Obama understands Israel's strategic interests more than its leaders

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to the U.S. Congress on Tuesday full of “No’s will not give the Palestinians the state they aspire for and will not achieve the security and peace the Israelis so badly need.

For the Palestinians, negotiations under Netanyahu’s terms would seem futile. Their choices are to go to the United Nations to seek recognition for a state on the 1967 borders, or take to the streets in non-violent protests demanding an end to the 44-year-old occupation, or both.

Netanyahu insists that Israel is not a “foreign occupier” because the land is the Jews’ ancestral homeland.

He has told the Palestinians: 

-        Recognize Israel (borders to be determined by Israel) as the state of the Jewish people

-        No to the right of return of refugees

-        No to the return to the 1967 borders

-        No to a unity pact between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas

-        No a divided Jerusalem
(http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-to-congress-ready-to-make-painful-compromises-but-jerusalem-will-not-be-divided-1.363802)

The standing ovation and the extensive applause Netanyahu received from members of the Congress made the Palestinians wonder whether the Israeli leader represented the Americans more than U.S. President Barack Obama.

Congressmen applauded as Netanyahu challenged Obama’s speech that outlined the parameters  for peace between the Palestinians and Israel. 
The Palestinians’ experience tells them that Obama is serious about ending the conflict and helping the Palestinians achieve self-determination, though he might mean well, he is unable to press Israel to make the compromises  required to return to meaningful peace talks.

Does Netanyahu understand the factors that led to the popular explosions in Tahrir Square in Egypt, the mass protests that led to the toppling of Tunisia’s president, and protests elsewhere in Yemen, Syria, and Libya?  

Has Netanyahu not been informed of far-reaching proposals made by former Israeli prime ministers such as those made by Ehud Olmert and the understandings reached at Taba in 2000 between negotiators from both sides?

 The Israeli leader may have won a diplomatic battle in Congress, but how will he win when his country becomes more isolated in the region? Egypt is moving away from Israel. The departure of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has brought about huge changes that have a great impact on Israel. One example is the effect the reopening of the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and Gaza will have on Israel.

How will Netanyahu react when the Palestinian masses move towards the checkpoints in non-violent protests and the refugees march towards the borders from neighbouring states?

The scenario is more conflict and death.

Obama has asked the Palestinian and Israeli leaders to make the necessary compromises to restart talks. It is obvious Obama understands the changes that are reshaping the Arab World and has rushed to support the peoples’ quest for freedom and dignity. It seems obvious that Obama understands better than Netanyahu where the strategic interests of Israel lie.

There is still a chance for talks to begin but as Obama said, peace cannot be imposed, it must be negotiated.

Obama's Middle East speech creates controversy among Israelis and Palestinians

U.S. President Barack Obama raised great hopes in 2009 when he addressed the Muslim World and the Arab young generation from Cairo. His words then on ending occupation and halting settlement expansion on occupied land gave many Palestinians and Arabs a sense that there was truly a “new beginning.” A few months later, the hopes were dashed.

I was among several journalists who interviewed the new President in 2009 immediately after his Cairo University speech in June. Having covered the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for a very long time, I believed only strong intervention from the U.S. could help the sides engage in a serious peace process, but I was sure the new U.S. President would have a very hard time translating his words into action and enforce a settlement freeze.  

Obama’s speech today, his first since the Arab Spring blossomed, was a major address that outlined the American policy in the Middle East and North Africa, a policy based on backing political reforms and helping nations demanding freedoms and dignity.(http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/19/remarks-president-middle-east-and-north-africa)

He acknowledged that the U.S. had not been an actor in the Arab popular uprisings and articulated America’s policies and role in the new Middle East in a new context now that Osama Bin Laden was killed, and combat troops out of Iraq.

He warned Syrian President Bashar Assad of increased isolation if he continued to use force to quell his peoples’ uprising and bluntly said: “President Assad now has a choice. He can lead the transition, or get out of the way.”

