Emanuel Says Obama Insists On Implementing Two State Solution, No Ifs, Ands, or Buts

[ProgressiveMuslim]

MJ RosenbergWashington Director of Policy Analysis, Israel Policy Forum Posted April 16, 2009 - 11:06amYedioth Achronoth, the largest circulation daily in Israel, reports today that President Obama intends to see the two-state solution signed, sealed and delivered during his first term.

Rahm Emanuel told an (unnamed) Jewish leader; "In the next four years there is going to be a permanent status arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians on the basis of two states for two peoples, and it doesn't matter to us at all who is prime minister."

He also said that the United States will exert pressure to see that deal is put into place."Any treatment of the Iranian nuclear problem will be contingent upon progress in the negotiations and an Israeli withdrawal from West Bank territory," the paper reports Emanuel as saying. In other words, US sympathy for Israel's position vis a vis Iran depends on Israel's willingness to live up to its commitment to get out of the West Bank and permit the establishment of a Palestinian state there, in Gaza, and East Jerusalem.

Yedioth also reports that Obama is conveying his displeasure with the new Israeli government in several ways. "US administration officials informed Netanyahu that President Obama will not be able to meet with him in early May, while the AIPAC conference is held in Washington. The meeting between the new Israeli premier and the president of the United States is perceived in Israel as a sign that the formation process of the new government has been completed and as a salutation by Israel's close friend. Netanyahu had hoped to capitalize on the opportunity and to meet with Obama during the annual AIPAC conference, but the Americans informed the Israelis that Obama was not going to be 'in town.' That being the case, the inclination among Netanyahu's aides is to cancel his trip to attend the AIPAC conference and to try to secure a date for a meeting with Obama later in May.

"Sources in Washington also said that the Obama administration would not continue the tradition that developed during the Bush administration of hosting Israeli premiers many times during the year, sometimes with just a phone call's advance notice."

more..
http://www.israelpolicyforum.org/blog/emanuel-says-obama-insists-implementing-two-state-solution-no-ifs-ands-or-buts

[Howardx]

1. fantastic news

lets hope he follows through, theres bound to be some stormy weather ahead.

[gcomeau]

2. Finally.

If this is actually true instead of gossip mongering (that it was told to an "unnamed" Jewish leader bit leaves some doubt as to which) then it's about time we had an administration that looks like it's going to stop dicking around and put some serious muscle and pressure into sorting things out over there.

[bemildred]

3. Word.

And take that, everybody who claims that Israel has a hammerlock on US policy.

[CoffeeCat]

4. Wow, this certainly marks a departure...

...from all of the kow towing the US has done toward Israel.

Frankly, I'm shocked that we have a President who isn't bowing down.

Also, a two-state solution is incredibly ambitious! Is it even possible? The way I read this article, Obama will be
telling Israel that they need to vacate the West Bank. Aren't the implications of that massive in scope? I can't
see Israel just shrugging their collective shoulders and agreeing.

They'll kick and scream...won't they?

[bemildred]

5. It's very significant that Mr Emmanuel is on board with this.

It will be impossible to besmirch him as an Israel hater. He is very close to Obama.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel

Edit: this is going to make for exploding heads all over the place.
:popcorn:

[ProgressiveMuslim]

6. I'm ecstatic! Quick, someone get on the phone with Meshal! nt

[bemildred]

8. LOL. Yeah, right.

You forgot the sarcasm smiley.

Edit: it is of course worth remembering that in politics talk is cheap, and cynical ploys are the coin of the realm. Nevertheless rhetoric does matter.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

17. I *am* ecstatic -- and I do home someone talks some sense into the Palestinian

leaderships -- this could be an opportunity!

[bemildred]

19. Well all right.

Sorry if I misread you. :spank:

Anyone with a brain knows that Hamas cannot be ignored. But I expect that will not ensue immediately. Some talks will have to occur, some deals be made, some compromises, some political theater acted out.

I would speculate that the Hamas track will not get much attention until Bibi and his boys have decided to play ball, or not. They have had it their own way for so long, it may take them a while to adjust. Some tantrums to be thrown, etc. It's going to be interesting.

It would certainly be folly of a high order for Hamas not to cooperate. Hopefully this will be an incentive to push the "unity talks" forward.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

20. Unity talks without the spotlight and pressure could be a great thing...

We saw Marwan B. on the news yesterday bemoaning the lack of progress therein... maybe it's time to free one who could be the great uniter!

[Ken Burch]

122. Could someone do a Marwan B. graphic in the style of the "HOPE" poster?

That'd be good right now.

[Howardx]

30. hamas's time to choose

nihilism or really helping the palestinian people. hope they make the right choice.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

52. I honestly don't think it's nihilism.

They certainly called the Oslo process correctly... And they are correct in refusing to play along with the failed peace process charade as it stands a la "annapolis"...

But this could be a chance to re-write the rules of engagement, and I do hope they are given, and take, that opportunity to have a voice at the table.

[shira]

62. this is the key - hoping someone talks some sense into PA leadership

It would be great to see peace there within 4 years, but it takes 2 to tango.

If PA leadership (described below by Saeb Erekat) hasn't changed in the last 8 years since Camp David / Taba, there's no chance for real peace within 4 years:

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2074.htm

[ProgressiveMuslim]

63. Everyone who posted on this thread is clear about the "key" and it involves

some massive pressure on Israel.

[shira]

66. that "key"

is to pressure Israel to come back and offer what President Clinton called "the ceiling" at Taba 8 years ago? And hope for a better result?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

70. If Barak hadn't walked, who knows where that would have ended?

[shira]

71. yeah right, the "ceiling" or limit was rejected soundly by Arafat...what was there to negotiate?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

74. You're so right. Israel's "ceiling" is sacred. Full steam ahead with apartheid! nt

[shira]

75. Those were Clinton's parameters - what he viewed as Israel's ceiling.

Seriously - what was so terrible about the Taba parameters that it was wholly rejected by Arafat?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

78. We shall see. I would have thought a peace-lover such as yourself would be thrilled with

these developments.

Rather taciturn, aren't we?

[shira]

80. you're the one stating someone has to talk some sense into PA leadership

I agreed with that. Now you seem to be backtracking from that position.

Why?

I have no reason to believe Israel would turn down peace if the opportunity presented itself. I trust that the people of Israel will see to it that their leadership, no matter who is in charge, whether Begin, Rabin, Barak, or Netanyahu - the people will hold the govt responsible for making peace at the right price (just not at any price). Israelis have had enough of war and occupation and do not prefer to keep sending their children and grandchildren into combat scenarios.

Really now - what was so terrible about the Taba parameters? You realize what was offered then and you expect significantly better? If so, what are you expecting that wasn't offered then?

Here's a sober view from Larry Derfner:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710698216&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

"...EVEN if we could agree with them (HAMAS) on the borders between Israel and Palestine - an extreme long-shot - there's no way on Earth we could agree on the so-called right of return for Palestinian refugees. There are all sorts of suggestions how to bridge this gap, but even the most "generous," from a Palestinian point of view, is totally unacceptable - even to me, and I'm probably more left-wing than 95 percent of Israeli Jews.

