and current Defense Minister Ehud Barak appeared to break with the policies of his right-wing Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu and his extreme right-wing Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman.
The Jerusalem Post quoted Barak saying something even more surprising – shocking, really – mentioning the “Jimmy Carter” word: apartheid.
While Israel is the strongest country in the region, Barak said that time “is not on our side. We need to stand with our eyes open and stable feet… to look for a crack or a window to make peace,” he said. “We have a paramount interest in establishing defined borders between ourselves and the Palestinians, that will set the stage for two states for two peoples.”
In addressing the ramifications of a continued stalemate in negotiations, Barak said: “It must be understood that if between the Jordan [River] and the [Mediterranean Sea] there is only one political entity called ‘Israel,’ it will by necessity either be not Jewish or not democratic, and we will turn into an apartheid state….”
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
He does not get it. He talks of his duty to “defend innocents”, while continuing to perpetrate violent offenses against innocent civilians in Palestine. Besides “giving up” on peace negotiations, or forcefully imposing the two-state solution, which is far more pragmatic than accommodating the status quo, he — and the civilians who endorse his Mid East policies — continue to maintain the US’ long standing role as a military combatant against Palestinians. He does not get this brutal reality: “innocent” Americans who behave in such a violent, offensive manner are not “innocent”, do not deserve to be secure, and are not secure.
Given the copious number of military offenses committed by the US in the Mid East, up to this second, will the world shout “We are all Americans!”, after the next large-scale attack on US civilians? I doubt it. I think Americans will be shocked to witness a surprising number of governments and citizens adopting that ubiquitously American attitude: hey, that’s war… stuff happens.
When you refer to the US’s “longstanding role as a military combatant against Palestinians,” I’m thinking you mean our support of the Israel military, e.g. selling them F-16’s and giving annual military assistance. This is not the same as our direct military role in Afghanistan and Iraq, though there are certainly elements in the Muslim and Arab communities who don’t see a difference. These are tough issues, but I don’t think Obama is giving up; certainly Rahm Emanuel isn’t letting him give up on this issue, nor are liberal Jewish Americans and Israelis. You should check out a piece in Foreign Policy mag today by a Palestinian psychiatrist, Eyad El-Sarraj, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/27/gazas_agony?page=0,1
Thank you for your respectful, civil response.
I read Mr. Eyad El-Sarraj article; thanks for the reference. It’s good to see — as evidenced by your own article — the parameters around this debate are changing. It is not so easy for Israel’s critics to be shut down by merely yelling “look! an anti-semite!”. In my own way, I wish to tweak them a bit further by pointing out to Americans that they are not innocent bystanders in this conflict — they are directly involved as an ally of one side against the other, in the same way that the US was directly involved in the Central American civil wars of the 1980s, sponsoring Salvadoran, Nicaraguan, and Guatemalan death squads.
It seems that both of us are heartened by the fact that there are rational people in Gaza, the West Bank, Israel, and the US who understand their own security depends upon their neighbors’. Unfortunately, this fact seems lost on those who have more than enough leverage to impose a workable solution. (The Administration’s actions — and inaction — says much more than its promises.)
Of course I have to back up my statement that Americans are combatants: the US has been a formal military ally of Israel’s since the Lebanon invasion in the early eighties. The US underwrites Israel’s invasions of Lebanon (past and future). One quite nasty legacy of this military alliance is the million cluster bombs fired at Southern Lebanon during the last invasion. I don’t have proof, but I’ll wager the remaining bomblets have “Made in USA” stamped on them. It is not a stretch to interpret the situation as being similar to the US use of proxy armies during the cold war. And as you mentioned, why should Arabs see it any other way?
The US has underwritten Israeli settlers’ encroachments in the West Bank. I say this because without the support of the US taxpayer, Israel simply could not afford to maintain the large military force which provides cover for the settlers. The US provides additional political support in the UN, where it vetoes all resolutions it deems “anti-Israeli”. The US is currently giving financial and engineering support to Egypt’s reinforcement of the Gaza “prison’s” west wall. It is fair to say this is quite offensive.
If the US provides cash, weapons, political cover, and military intelligence to facilitate Israeli military operations, I don’t see how direct US involvement can be denied or spun away. And I do not see how any movement towards defusing this powder keg can happen while Americans remain in their comfort zone, seeing themselves as bystanders — which is just not so.