He was also blunt in his call for allies Bahraini leaders to use dialogue and not force, though it was questionable why he stumbled or hesitated while speaking about Bahrain.

I may be skeptical, but I did not find his words on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict sufficient to revive the negotiations that were suspended following  America’s failure to enforce a settlement freeze.

I found his words were meant at telling both sides they were expected to make serious concessions to revive the peace talks and end the conflict.

Obama’s public endorsement of a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders is new, but this is not a major U.S. policy change. Former U.S. President George Bush endorsed this, Hillary Clinton stated this before. Actually Israeli leaders, including former Israeli leader Ehud Olmert, were all negotiating a solution based on the 1967 borders with agreed swaps. The disagreement was on the percentage of the land that would be swapped.

The U.S. President’s idea of a solution based on resolving the border and security issues first were not new either because his envoy, George Mitchell, who resigned last week, had worked on this with the Palestinians and Israelis for months but failed to achieve progress because the issue of settlement expansion, especially in Jerusalem, obstructed progress. Condoleeca Rice had also made an effort to reach understandings on territory first.

I believe the more critical and new elements in Obama’s speech were:

-        His rejection of Palestinian plans to seek the United Nation’s recognition of a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders.

-        His remarks on a full and phased withdrawal of Israeli troops from the West Bank. The Palestinians have repeatedly rejected new interim deals and are seeking a final deal that will end occupation and create a state. The Israelis want to keep a military presence in the Jordan Valley on what it says are security grounds.

-        Delaying the sensitive issues of Jerusalem, settlements, and refugees. This might be a non-starter for the Palestinians who have seen how the Oslo interim deals have failed to bring about an end to occupation.

-        When Obama lays down the foundations of a peace process and then says: “Ultimately, it is up to Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them, nor can endless delay make the problem go away,” he is basically saying, I will not take serious action to translate my words into action.

Many Palestinians and Arabs are skeptical of Obama’s words on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because he went so high up on the tree in 2009 when he insisted on halting settlements expansion, but then not only did he climb down fast, but he applied pressure on the moderate Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas  to accept talks without any preconditions. Abbas lost credibility and came under pressure to halt negotiations.

Obama was right to back the Arab revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. He has done the right thing for America by stating his unequivocal support for nations seeking democracy and reforms, but when in the same breath he says: “We will stand against attempts to single it (Israel) out for criticism in international forums,” he raises eyebrows among those same young people who led the revolutions in the Arab world and he may be  sending the wrong message.

 Immediately after his speech, young Arabs were tweeting skepticism of Obama's support for self-determination while he rejects a symbolic move by the Palestinians to create statehood.

Israelis tweeted their rejection of Obama’s endorsement of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders and saw this as a major U.S. policy shift.

Refugees from Syria appeal for help, tell tales of fear and death

Al-Rameh, Wadi Khaled, Lebanon, May 18 - Ten women from the Syrian towns of Tal Kalakh and Aridah sat on the porch of a small house  of a Lebanese family hosting them in the border village of al-Rameh describing the violence and fear they said had led to the displacement of thousands from their homes.
A child screamed and ran to her mother's lap at the sound of bullets in the background.
They said they fled on Saturday, leaving their money and belongings behind, as well as some male family members who they said could be either arrested or killed.

"I saw three bodies of men in pools of blood outside our home on Saturday in Tal Kalakh. Nobody dared to drag them out of the streets. Our houses were fired at by tank shells and bullets, we were terrified," a 17-year-old girl told me.

"We heard of many more killed. There were snipers everywhere. The armed Shabeeha (thugs), and armed Alawite civilians as well as the army were burning and destroying homes. Tanks were surrounding the town," her mother added.
Another woman from al-Aridah town on the border with Lebanon, said she was making breakfast for her family when she heard shots outside her home. She looked out her window and saw tanks coming down the hill.
"Our neighbours the Alawites turned into armed gangs against us the Sunnis. We were surprised because we never thought they held so much hatred for us. They burned, destroyed and shot," another woman said.