The most far-reaching concession I've heard is that we needn't agree to let the refugees return to Haifa, Jaffa, etc., so long as we acknowledge responsibility for their tragedy. We must, in effect, apologize for having made them refugees.

This is ridiculous. This suggestion, which I first heard of years ago coming from Sari Nusseibeh, the most moderate Palestinian leader alive, and that I most recently read in a column by The New York Times's Roger Cohen, requires us to tell a terrible lie against ourselves. I am ready to apologize for a lot of things we've done to the Palestinians - I apologize for the settlements, I apologize for Operation Cast Lead - but I am not ready to apologize for the direct consequence of a war the Palestinians started.

"

[ProgressiveMuslim]

83. Shira... ever the word twister.

The key to solving this problem is to move the intransigent Israeli gov't to negotiate the real issues in good faith and not walk away.

I am simply stating above, that while the pressure is on Israel for a change, this coudl be a great opportunity for the Palestinian factions to focus on unity.

PERIOD.

We'll see what the nonsensical denial of the Nakba plays in the negotiations. I can imagine how hard it is for your some of your hardline people to look in the mirror and admit what their foreparents wrought. It was ugly. That's why I so admire people like Phil Weiss and Richard Silverstein. What courage it takes to face the truth, admit it, and call for repentance.

Truly courageous.

With that, I'm done with your word-twisting games. Have a nice day.

[shira]

88. what was in 'bad faith' about the Taba initiatives via Prez Clinton that Israel agreed to

and Arafat rejected as if it were the plague?

What was so terrible about the Clinton initiatives at Taba?

Bueller? Bueller?

[shira]

89. what was in 'bad faith' about the Taba initiatives via Prez Clinton that Israel agreed to

and Arafat rejected as if it were the plague?

What was so terrible about the Clinton initiatives at Taba?

Bueller? Bueller?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

94. Weren't those talks suspended due to the Israeli elections?

Didn't the winner -- war criminal Ariel Sharon -- refuse to resume?

[shira]

95. nope - Israel's best offer by Clinton's standards was wholly rejected by Arafat

Clinton's initiatives represented the 'ceiling' or 'maximimum' that Israel could negotiate and with a few tweaks Israel agreed. Arafat rejected every bit of it. There's no negotiating way past the 'ceiling'. Given another month, there wouldn't have been a deal b/c that was as far as Israel could go.

Nice try.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

96. This is just nonsense Shira.

Barak developed a different offer that went nowhere... the talks were scrapped by Sharon. Palestinians accepted that offer as the basis of negotiations.

Nice try.

I have no interest in fighting the "whose history is correct" fight with you.

Do *you* support 2-states on the '67 borders as the basis of a 2-state solution?

[shira]

98. The 'ceiling' at Taba does not represent the 'floor' for further negotiations and THAT is why

it was pulled. President Clinton himself stated that this was the 'max' deal for Israel and that they really couldn't go any further. Arafat rejected each and every bit of it, which goes to show he wasn't at all interested in a peace deal. Saeb Erekat's latest (below) shows this very clearly:

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2074.htm

And for the 3rd time in the last week, yes, I'm for 2-states on negotiated '67 borders that will result in 100% of that territory pre-'67 for a Palestinian state. It appears that land is holy to you and that every single inch of land prior to June 4, 1967 should make up the new Palestinian state. Am I correct?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

100. You should help put some pressure on the gov't of Israel to make that concession.

It would be a good use of your time and bountiful energy.

[Idealism]

103. Again with the bullshit, shira. Stop with your useless lies about Taba

It was rejected by Israel. End of story.

[shira]

105. bullshit and lies, right?

What's bullshit and lies are the views you're peddling, as opposed to those articulated by Clinton, Barak, ben Ami, and Ross.

Clinton's parameters weren't even the ceiling, they were the roof. They were the culmination of thousands of hours of discussions between the sides and represented what Clinton believed to be as far as Israel could go. Recall that at Camp David, Arafat offered no ideas of his own, as the Israeli team was basically negotiating against themselves, offering more and more and Arafat each time said 'No'. The Clinton parameters were offered as the best and most that could be offered at the time.

They were rejected by Arafat BEFORE Taba.

Going to Taba was a waste of time, therefore, for Barak. Because at Taba, all that Israel would negotiate was how to IMPLEMENT the Clinton parameters - not use them as a FLOOR for further concessions to the PA. The PA had already rejected the parameters, so why go to Taba? The parameters were the only thing on the table - not their use as a floor for further concessions. And it was CLINTON who pulled the parameters away. It was the end of CLINTON's term that was the reason for the rush to Taba. Not Barak and his election. Barak felt forced to go b/c if he didn't, he'd have been viewed in public as giving up on peace before the elections.

All this is confirmed by Clinton, Barak, Ross, and ben-Ami. All being left-of-center and certainly not RW'ers.

The Moratinos report is NOT an official document and is only described as a relatively fair account of Taba, meaning it's barely adequate as a fully representative view of what really went on there. Nor does it in any way explain how the Clinton parameters was the ceiling or roof, a "take it or leave it" type of offer.

None of the above is bullshit or lies.

In fact, I'd like to see you try to refute ANY of the above with more than your own speculation, assertions, or assumptions. Call it a challenge. Put up or shut up time, okay?

[Idealism]

107. It is pretty bad when Wikipedia flat out refutes you, not to mention the European Union

who had NO dog in that fight, and thus no motive to lie (especially considering ALL SIDES AGREED).

[shira]

109. once again, when you find something refuting Clinton, Barak, Ross, and ben-Ami, then I'm certain you

will let me know.

Until then...

[Idealism]

112. Your claim that Arafat caused Taba to fail is directly refuted by the EU.

Nothing more need be said.

[shira]

115. it is? The EU paper shows how maximalist Arafat's demands were.

Wanting strict June 4, 1967 borders, not wanting to recognize any Jewish holy places in Jerusalem, demanding full right of return, no Israeli security on Jordan border, no Israeli airspace over the W.Bank, etc... is hardly evidence that Arafat and gang acted in good faith trying to do what was best for the Palestinian people.

Can you really say that you believe Arafat and his gang really tried to strike a deal at Taba?

[Jefferson23]

113. More from you:

"It was the end of CLINTON's term that was the reason for the rush to Taba. Not Barak and his election. Barak felt forced to go b/c if he didn't, he'd have been viewed in public as giving up on peace before the elections."


You should read every word shira,it would be worth your time and if you listened to the DU member in post #107 more often, you'd be a lot more informed than you are now. Link to interview in full at the bottom.


From Dr. Ben-Ami.
snip*

"Now, with regard to Taba, you see, we were a government committing suicide, practically. Two weeks before general elections, the chief of staff, General Mofaz, who is now the Minister of Defense, comes and in a—I say that in the book—in something that is tantamount to a coup d’etat, comes and says publicly that we are putting at risk the future of the state of Israel by assuming the Clinton parameters, and we accept them, we assume them. And then I go to Cairo and I meet President Mubarak, and President Mubarak invites Arafat to see me in Cairo, and I say to Arafat, “We are going to fine tune this in a meeting in Taba, if you wish.” And then we go to Taba, and we negotiate in Taba. And in Taba, Prime Minister Barak instructs me to conduct secret negotiations with Abu Alla. Within the negotiations, we had the second track trying to reach an agreement, and he even agrees to all kind of things that he was not very open to before that.