Without going into great detail, do you think the following to be a reasonable plan: De-escalate the Afghan War, re-instate the US draft, garrison 500,000 troops on the Green Line, provide settlers six month’s to plan and execute their relocation back to Israel proper — with US money and U-Hauls — while building a protected highway and rail line between Gaza and the West Bank (precedent: travel links between W. Germany and Berlin between 1961-1989). Settlers who refuse to move will not be forced to move. They can live where they are, at their own risk, under Palestinian jurisdiction. Seems fair to all, would cost trillions less than global, generational war, bring peace, and enhance the US’ reputation in the world. What do you think? Would it not be seen as a good faith effort to correct past mistakes, and a serious and effective action that would manoeuvre the US into an undeniably defensible posture — strategically, financially, and morally?
Regards,
In response to another comment. See in context »Stan
Stan, I do understand your urge to do this… I’ve definitely heard this suggestion before.
In response to another comment. See in context »What about a less in-your-face idea, which was floated by policy experts at a policy roundtable at the New America Foundation recently: Once the borders of the new Palestinian state are established, instead of stationing a UN peacekeeping force (so no guerillas head west into Israel and no Israeli troops invade the east) why not station an American force? I thought that was brilliant…. and there might be a contingent of friendly Americans helping on the Jordan River border too (and perhaps elsewhere, to manage relations between the Palestinians and the half million or settlers who will be left inside Palestine.
Eileen, I think that Israel really has to be coerced. An in-your-face attitude towards them is necessary because they are not going to voluntarily defuse this situation by themselves. In fact, they will do precisely the opposite, on the US’ nickel. If the New American Foundation round-table idea was to station US troops between Israel and Palestine after Israel voluntarily removes its settlers from the West Bank and retreats from East Jerusalem, the idea is a non-starter. Chutzpah is required, and it must come from the US alone. Europe — including Britain and Russia — has too much baggage to be pressuring Israel to any degree, and China has nothing to do with this. History sidelines the UN Security Council; it really is the US’ responsibility.
Back in the fall of 2001 I foolishly wrote the Republican Sec. of State proposing what I suggested to you yesterday, and what Mr. Friedman has recently suggested. Of course I knew it would not read by anyone; the “pay later, with higher interest” option would be chosen by G.W. Bush, and ideas such as mine would be seen as patently terroristic. I suggested at that time that Israel be given the option to either (a) accept American logistical support and a military buffer during the evacuation of the settlements, and during the initial phases of the formation of the new state (the idea I briefly outlined above), or (b) face a complete cutoff of financial and military aid and a downgrading of diplomatic relations between the US and Israel. I am surprised to find myself in agreement with Mr. Friedman — one single phone call from Pres. Obama to the Prime Minister, giving him a hard deadline for the cutoff of weapons and money, would be very motivating.
I respectfully differ with your characterization of Israel as a close ally because I think the relationship has been grossly abused. This military alliance has been a bottomless money pit and has undermined both Israelis’ and Americans’ reputations and physical security.
I sincerely appreciate having this conversation with you.
In response to another comment. See in context »Stan, I appreciate your comments. Let’s keep talking as this issue unfolds…..
In response to another comment. See in context »I tend to agree with Thomas Friedman on this issue. I’m paraphrasing, but he essentially says that until the factions in the Middle East really step up and start doing some of the hard work, the U.S. should stay home and tend to its own, very important, domestic business. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/opinion/08friedman.html?scp=1&sq=Thomas%20Friedman,%20U.S.%20role%20in%20Israeli-Palestinian%20peace&st=cse
When they get serious, we can help facilitate.
Hi IMHO, The Tom Friedman column you refer to set off a firestorm… Did you notice he says he no longer wants to “subsidize the status quo?” Big deal if the U.S. were to be cutting off the $3 billion in annual aid…. Check out MJ Rosenberg’s analysis of the Friedman piece and a similar “cut them off” column by Joe Klein: http://mediamattersaction.org/blog/200911090002
In response to another comment. See in context »My own opinion is to keep the aid flowing to one of our closest allies, but engage on a much greater level – especially now, as this close ally has drifted dangerously to the far right politically. What we need desperately is to divide the two warring and, essentially unreconcilable societies, into two nations. The continued building of settlements is the craziest, radical-religious-right move against this obviously sensible goal, and the U.S. should be doing more to stop it.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Noam Shelef, Eileen White Read, Eileen White Read, Eileen White Read, Tweets Tube and others. Tweets Tube said: Why Obama Left MidEast Peace Out of His Speech http://bit.ly/9Vh9l4 [...]