Obama’s Speech: No Reason to Be Rapturous
Published in Maariv
(Israel) on 22 September 2011
by Alon Pinkas (link to original)
The jubilation that grasped the Israeli delegation regarding the American president’s speech, in which he avoided mentioning the “1967 lines,” is pitiful and absurd.
President Obama’s speech lasted 35 minutes and 50 seconds. Twenty nine minutes were about the whole world, war and peace, values, freedom, democracy, education, international relations and the importance of the U.N. Six minutes and 50 seconds were about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The gap between world developments and the status quo of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was clear and Obama repeated in several times with the same opening: “One year ago...”
One year ago in Tunisia, one year ago in Egypt, one year ago in Libya, one year ago in South Sudan, one year ago in Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps also in Syria, many things Obama said have changed for the better despite the difficulties. Many accomplishments after years of frustration. According to Obama, there are only two points of failure in the political sphere: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the refusal of North Korea and Iran to abide by international rules, norms and treaties.
Anyone who thinks that it is an achievement when the American president singles you out as a failure of the world, of the United States, of reason and of political common sense and that he deserves congratulations for the speech, does not thoroughly understand the fatigue, disgust, impatience and intolerance that exists toward Israel and the Palestinians. Obama’s call on Israelis and Palestinians to enter into negotiations immediately — that there are no shortcuts — because a country cannot rely solely on speeches and votes, should be taken with a pinch of salt.
He knows that there is a reason that there are no negotiations and in truth and that there won’t be negotiations in the future, because there is nothing to base negotiations on, neither side wants it, they aren’t capable and they have no political incentives to negotiate. “Negotiation” becomes somewhat like a meaningless mumble that every official or every politician or leader recites without a second thought. Once the buzzword was the “process,” now it’s “back to negotiations.”
When Obama hears the speeches of Prime Minister Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas, it is likely that he will finally be convinced that the gap will be unbridgeable as long as these leaders are not willing to change or soften their conceptions of justice and history as well as their basic attitudes. Everyone in the world who is interested in the topic knows the layout and lines described in the Israeli-Palestinian agreement. They are based on Clinton’s parameters, Bush’s roadmap and Obama’s outline. This is the agreement and nothing else. New programs and original initiatives are not necessary. Therefore, the jubilation that gripped the Israeli delegation and among the more sensitive ears of the media about the speech, in which he avoided mentioning the “1967 lines,” is pitiful and absurd.
Perhaps the U.S. and the world have changed their position? The 1967 lines with an exchange of agreed territories will no longer be the basis for negotiations and settlement boundaries, but rather the Jordanian border.
Does anybody really think that Obama presented an outline in May but returned to it in September because of Miss Goldberg from Miami or Republican congressmen from the “Tea Party” movement who see Netanyahu as one of their own? Even political cynics know that this is a poor explanation. The outline was presented, the parties involved were invited to construct a dialogue around it — take it or leave it. Resistance to the Palestinian process stems from being one-sided and contrary to the outline, not because of any other reason.
Therefore, even the Palestinians will be satisfied with submitting a request letter to the Security Council, and not demanding a vote. Only on rare occasions are political speeches at the U.N. valuable, interesting, creative, and newsworthy or contain a practical political program. Speeches of U.S. presidents usually turn out poorly, because a president must include a wide range of topics and issues, areas and crises that reflect the map of American interests.
Therefore, every speech in definition is about avoiding wars and an appeal to the lowest common denominator. In relation to Israel-Palestine, Obama is not out to make headlines, but to defuse the Security Council and avoid the need for an American veto. Hopefully, it will work, but compared to the fact that the U.S. has changed the foundation of its positions over the resolution of this conflict, it is wishful thinking, an illusion that will maintain a position for barely two weeks.
Obama repeated the commitment of the U.S. to Israel’s security and Israel’s unique situation — a country born after discrimination, persecution and the Holocaust and surrounded by enemies and wars since its inception. For all those enthralled with the speech, it is worth mentioning that Obama said similar things in 2008 before he was elected, in 2009, in 2010 and again in 2011. The fact that for political reasons and others they chose to portray him as being hostile to Israel only proves the worthlessness of the argument.