"Two bullets from snipers outside our home flew near my face while I was in my room," one said.
An older refugee woman from Aridah said her aunt was shot in the head and killed while fleeing on the bridge that separated her Syrian town from the Lebanese al-Rameh village. Another relative fleeing with her was shot and wounded in the leg.

"We didn't dare go near them to rescue them, the shooting was heavy. A Lebanese soldier braved the bullets and went to drag her inside Lebanon, he too was shot and wounded in the leg," she said, with tears welling up in her eyes.
Another woman said the fleeing woman and their children had to crawl across the bridge because "bullets were falling above our heads like rain."

According to the refugee families, some 5,000 people had fled the town of al-Aridah of 33,000.
Women said few men had succeeded to cross into Lebanon. Many of those who did, were either elderly men or crossed illegally at night.

The international media was not allowed to cover the protests inside Syria and stories by refugees could not be independently verified.

Men, who had managed to flee, gathered near the river bank that overlooked Aridah town. A few men they said were armed thugs, were seen riding motorcycles in the empty town across the river. There was no other sign of life there.
They too had stories to tell about the brutality they saw.
One young man said he had to crawl for hours out of Tal Kalakh Saturday night.
"As I was crawling, I felt dead bodies beneath me," he said.
He said the tanks and troops stormed into Tal Kalakh on Saturday a day after a demonstration called for the downfall of the regime. The men said they called for the toppling of the regime when they felt their demands for the release of prisoners went unheeded.
Asked how long their displacement would take, one man said: "I will not return. If I go back, I will either get killed or arrested."

WHAT IS OBAMA WAITING FOR?

Several Turkmen from Zara town said the too had fled on Sunday. They believed they were targetted in retaliation for Turkish Prime Minister Rajab Tayeb Ordogan's position on events in Syria.

"Ask  (U.S. President Barack) Obama what is he waiting for? Why is he not calling on Bashar Assad to step down? It didn't take him that long to call for the removal of Hosni Mubarak and Zein Bin Ali of Tunis?", one of the Turkmen said. "We're without food, communications, and electricity. Hasn't he heard of the mass grave in Dar'aa?"
Human rights lawyer Razan Zaitouna said the army and security forces have killed at least 27 civilians since the army moved into Tal Kalakh.

On Wednesday, Obama imposed sanctions on Syrian President Bashar Assad and six other senior Syrian officials. The move reflected Washington's frustration with Syria's lack of response to international condemnation of its crackdown on political protests in the country.

Human rights groups say at least 700 civilians have been killed in two months of clashes between Syrian forces and protesters seeking an end to Bashar Assad's 11-year rule.
In an interview published in the al-Watan local paper on Wednesday, Bashar Assad acknowledged for the first time that the security forces had made a mistake handling the protests.
The protests are the most serious challenge to Assad's rule.

"We have no confidence in him, we appeal to the world to help us," one young man said.

Nakba Day protesters try to claim the "Right of Return" with their bodies

Lebanon - When the masses are driven by a dream, hope, and suppressed anger, no force can control the outpour of emotions or stop the surge of the crowds.

That is what happened over 20 years ago when on "Nakba Day" thousands of Palestinians and Jordanians went in buses and cars to demonstrate near King Hussein Bridge at the Jordanian-Israeli border. I was among the masses covering the story for UPI. Despite the heavy presence of the Jordanian army and the calls for restraint by Unionists and political party leaders, the sight of Palestine so close, yet so far, across the bridge, prompted the masses to charge towards the border. The scene was chaotic, teargas and shots in the air could hardly stop the crowds who were hypnotized by the determination to move on and enforce their Right of Return.