Now, this was the end. We saw that we are not reaching an agreement, and we need to go back, even if for the electoral campaign. I mean, we were a week before the elections. I mean, we were practically nonexistent. Our legitimacy as a government to negotiate such central issues as Jerusalem, as Temple Mount, the temple, etc., was being questioned, not only by the right that was making political capital out of it, but by the left, people from our own government. “Shlomo Ben-Ami is ready to sell out the country for the sake of a Nobel Prize.” This is what Haim Ramon said, one of the labor ministers, so it was unsustainable. We could not go any longer."

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/14/fmr_israeli_foreign_minister_shlomo_ben

[shira]

116. not exactly, Sherlock

Here's Dennis Ross when he was interviewed on Fox News:

HUME: Now, it is often said that this whole sequence of talks here sort of fell apart or ended or broke down or whatever because of the intervention of the Israeli elections. What about that?

ROSS: The real issue you have to understand was not the Israeli elections. It was the end of the Clinton administration. The reason we would come with what was a culminating offer was because we were out of time.

They asked us to present the ideas, both sides. We were governed by the fact that the Clinton administration was going to end, and both sides said we understand this is the point of decision.

And here's Shlomo ben Ami just a few sentences after what you quoted but decided not to include:


We have done our very best. We went to the outer limits of our capacity for compromise without disintegrating entirely our home front, and this is an exercise that Sharon decided not to make, precisely because he learned from our experience. He said, “Listen, we are not going to do that. I am going to be unilateral. I don’t believe in negotiations.” It’s very bad, but this is the lesson that he learned from the sad experience of the collapse of the peace process in the last year of Clinton’s presidency.

Here's ben Ami in another interview:

The proposal was difficult for us to accept. No one came out dancing and singing, and Ehud especially was perturbed. At the same time, three days later, the cabinet decided on a positive response to Clinton. All the ministers supported it, with the exception of Matan Vilnai and Ra'anan Cohen. I informed the Americans that Israel's answer was yes....

We sent the Americans a document of several pages containing our reservations. But as far as I recall, they were pretty minor and dealt mainly with security arrangements and deployment areas and control over the passages. There was also clarification concerning our sovereignty over the Temple Mount. There was no doubt that our reply was positive. In order to remove any doubts, I called Arafat on December 29, at Ehud's instructions, and told him that Israel accepted the parameters and that any further discussion should be only within the framework of the parameters and on how to implement them.

Arafat rejected the Clinton parameters. The whole point for Taba was to implement those parameters. Thus, Taba was a failure before it ever started. Arafat wasn't budging on the 1948 - June 4 1967 armistice lines as borders or the right of return:

The essence of the right of return is choice: Palestinians should be given the option to choose where they wish to settle, including return to the homes from which they were driven. There is no historical precedent for a people abandoning their fundamental right to return to their homes whether they were forced to leave or fled in fear. We will not be the first people to do so. Recognition of the right of return and the provision of choice to refugees is a pre-requisite for the closure of the conflict.

The right of return by itself is a game ender. Factor in the strict 1967 borders which would take out the biggest settlements of Jerusalem, no Israeli use of airspace over the W.Bank even for commercial flights, no recognition of any Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem, etc... and it's easy to see Arafat was never going to agree to anything in Taba - but only try to use Taba to gain more concessions from Israel in future negotiations (thus, Taba and CD were not wastes of time for the PA at all as they were able to bring Israel to their limits).

There is no evidence that Barak staying 2 more days at Taba would have bridged the enormous gap Arafat and his gang had with the Israeli negotiating team.

There is also no evidence that Arafat was ever serious at Taba and wanted to do what was right for Palestinians. But here you are putting the blame on Israel and defending Arafat and his maximalist demands that did nothing but EXTEND the conflict and bring on MORE suffering and misery for Palestinians. I find it hard to believe that ANYONE claiming to be pro-Palestinian would defend Arafat's performance at CD/Taba.

All evidence from the CD/Taba summits points to the Israeli team working their asses off to try to come to a reasonable agreement and the PA side not budging from its unrealistic maximalist demands.

Seriously, what evidence do you see from the CD/TABA negotiations that Arafat and company tried negotiating in good faith to come to a peaceful, win-win, 2-state situation for both sides in the conflict?

[Jefferson23]

117. Where is the link to your post?

The interview and exchange between Finkelstein and Ben Ami was in totality at the link, that you did not read it is your choice. Nothing you have posted here has changed what actually happened and you know it. I see it took you days to even respond to post#113.

[shira]

118. which post? try google with quotation marks.

I did read the exchange, BTW, and even if you wish to believe Barak left early due to elections - that's fine. What leads you to believe that 2 more day would have made a bit of difference? I notice you didn't respond to any of my points in the last post. And I didn't even see your #113 until someone bumped the thread hours ago.

Seriously now, what evidence do you have that Arafat was serious at Taba? Do you have any?

[Jefferson23]

119. Your post to me, post # 116, please provide the link. I don't go

hunting down your information for you.

[shira]

120. links

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50830,00.html
http://www.weizmann.ac.il/home/comartin/israel/ben-ami.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/03/world/palestinians-outline-objections-to-clinton-peace-plan.html?sec=&spon=

[Jefferson23]

121. Thank you for posting the links. My concern is this, when you said

earlier to the Democracy Now interview: "I did read the exchange, BTW, and even if you wish to believe Barak left early due to elections - that's fine."

I am flabbergasted by this, if I wish?? Those words were said by Ben Ami himself yet you believe Ross's version.

Maximalist? demands by Arafat you say, I don't think you read the interview.

*snip from Democracy Now interview:

Finkelstein: Come 1981, as pressure builds on Israel to reach a diplomatic settlement in the Israel-Palestine conflict, they decide to invade Lebanon in order to crush the P.L.O., because the P.L.O. was on record supporting a two-state settlement. As Dr. Ben-Ami’s colleague, Avner Yaniv, put it in a very excellent book, Dilemmas of Security, he said, “The main problem for Israel was,” and now I’m quoting him, “the P.L.O.’s peace offensive. They wanted a two-state settlement. Israel did not.” And so Israel decides to crush the P.L.O. in Lebanon. It successfully did so. The P.L.O. goes into exile.

Along comes Israel with a clever idea. Mr. Rabin says, ‘Let’s throw Arafat a life preserver, but on condition.’ And Dr. Ben-Ami puts it excellently, that “the P.L.O. will be Israel’s subcontractor and collaborator in the Occupied Territories,” and I’m quoting Dr. Ben-Ami, “in order to suppress the genuinely democratic tendencies of the Palestinians.” Now, it’s true, exactly as Dr. Ben-Ami said, that Israel had two options after the Iraq war. It could have negotiated with the real representatives of the Palestinians who wanted that full two-state settlement in accordance with the international consensus, or it can negotiate with Arafat in the hope that he’s so desperate that he’s going to serve as their collaborator and subcontractor in order to deny the Palestinians what they’re entitled to under international law.
The Israelis chose Arafat, not only because Arafat himself was desperate. They chose him because they thought he would deny them what they were entitled to. He would suppress all resistance to the occupation. And then, finally, the day of reckoning came with the Camp David talks. It turned out Arafat was not willing to make those concessions to deny Palestinians what their rights were under international law, and I think that’s where the impasse occurred at Camp David and at Taba.

snip* Ben Ami:
As far as the second part of Dr. Finkelstein’s presentation is concerned, I agree. It is based on what I say, and the only thing I would add to it is that international law was the last — or the least of Arafat’s concern. He didn’t give a damn about international law. It was not whether or not the agreement was based on international law or not that concerned Arafat. In my view, this is my interpretation of a man I met many, many times. I might be wrong, obviously, but this is my firsthand interpretation of this man. He was morally, psychologically, physically incapable of accepting the moral legitimacy of a Jewish state, regardless of its borders or whatever. Arafat was incapable of closing or locking the door of his endless conflict between us and the Palestinians. And this is the bottom line.