President Obama’s speech lasted 35 minutes and 50 seconds. Twenty nine minutes were about the whole world, war and peace, values, freedom, democracy, education, international relations and the importance of the U.N. Six minutes and 50 seconds were about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The gap between world developments and the status quo of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was clear and Obama repeated in several times with the same opening: “One year ago...”
One year ago in Tunisia, one year ago in Egypt, one year ago in Libya, one year ago in South Sudan, one year ago in Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps also in Syria, many things Obama said have changed for the better despite the difficulties. Many accomplishments after years of frustration. According to Obama, there are only two points of failure in the political sphere: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the refusal of North Korea and Iran to abide by international rules, norms and treaties.
Anyone who thinks that it is an achievement when the American president singles you out as a failure of the world, of the United States, of reason and of political common sense and that he deserves congratulations for the speech, does not thoroughly understand the fatigue, disgust, impatience and intolerance that exists toward Israel and the Palestinians. Obama’s call on Israelis and Palestinians to enter into negotiations immediately — that there are no shortcuts — because a country cannot rely solely on speeches and votes, should be taken with a pinch of salt.
He knows that there is a reason that there are no negotiations and in truth and that there won’t be negotiations in the future, because there is nothing to base negotiations on, neither side wants it, they aren’t capable and they have no political incentives to negotiate. “Negotiation” becomes somewhat like a meaningless mumble that every official or every politician or leader recites without a second thought. Once the buzzword was the “process,” now it’s “back to negotiations.”
When Obama hears the speeches of Prime Minister Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas, it is likely that he will finally be convinced that the gap will be unbridgeable as long as these leaders are not willing to change or soften their conceptions of justice and history as well as their basic attitudes. Everyone in the world who is interested in the topic knows the layout and lines described in the Israeli-Palestinian agreement. They are based on Clinton’s parameters, Bush’s roadmap and Obama’s outline. This is the agreement and nothing else. New programs and original initiatives are not necessary. Therefore, the jubilation that gripped the Israeli delegation and among the more sensitive ears of the media about the speech, in which he avoided mentioning the “1967 lines,” is pitiful and absurd.
Perhaps the U.S. and the world have changed their position? The 1967 lines with an exchange of agreed territories will no longer be the basis for negotiations and settlement boundaries, but rather the Jordanian border.
Does anybody really think that Obama presented an outline in May but returned to it in September because of Miss Goldberg from Miami or Republican congressmen from the “Tea Party” movement who see Netanyahu as one of their own? Even political cynics know that this is a poor explanation. The outline was presented, the parties involved were invited to construct a dialogue around it — take it or leave it. Resistance to the Palestinian process stems from being one-sided and contrary to the outline, not because of any other reason.
Therefore, even the Palestinians will be satisfied with submitting a request letter to the Security Council, and not demanding a vote. Only on rare occasions are political speeches at the U.N. valuable, interesting, creative, and newsworthy or contain a practical political program. Speeches of U.S. presidents usually turn out poorly, because a president must include a wide range of topics and issues, areas and crises that reflect the map of American interests.
Therefore, every speech in definition is about avoiding wars and an appeal to the lowest common denominator. In relation to Israel-Palestine, Obama is not out to make headlines, but to defuse the Security Council and avoid the need for an American veto. Hopefully, it will work, but compared to the fact that the U.S. has changed the foundation of its positions over the resolution of this conflict, it is wishful thinking, an illusion that will maintain a position for barely two weeks.
Obama repeated the commitment of the U.S. to Israel’s security and Israel’s unique situation — a country born after discrimination, persecution and the Holocaust and surrounded by enemies and wars since its inception. For all those enthralled with the speech, it is worth mentioning that Obama said similar things in 2008 before he was elected, in 2009, in 2010 and again in 2011. The fact that for political reasons and others they chose to portray him as being hostile to Israel only proves the worthlessness of the argument.