Today, on the 63rd anniversary of the Nakba, when the Palestinian refugee problem was created along with the establishment of the State of Israel, thousands of people in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt protested at those countries' borders with Israel. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza held their own demonstrations near fences and walls that separate them from the rest of the Palestinian Territories or from Israel.  

Thousands of Palestinian refugees and Lebanese were shuttled from Saida to the border area in buses this morning. People were also shuttled from different parts in Syria to the border. The fact that they were allowed to reach the border could be interpreted as an encouragement by Hizbullah and the Syrian regime.

Hundreds effectively destroyed the border fences and entered the other side. Four were killed by Israeli fire on the border with Syria. 10 were killed in Lebanon. 

Israeli sources said 13 people were lightly wounded on Israel's side of the border near the Druze village of Majdal Shams, including 10 Israeli soldiers, by stones hurled by Nakba Day protesters.

"We'll be back" shouted the protesters returning into Syrian territory.

These people went to claim their Right of Return with their own bodies. The Israeli army may have expected trouble at the border with Lebanon, but events showed they had least expected trouble at the usually quiet border with Syria.
The Palestinians wanted to show today that they are part of the Arab revolutions. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13406869)

What do the events of today show?

For most Palestinians, it shows that the refugees have not given up on the Right of Return,  that the old and the young living in refugee camps have not forgotten. It shows that for the Arab people, the Palestinian problem and the refugee issue is still at the core of the Middle East conflict. 

Some Israeli commentators suggested that the Syrian regime and Hizbullah may be using Nakba Day to deflect attention from the bloody incidents and protests taking place in Syria. Others said the events in Lebanon and Gaza bore the fingerprints of Iran. 

Netanyahu said the Nakba Day events were not about the 1967 borders, but rather about "undermining the very existence of Israel." (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-israel-is-determined-to-defend-its-borders-sovereignty-1.361915)

Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh told a crowd of some 10,000 people in Gaza that "Palestinians mark the occasion this year with great hope of bringing to an end the Zionist project in Palestine." (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-leader-on-nakba-day-the-zionist-project-must-end-1.361798)

It is true that 63 years after the Nakba, many of those refugees uprooted from their homes and living in squalid camps in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Gaza and in the West Bank do not recognize Israel's right to exist and still hope to return to their homes in what is now Israel. These people have not given up the dream. Some had hoped the 1993 Oslo accords would end their plight, but over the years, these people saw Oslo had led to further slicing of what remained of Palestine: the gradual loss of Jerusalem, and a big chunk of the West Bank eaten up by settlements. In the end, it meant more displacement.

The majority of Palestinians who believed peace negotiations would end occupation are becoming a minority, as the Israeli society is moving more and more to the right. 

"I am horrified by the way the barrier affects the Palestinians," said Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs Valerie Amos during a visit to Jerusalem on the eve of Nakba Day. She noted that the Israeli policies of home demolitions and restrictive measures lead to forced displacement from Jerusalem and from the rest of the West Bank.

One-State Solution:

I was sitting with some Palestinian refugees in Beirut yesterday discussing the Right of Return and was struck by the deep conviction of those refugees who had never seen Palestine that eventually they will return to Haifa, Yaffa, Safad, and other towns and villages their parents were forced to flee in 1948.  

The discussion turned to the issue of the two-state solution. None of the six people I had coffee with believed it was still a viable solution. They were debating the possibility of lobbying for the one-state solution. They said discussions among refugees in exile were already underway to build support for the idea among the younger generation as a means to return to their homeland.  
Israel has repeatedly said it would never accept the one-state solution.    

The older generation still held on to their home keys and told stories about their childhood in Palestine.

In the camps of Mar Elias and Shatila, the young men and women hardly knew anything about Safad or Haifa, or their original towns and villages. They knew they were Palestinians from this or that village but had little or no information apart from that.

"If you want to know more about Safad, ask my father, he remembers," Salah, 16, from Shatila, told me.

But when asked if he wanted to return, he replied: "Nothing will stop me from hoping for the realization of that day."