I mean, in Taba, it had nothing to do with international law. In Taba, what happened was that Arafat really believed that Bush son is a replica of Bush father, and Bush father was known in the Arab world as more friendly, or at least partially deaf to Jewish concerns. This was his image in the Arab world. I remember a visit I made to President Mubarak. After we left office, I said “Everybody speaks about military intelligence, Mr. President, but we all failed in our political intelligence. You wanted the election of President Bush. We wanted the election of Al Gore, and then we ended up with the most friendly president to the state of Israel ever in the White House.” So this was the conviction of Arafat, that he can still get a better deal from President Bush. His concerns were of a political nature more than anything else, and this is where he failed again, because Arafat had always a sense of somebody who knows everything. I mean, he thought of himself as a great strategist, and this is where he failed time and again, and he betrayed the cause of his own people, because at the end of the day, today, the Palestinians are becoming the second Kurds of the Middle East, a nation that is moving away from the chances of having a state.

snip*
SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Yes, Hamas. I think that in my view there is almost sort of poetic justice with this victory of Hamas. After all, what is the reason for this nostalgia for Arafat and for the P.L.O.? Did they run the affairs of the Palestinians in a clean way? You mentioned the corruption, the inefficiency. Of course, Israel has contributed a lot to the disintegration of the Palestinian system, no doubt about it, but their leaders failed them. Their leaders betrayed them, and the victory of Hamas is justice being made in many ways. So we cannot preach democracy and then say that those who won are not accepted by us. Either there is democracy or there is no democracy.


Finkelstein:
Let’s now turn to, just quickly, the last issue. It’s going to be hard for a lot of your listeners, because even though I have read two dozen books on the topic, I keep getting things confused. Camp David accord talks are in July 2000. Clinton parameters are roughly December 23rd, 2000. Taba, in January 2001. Now, Dr. Ben-Ami says Camp David, I can understand why the Palestinians turned down. Unfortunately, in his book he keeps referring to Arafat’s unyielding positions, even though now he acknowledges Palestinians made concessions at Camp David. In fact, as I said, all the concessions, within the framework of international law, came from the Palestinians.

Let’s now turn to those Clinton parameters. Dr. Ben-Ami accurately renders their content. I don’t think he accurately renders in the book what happened. He states in the book that at Taba, Israelis accept — excuse me, at the time of the Clinton parameters, the Israelis accepted the Clinton parameters. Arafat didn’t really accept the Clinton parameters. He said he did, but he didn’t. What actually happened? What actually happened was exactly as what was announced by the White House spokesman on January 3rd, 2001, the official statement was both the Israelis and the Palestinians have accepted the Clinton parameters with some reservations. Both sides entered reservations on the Clinton parameters. Dr. Ben-Ami leaves out in the book both sides. He only mentions the reservations by the Palestinians.

Wait, one last point. One last point. Dr. Ben-Ami left out another crucial point in his account. He doesn’t tell us why Taba ended. It ended officially when Barak withdrew his negotiators. It wasn’t the Palestinians who walked out of Taba. It ended with the Israelis walking out of Taba, a matter of historical record, not even controversial.

SHLOMO BEN-AMI:

Okay, well. You see, as somebody who was a part of those who prepared the Israeli document that was submitted to President Clinton, I can say that the bulk of the document was an expression of our — the comparison that we made between our initial positions and what was reflected in the Clinton parameters. It was not a series of reservations. It was basically a mention of the difference, the way that we have gone. This was an attempt to impress the President, more than an attempt to say that these are reservations, sine qua nons. There were no real reservations in our document, whereas in the Palestinian document, there were plenty of them, with the refugees, with the Haram al-Sharif, with what have you. I mean, it was full of reservations from beginning to end. Ours was not a document about reservations, it was a statement, basically, that said these were our positions, this is where we stand today. we have gone a very long way, we cannot go beyond that. This was essentially what we sent.

Now, with regard to Taba, you see, we were a government committing suicide, practically. Two weeks before general elections, the chief of staff, General Mofaz, who is now the Minister of Defense, comes and in a — I say that in the book — in something that is tantamount to a coup d’etat, comes and says publicly that we are putting at risk the future of the state of Israel by assuming the Clinton parameters, and we accept them, we assume them. And then I go to Cairo and I meet President Mubarak, and President Mubarak invites Arafat to see me in Cairo, and I say to Arafat, “We are going to fine tune this in a meeting in Taba, if you wish.” And then we go to Taba, and we negotiate in Taba. And in Taba, Prime Minister Barak instructs me to conduct secret negotiations with Abu Alla. Within the negotiations, we had the second track trying to reach an agreement, and he even agrees to all kind of things that he was not very open to before that.

Now, this was the end. We saw that we are not reaching an agreement, and we need to go back, even if for the electoral campaign. I mean, we were a week before the elections. I mean, we were practically nonexistent. Our legitimacy as a government to negotiate such central issues as Jerusalem, as Temple Mount, the temple, etc., was being questioned, not only by the right that was making political capital out of it, but by the left, people from our own government. “Shlomo Ben-Ami is ready to sell out the country for the sake of a Nobel Prize.” This is what Haim Ramon said, one of the labor ministers, so it was unsustainable. We could not go any longer. So, to say that we — now the whole thing collapsed because we put a helicopter at the disposal of the Palestinians to go and see if we can rubricate some basic peace parameters on the basis of our negotiations, that they didn’t want it, Arafat didn’t want it.

Anyway, the thing is that we need to understand that with all — frankly, with all due respect for the requirements of international law, at the end of the day, at the end of the day, a peace process is a political enterprise. And there are things that governments can do and things that they cannot do, because if you do things that leave you without political support, then you can do nothing. You can write poetry, not make peace. And we have been writing poetry ever since, because we are not in office. We have been advancing all kind of peace dreams.

It is only when you are in office and you have a political support that you can move ahead. This is the only way that peace is done. We have done our very best. We went to the outer limits of our capacity for compromise without disintegrating entirely our home front, and this is an exercise that Sharon decided not to make, precisely because he learned from our experience.

He said, “Listen, we are not going to do that. I am going to be unilateral. I don’t believe in negotiations.” It’s very bad, but this is the lesson that he learned from the sad experience of the collapse of the peace process in the last year of Clinton’s presidency.(end)


At one point during the interview Ben Ami states: "There is no way — there is no way we can fully compensate the refugees and the Palestinians, but we need to do our very, very best to find a way to minimize the harm that was done to this nation."

I hope Netanyahu is listening to that voice.

