Obama and Our Rights
No U.S. president ever dared to refer publicly to the borders of June 4, 1967 to establish a Palestinian state, as Obama did in his recent speech delivered to the Middle East last week. Former president Clinton had guaranteed these borders within the Camp David II negotiations, but did not announce them.
Obama, while referring to these limits as a basis to resolve the most complicated issues in the Middle East, knows that the Holy City of Jerusalem is located within these limits — the city that Israel fiercely judges and considers its eternal capital. He also pointed out that there is another solution for this city. I do not want to refer to this solution, but I want to say that Obama was clear, and he left the stage for the youth in the Arab countries that are most strongly allied with the United States (Tunisia and Egypt) to overthrow the two regimes. He was clear while referring to the 1967 borders, showing little care for Israel’s anger or rejection. This reveals the interests of America and the Obama administration, as well as the change its foreign policy, even if they have to sacrifice the heads of U.S. allies and collaborators who help implement its agenda.
So, do some people among those who insist on the gains at the expense of others in Iraq learn a lesson from this? Those who derive their power from the strength of U.S. support, which came because of the unlimited cooperation during the invasion — do they learn a lesson from Obama's last speech? Avoiding fabricating or creating another intractable issue in the region has become the basis of the new U.S. policy. The Iraqi parties should deal with this policy carefully and should dot the i’s and cross the t’s. The solution in Iraq is linked to this new policy and to bringing back each party to its real size, which has been amplified by the unlimited gains and growing arrogance. The historically proven rights have not been in need of a new policy — they will talk sooner or later, but Obama's speech has established the new policy and allowed us to discuss our rights.
Obama, while referring to these limits as a basis to resolve the most complicated issues in the Middle East, knows that the Holy City of Jerusalem is located within these limits — the city that Israel fiercely judges and considers its eternal capital. He also pointed out that there is another solution for this city. I do not want to refer to this solution, but I want to say that Obama was clear, and he left the stage for the youth in the Arab countries that are most strongly allied with the United States (Tunisia and Egypt) to overthrow the two regimes. He was clear while referring to the 1967 borders, showing little care for Israel’s anger or rejection. This reveals the interests of America and the Obama administration, as well as the change its foreign policy, even if they have to sacrifice the heads of U.S. allies and collaborators who help implement its agenda.
So, do some people among those who insist on the gains at the expense of others in Iraq learn a lesson from this? Those who derive their power from the strength of U.S. support, which came because of the unlimited cooperation during the invasion — do they learn a lesson from Obama's last speech? Avoiding fabricating or creating another intractable issue in the region has become the basis of the new U.S. policy. The Iraqi parties should deal with this policy carefully and should dot the i’s and cross the t’s. The solution in Iraq is linked to this new policy and to bringing back each party to its real size, which has been amplified by the unlimited gains and growing arrogance. The historically proven rights have not been in need of a new policy — they will talk sooner or later, but Obama's speech has established the new policy and allowed us to discuss our rights.