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/democracy-now-debate-with-finkelstein-shlomo-ben-ami/

[shira]

124. so what does this prove in your opinion? I'm curious.

After Taba, the PA position under Arafat was still:

1. Strict June 4, 1967 borders that would have left Israel with the armistice lines of 1948 and evacuation of the major settlements surrounding Jerusalem.

2. No recognition of Jerusalem holy places for Jews like the Western Wall, holy basin, temple mount, etc..

3. No security for Israel by allowing some troops near Jordan to serve as first warnings in the event there is another attack against Israel from Iraq, etc.

4. No Israeli flights (even commercial) over the W.Bank into ben Gurion airport, etc..

5. Right of return to ANY palestinian who wishes to go back into Israel

====================

Do you deny that's where the PA stood at Taba and was not budging?

Seriously - how do you pin the blame on Barak for leaving 2 days early when this is what he was facing? Besides, Finkelstein all but admits in the parts you quoted that Arafat had zero intention of making peace (due to being intentionally placed in command by Rabin in the 90's to thwart any type of peace process). But you're thinking there was a good chance Arafat would have accepted a deal in another 2 days, after 6 months holding to the above 5 positions?

Again - what evidence do you have - not just statements by some people - showing that Arafat really was close to settling at Taba when you consider the enormous differences in the above 5 points?

[Jefferson23]

126. You have ignored what I addressed to you, I provided words from

Ben Ami himself about the election and that is what I took issue with.

For the remainder of your post is another poor characterization of the interview by you. Also, you have been presented information from other members here that have given you other non-controversial accounts and yet you ignore those too. Ultimately this is your choice, but keep in mind that this interview with Finkelstein and Ben Ami refutes your previous claim.

[shira]

128. but even though Barak left 2 days early, what makes you think Arafat wanted to make peace?

The only reason you bring up Barak leaving 2 days early for elections is that you believe had he not done so, there was a good chance a deal could have been made. With Arafat's demands as they were, what makes you think it would have been worth Barak's time to remain there another 2 days?

[shira]

131. crickets....how typical.

[rateyes]

137. "The essence of the right of return is choice: Palestinians should be given

the option to choose where they wish to settle, including return to the homes from which they were driven. There is no historical precedent for a people abandoning their fundamental right to return to their homes whether they were forced to leave or fled in fear. We will not be the first people to do so. Recognition of the right of return and the provision of choice to refugees is a pre-requisite for the closure of the conflict."

----------------

One thing you have to say about Arafat---when he was right, he was right.

[shaayecanaan]

123. Official joint statement by Israel and the PA following the Taba talks

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2001/1/Israeli-Palestinian+Joint+Statement+-+27-Jan-2001.htm

27 January 2001

The Israeli and Palestinian delegations conducted during the last six days serious, deep and practical talks with the aim of reaching a permanent and stable agreement between the two parties.

"The Taba talks were unprecedented in their positive atmosphere and expression of mutual willingness to meet the national, security and existential needs of each side.

"Given the circumstances and time constraints, it proved impossible to reach understandings on all issues, despite the substantial progress that was achieved in each of the issues discussed.

"The sides declare that they have never been closer to reaching an agreement and it is thus our shared belief that the remaining gaps could be bridged with the resumption of negotiations following the Israeli elections.

[shira]

125. it's called diplomacy - setting all sides up psychologically in the future for negotiations

You realize where the PA under Arafat stood at the end of Taba on refugees, borders, holy places, etc.? And you think those differences could have been bridged "if only" Barak had stayed another 2 days? If so - why do you think this? Blind faith? After 6 months and these PA positions, 2 more days could very well have done it? Really?

Have you seen this by Saeb Erekat on the negotiations in 2000?
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2074.htm

And 2 more days, had Barak just stayed, would have done it?

Are you serious?

[shaayecanaan]

129. Actually, its called a statement...

And you think those differences could have been bridged "if only" Barak had stayed another 2 days?

6 weeks. That was Saeb Erakat's position. Im not sure how much time the Israelis thought it would take; however, the statement makes clear that they thought that further negotiations after the election could reach a settlement. The statement also makes clear that it was the Israeli elections that was the time constraint, and not the US elections or Palestinian truculence as Dennis Ross attempts to claim these days.

I quoted from the official statement of the Israeli and Palestinian delegations to the Taba talks. If you disagree with that, then you not only disagree with the Palestinians, but the Israelis as well.

[shira]

130. of course it's a statement.......you don't seriously believe it do you?

Saeb Erekat said that 6 weeks were needed but also said this just recently:
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2074.htm

Did you view (read) that yet?

After 6 months of negotiations starting from Camp David, the PA still wanted June 4, 1967 borders, full right of return, no recognition of Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem including the Western Wall, no flyspace for Israel over the W.Bank into ben Gurion airport, etc.

But because Erekat said so, you believe him WRT 6 more weeks being needed?

Seriously?

If so, what makes you think Arafat would have backed down from those demands in 6 weeks? Or that Israel would have ever agreed to such demands in 6 weeks?

[shaayecanaan]

132. yes, because the Israelis said so...

it was a joint statement. Therefore, it was the Israelis' statement as much as it was the Palestinians'. Both the Palestinians and Israelis stated that the two sides were extremely close to a deal, and that it was the belief of both sides that a settlement could be reached after the Israeli elections.

We will never know what might have happened, because of course Sharon refused to continue the negotiations.

After 6 months of negotiations starting from Camp David, the PA still wanted June 4, 1967 borders, full right of return, no recognition of Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem including the Western Wall, no flyspace for Israel over the W.Bank into ben Gurion airport, etc.

This is absolutely false:-

1) The Palestinian proposal allowed for a retention of 3.1% of the West Bank by Israel.

2) There were also no objections relating to Israeli civil aviation in Palestinian airspace - the disputes related only to military exercises in Palestinian airspace, as well as Israel's desire to maintain exclusive control of civil administration of both Israeli and Palestinian airspace.

3) It was agreed that there would be Israeli control of Jewish holy sites, and Palestinian control of Muslim holy sites. There was a dispute as to the exact boundary of the Western Wall, but the principle was not in dispute.

The EU account of the talks, which have been endorsed by both sides as an accurate account of the talks, confirms this. http://www.mideastweb.org/moratinos.htm

Again, you have shown your absolute ignorance of the most basic facts pertaining to the dispute.

[shira]

133. so you believe the 2 sides were close to a deal b/c both sides said so?

1) The Palestinian proposal allowed for a retention of 3.1% of the West Bank by Israel.

The Palestinian proposal allowed for a few settlements connected only by some very narrow roads. That was it. The PA rejected major settlement blocks around Jerusalem like Maale Adumim that could have been annexed by Israel and traded for land already in Israel. The Morantinos report shows the PA rejected Israeli annexation of the major settlement blocks surrounding Jerusalem. This is a maximalist PA demand. Complete dealbreaker.

2) There were also no objections relating to Israeli civil aviation in Palestinian airspace - the disputes related only to military exercises in Palestinian airspace, as well as Israel's desire to maintain exclusive control of civil administration of both Israeli and Palestinian airspace.

ROSS: He wouldn't even countenance the idea that the Israelis would be able to operate in Palestinian airspace.

You know when you fly into Israel today you go to Ben Gurion. You fly in over the West Bank because you can't -- there's no space through otherwise. He rejected that.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50830,00.html

3) It was agreed that there would be Israeli control of Jewish holy sites, and Palestinian control of Muslim holy sites. There was a dispute as to the exact boundary of the Western Wall, but the principle was not in dispute.

You're not even remotely close and here's what was said at that time to deny any Jewish past history - and therefore deny Jews of their holy sites:

Dennis Ross on Arafat: "The only thing he did say was that the Second Temple, destroyed by the Romans almost 2000 years ago, never existed in Jerusalem as the Jews believe. He said it was located somewhere in Nablus".

Abu Ala: "We want complete Palestinian sovereignty on the Mount of Olives, on the tombs of the prophets and on all
that you call 'The Holy Basin." "The Israelis claimed that under the Mosques there is something that belongs to them."

Nabil Sha'ath: "Israel demands control of the Temple Mount based on its claim that its fictitious temple stood there."

Saeb Erekat: "there is no proof that the Jewish Temple is at the site of the Temple Mount.

Abu Mazen: "Jews claim that 2000 years ago they had a temple. I challenge the claim that this is so."
"Jerusalem must return to our sovereignty, and we will establish our capital in it."

The EU account of the talks, which have been endorsed by both sides as an accurate account of the talks, confirms this. http://www.mideastweb.org/moratinos.htm

Nope. Read it more carefully and then read first hand accounts from Palestinian negotiators themselves, not second hand incomplete reports.

Again, you have shown your absolute ignorance of the most basic facts pertaining to the dispute.

Yeah...okay, and you didn't even go into Right of Return, which is a dealbreaker all by itself. In addition, you didn't tell me if you ever read/viewed Erekat from a few weeks ago here on the summits from 2000-01:
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2074.htm

I don't understand why you choose fiction over facts WRT recent history, but that seems to be the position of most "pro-Palestinians" here at DU for some reason.

[shaayecanaan]

134. So you don't believe the Israelis any more?

I earnestly await whatever tinfoil-hat logic you propose to explain why Israel would (a) make a joint statement with the Palestinians and (b) endorse the EU account of the talks, if both were untrue.

The Palestinian proposal allowed for a few settlements connected only by some very narrow roads. That was it.

Your previous post said that the Palestinians refused to budge from the 1967 borders. Either you were (a) wrong then (b) wrong now or (c) wrong entirely. Which is it?

ROSS: He wouldn't even countenance the idea that the Israelis would be able to operate in Palestinian airspace.

You know when you fly into Israel today you go to Ben Gurion. You fly in over the West Bank because you can't -- there's no space through otherwise. He rejected that.

Dennis Ross is firmly in the Israel corner. He is also a liar. He claims in his memoir that the Palestinians "respected him" throughout the negotiations although the Palestinians stressed that they found him irritating and superfluous. At one stage Arafat suggested to Clinton that negotiations would proceed better without him in the room, meaning that Ross was actually not present for many of the more candid discussions that took place between the US and the Palestinians. Some of Ross' claims have also been questioned by the Israelis - for example, Ross takes credit for persuading Barak to agree to the division of Jerusalem at Taba, although his personal stance is that Jerusalem should remain undivided. Barak has not expressly denied this but others close to Israel have.

His representations about Palestinian objections to Israeli civil aviation are a lie. The Palestinians eventually planned on having an international airport near Ramallah as well as Gaza. The Palestinians also knew that if they refused Israel access to its airspace Israel would refuse access to theirs. Obviously, any plane from Europe or Egypt would need to fly through Israeli airspace to get to the West Bank, unless they flew over the Sinai, around the Negev, and through Jordan, which would be far more inconvenient to the Palestinians than the Israelis.

Even the sentence "You fly in over the West Bank because you can't -- there's no space through otherwise" is a lie. Ben Gurion airport is in Lod. You can fly there over the Negev instead of through the West Bank, which adds about 10-15 minutes to an airplane journey. In fact, this is exactly what Israel did previously.

[shira]

135. answered in title of post #125

and even though you've been shown to be wrong (ignorant: your words) about most of the issues Arafat and gang were maximalist on, almost all of which are absolute dealbreakers that Israel could never agree on, you're correct in pointing out my error about strict 1967 borders (the PA position is hardly a concession, however, when a few settlements are allowed and only connected by narrow roads).

The point is made, however, and it's obvious you don't believe there could have been peace given 2 more days of Barak in Taba or 6 more weeks as Erekat claimed. The gaps among the 2 sides were and still are unbridgable based only on 3 issues (forget the others for now):

1. Full Right of Return
2. No Israeli annexation of major Jerusalem settlement blocks
3. No PA recognition of Jewish holy sites and allowing Israeli sovereignty over them

You're either delusional or you're lying when you state that 'maybe' a deal could have been made if Barak/Sharon continued for another 6 weeks past Taba. What would 6 weeks do that 6 months prior couldn't do? 6 months in, the 3 issues above were still unresolved - and they're still PA positions now 9 years later. What on earth makes you think 6 more weeks would or could have solved those 3 issues?

[shaayecanaan]

136. well, its a start

and even though you've been shown to be wrong

If you want to make that claim, you actually have to show where I was "wrong". It doesn't work as a bare assertion.

you're correct in pointing out my error about strict 1967 borders

Amazing. An actual concession from you. I congratulate you on your first step towards intellectual honesty.

1. Full Right of Return

The vague Israeli proposal was a fifteen-year three-phased right of return for approximately 100 000 Palestinian refugees. Probably this was mostly going to consist of family reunification. The Palestinians insisted on a formal proposal before they were going to respond, which is a bit different from rejecting it out of hand. It was certainly something that was negotiable.

2. No Israeli annexation of major Jerusalem settlement blocks

Correct. The Palestinians maintained that the Israelis should get nothing more than the bare land required to sustain the major settlements. This works out to 3.1% of the West Bank. Given that you constantly maintain that Israel offered 96% of the West Bank at Camp David (thereby keeping 4% of the West Bank) the amount still in dispute would be less than one percentage point.

3. No PA recognition of Jewish holy sites and allowing Israeli sovereignty over them

The Palestinians recognised Israeli sovereignty over the Western Wall subject to some reservations over delineation. The discussions included a proposal that the Holy Basin itself be subject to some international regime. The one issue that was a potential deal-breaker was the Temple Mount.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

72. No, the key is to pressure Israel to offer an actual viable Palestinian state.

Which will involve removing more settlements that were part of your so-called "ceiling".

[shira]

77. maybe you need to educate yourself

Here's very recent footage of Saeb Erekat talking about Camp David 8 years ago:

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2074.htm

Watch the video. Read the transcript.

Consider that Arafat was practically congratulated for turning down CD and Taba, and largely excused for declaring war as a response to it.

[CoffeeCat]

7. Even the nuance....

...in which Obama is engaging--is major.

Being "out of town" during the AIPAC meeting. That's a total snub. It's a major departure,
and it's a crystal-clear signal to Israel that Obama is his own man.

Frankly, I'm impressed.

The Fundies won't like this, that's for sure.

[Howardx]

11. the wisdom of selecting rahm shines through

VERY hard to paint that guy as a "self hater" i expect dershowitz and zuckerman to give it a shot nonetheless.

[bemildred]

12. Well, this ought to give the BBC a break for a while.

Bigger fish to fry.

[cali]

13. hard to paint him as AIPACs mole in the White House but that's exactly

what so many here did.

[IDFbunny]

114. ....and the Oscar for best political kabuki goes to

Rahm Emanual.

[grassfed]

39. talk is cheap nt

[bemildred]

40. Please see post #8. nt

[cali]

9. Goddamn, that sounds good.

I like Emanuel's style. I wish I could rec this.

[liberalmuse]

10. First trains, then this.

I'm totally fucking overwhelmed right now. (It doesn't take much).

[Jefferson23]

14. EXCELLENT NEWS!!!! and I love the I'll be out of town part, lol.

This sounds great too, "Sources in Washington also said that the Obama administration would not continue the tradition that developed during the Bush administration of hosting Israeli premiers many times during the year, sometimes with just a phone call's advance notice."

[azurnoir]

15. The surprise is part about Netanyaho possibly

canceling his trip, I would almost expect him to meet with AIPAC anyway

[Jefferson23]

26. The reactions, verbal and otherwise are going to be interesting to

say the least.

[azurnoir]

16. And using Iran as the carrot so to speak

Obama's move is brilliant it sort of makes Iran the pawn.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

21. disgusting comment. truly beyond the pale.

suggesting that people on this board want to kill Jews, is beyond fucking offensive.

[Sezu]

46. There are people on this board who want the security wall

down and that's a fact and that will kill Israelis, Jews or not so don't you lecture me. They favour convenience over Israeli lives and THAT'S is WAY beyond fucking offensive.

[bemildred]

47. Convenience for whom, that's the question?

Does the convenience of non-Israelis count for squat? Do non-Israeli lives count for anything? Or is it all about you?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

49. If Israel feels it needs a "security" wall, it must build it on its own land.

Not occupy Palestinian land for it.

[Idealism]

58. Where was your anger when Israel decided to assassinate dozens of Palestinian leaders?

Top government officials even warned against the policy for numerous reasons, among them was that the retaliation would be waves of suicide bombings. The Israeli government under many different PM's has continued the policy of extrajudicial killings, which by the way are illegal under International Law, and they were met by suicide bomber attacks that killed hundreds of Israeli's. Where was your outrage about this policy, one that literally has signed the death certificate of hundreds of innocent Israeli's?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

22. My, my. This will certainly shine the light on those whose *talk* peace and those who work for

peace. Could get real interesting here in I/P land.

[Howardx]

29. hehe

indeed.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

25. You'd prefer a one-state solution?

You sound unenthusiastic about a two-state solution. Would you prefer a one-state solution? Or do you think that peace will be possible without establishing a viable Palestinian state? Or do you just not want peace at all, or at least not regard it as worth making the concessions it would take?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

27. Nah... Sezu has a thing for apartheid... so long as her people aren't on the wrong side of the wall.

[LeftishBrit]

23. Good for him, and good luck to him!

Here's to two states!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. I'll believe it when I see it, but at least he's talking the talk. N.T.

[bemildred]

42. Skepticism is warranted, but you have to ask yourself why they would bother

if they were not serious? You know the AIPAC crowd are not going to go down without a major donnybrook. (Well, actually, that remains to be seen, but ...) The only answer I have for that question is that they have bigger fish to fry, like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and hence Iran, Russia, China, etc. What you are seeing is evidence that Chomsky was right is saying that Israel is the tail, not the dog.

[oberliner]

28. Mitchell rejected recent publications the US President Barack Obama refused to meet with Netanyahu

Mitchell rejected recent publications the US President Barack Obama refused to meet with Netanyahu and, on the contrary, had suggested May 11, 2009 as a possible meeting date at the White House. For internal reasons, including the Pope's visit, this date was not acceptable for the Israeli side.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3702355,00.html

It would be helpful if the author would provide a link to the original article that he is reporting on here. It does not appear on the paper's current website as far as I can tell. If anyone can find it, please share the link!

[Howardx]

31. heres a link...

from tpm
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/16/rahm_emanuel_obama_laying_down_law_to_netanyahu/

it goes back to the same source though, rosenberg says he can only find it in hebrew.

[Howardx]

33. Reuters "Obama envoy tells Israel U.S. wants Palestinian state

"JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Washington's visiting Middle East envoy vowed on Thursday to vigorously pursue the creation of a Palestinian state, setting the stage for possible conflict with Israel's new right-leaning government.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has so far refused to commit Israel to restarting statehood talks and told President Barack Obama's envoy George Mitchell his government wanted the Palestinians to first recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

snip

"Netanyahu's call for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state threw yet another hurdle in the way of U.S. efforts to revive Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking."

quite a bit more here


http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE53F20V20090416

[oberliner]

34. Why does he not link to the Hebrew version?

Did he do the translation himself? I'd like to see the original if possible.

[Howardx]

36. cant you go to the website

and select the hebrew version? i'd try that if you havent already. other than that i have no insights into his motivations. he has a pretty smart group of commenters i must say.

[Howardx]

37. Yedioth Achronoth

that may be the hebrew source oberliner.

[oberliner]

57. I can't find the article on that site

Working on it though!

[Jefferson23]

32. The above said," will not meet "not refused and Obama would not be

available.

[oberliner]

35. But where is the original article that the OP is reporting on

The article by MJ Rosenberg is really just that person describing and commenting on what he apparently read in on another article from an Israeli newspaper.

What I am hoping to find is that initial Israeli newspaper article.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

38. There's an article on it at ynetnews

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3702256,00.html

The posters there are mostly livid.

[Jefferson23]

41. I read that too and thought it interesting that the critics are focusing

on Mitchell, calling him a loser etc, and none so far anyway that refer to Obama, despite that it is Obama that wants a 2 state.

[Jefferson23]

43. If I find it, I'll post it here.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

51. Do you read Hebrew?

I had the impression it was in the Hebrew edition.

[oberliner]

56. Does the author of the OP read Hebrew?

If so, did he create his own translation of the Hebrew version of the article for his piece? I would think he would have mentioned that if that were the case. I looked at the Hebrew version online and could not see where the article was that he is talking about. I wish he would have included the link either to the Hebrew version of the article or to wherever he got the English text from.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

65. How come you're so cagey? Do you read Hebrew?

Interesting that you can't just say yes, no or "a little."

Here is what Silverstein had to say about the translation:

...quotations are taken from a translation not available online and supplied by Benor Consulting...

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/04/16/obamas-tough-love-to-bibi/

[oberliner]

67. Where is the original article?

If there are translations made by Benor Consulting or whoever else - where is the article that they translated? Why has none of the various people who have written commentaries of this article actually provided a link to the article itself?

I do not read Hebrew but if someone could link me to the initial article I would be able to get a translation.

In any event, it seems that the two points that MJ Rosenberg and others have chose to emphasize are either unsourced (the alleged conversation between Emanuel and a "leading Jewish figure") or simply incorrect (the claim that Obama did not want to meet with Netanyahu in early May - when in fact, Netanyahu could not come to the US at that time due to the Pope's visit to Israel).

[shira]

68. MJ Rosenberg isn't a very credible source

I want to see the original article too.

[Meshuga]

127. Why do you say MJ Rosenberg is not a reliable source?

He is pro-Israel and advocates for a two state solution.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

69. The issue isn't one that can be "proven" with the article.

The question is: does this actually signify Obama's intentions?

That will only be proven with time!

Really, Oberliner, I would have thought you'd be more excited at the prospect of the US putting some pressure on Israel. Isn't that what you liberal Zionists always claim you want, since you don't favor BDS?

[oberliner]

73. Well I would say there are two issues

Before evaluating the implications I would think that one would want to verify the accuracy. I find it sort of bizarre that several bloggers are running with this without linking to the article or attempting to determine the veracity of the claims.

Don't you think it is strange that MJ Rosenberg would blog about an article without linking to the article itself?

Everything that I have read from Obama and Mitchell and others regarding the peace process is very exciting.

The way that Rosenberg has presented this article, however, leaves a lot to be desired.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

79. What's the second issue?

[oberliner]

82. Well if this is verified, then the second issue is what this would mean for the peace process

And I would say it would be a very positive sign. Would make me even sadder though that Livni wasn't able to put together a coalition that is committed to the 2-state solution in a way that Bibi's is not.

However, I doubt that much of what was reported here is actually true.

[Violet_Crumble]

90. For someone who claims it's a positive sign, yr not indicating that in yr posts...

All this angsting over needing to see an original article (and it was pointed out to you once that the article is only available in print) to verify it makes me wonder why you picked this article in particular to have a gripe over, when a large number of articles have been posted in the past referring to news articles not available online in English, and you've never left multiple posts in those threads wanting to see the original article or come straight out and said that you think most of the OP isn't true. Seriously, what in the OP don't you think is true, and why? What I've read is actions that we should all support Obama making...

[oberliner]

92. The Emanuel conversation and the scheduled meeting between Obama and Netanyahu

Those are the two elements of the story that I think are false and those are precisely the two elements of the story that the blogger from the OP is basing his theories and analysis around.

Have you (and others) not expressed skepticism when an article refers to a conversation with an unnamed person such as a "leading Jewish American"? Isn't it odd that this alleged conversation between Emanuel and this American has been reported only in one article in one Israeli newspaper written in Hebrew that is only available in print? Why would the paper not see fit to run this story in their English edition or the Hebrew online edition? Considering the numerous Jewish American news outlets, why was there no other source for this?

The second point that the blogger highlights is this claim that Obama would be "out of town" in early May and therefore unable to meet Netanyahu at that time. An article in Ynet contradicts this, stating that the reason why Obama and Netanyahu were unable to meet in early May is a result of the Pope's visit to Israel at that time.

[Violet_Crumble]

104. I've rarely if ever seen anyone so determined to write an article off as bullshit...

....when they claim they would be happy if what the article said was true. See, I've wondered about the authenticity of parts of some articles if it's a 'WTF? That doesn't sound like something so and so would say or do' thing, but when there's nothing in the article that jumps out as one of those things, I really do start to wonder about yr motivation in doing so, because it's not coming across as being the response of someone who'd be happy if those things were true.....

[oberliner]

106. It's a pet peeve of mine

I mean we see it with the RW bloggers all the time where they try to pass off BS as truth. I think we should be equally attuned to similar sorts of questionable reporting on the left as well.

If you read the way the initial blogger reported on the story I would think you would notice several "WTF" moments, specifically the two that I have pointed out elsewhere in the thread which serve as the central focal points of the spin that the blogger ran with.

There is enough to be excited about with what Mitchell has actually said face to face with Netanyahu and other Israeli and Palestinian leaders without having to swallow the rest of it.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

97. I, too, was underwhelmed by your response Oberliner.

Quite shocked in fact. I had always believed you were in the camp that believed US pressure was the key to moving Israel forward.

I had expected a response from you similar to LB's.

[oberliner]

99. And I am shocked that this dubious story is being accepted so readily

Especially by someone who is as skeptical about unsourced alleged quotes, inaccurately translated news items, and reporting from Ynet generally as you are.

If this conversation between Emanuel and a "leading American Jewish figure" actually took place, it is hard to believe that it would not have been reported somewhere in the multitude of Jewish American news sources that exist.

If Ynet has scooped the rest of the journalistic world and is the only source that has been given access to this hugely significant statement from Emanuel, it seems bizarre that they would not include it on either their English or Hebrew online editions.

And the second part of the blogger's version of the story regarding the Netanyahu-Obama meeting in the US has been directly contradicted elsewhere in the same newspaper.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

101. Oberliner, this is but one of many signs that indicate Obama could be playing

some serious hardball. This is hardly some *expose* that we need to get twisted up about whether or not it's true.

Your reaction is simply at odds with your expressed values.

[Jefferson23]

102. I think one aspect of this story I'm sure you've noticed and that is, so

far, no one from the White House has commented on this one way or the other. And I'm sure they know its out there.

[oberliner]

108. It's really not "out there" in any sense of the word

It was printed in a Hebrew-only newspaper in Israel with no online version and picked up by a few bloggers.

If the White House were to comment on it almost no one would have any idea what they were talking about.

[Jefferson23]

110. The point is oberliner, IT IS out there, even the Christian Science Monitor

has referred to it. All I'm saying is, the WH has not responded as yet and they could if they wanted to.


*snip Mitchell visit to Israel: Does Obama's path to Iran pass through Jewish settlements?

snip** A new focus on the settlements

Another sign of shifting strategy is the possibility that the Obama administration would make a palpable link between Israel's approach to reaching peace with the Palestinians and Israel's concerns over Iran's nuclear program.

On Thursday, Yedioth Ahronoth, one of Israel's mass-circulation papers, quoted an official in the Obama administration as saying there would be a tradeoff: Bushehr for Yitzhar. The catchphrase is meant to imply that if Washington's outlook on Iran is to be more or less in sync with Israel's, Netanyahu must be willing to dismantle settlements in the West Bank. (Bushehr is an Iranian nuclear facility, while Yitzhar is known to be among the most hard-line Jewish settlements.)

The paper's Shimon Shiffer wrote that Netanyahu and his top ministers, Mr. Lieberman and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, "agreed to show a united front that the route to reaching a solution would be the road map, and would clarify that Israeli flexibility on the Palestinian issue would be contingent upon the American approach toward resolving the Iranian threat, as well as its attitude towards Hamas and Hezbollah.

article in full here: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0416/p06s07-wogn.html?pag...

[oberliner]

111. Interesting

Maybe he did say it after all.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

44. What a relief, huh?

[bemildred]

45. It's all about control.

Obama will talk to everybody. But they will not dictate to him.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

48. I'm struck by the near-total absense of posts from traditionally anti-Palestinian posters

And by the fact that the only one there is doesn't address the OP.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

50. They're busy posting about hezbollah terror attacks in tel Aviv... gotta correct the mood, people!

[IndianaGreen]

54. They are awaiting instructions from Likud and/or Yisrael Beitenu

Calling Bibi. Calling Yvette. Need instructions. Over!

[cali]

60. your shit stirring here is a striking depiction of

egging on stupid enmity. bravo to you. And your post is against the rules, dear.

[shaayecanaan]

55. Yeah, and all this time they were saying they were for a 2-state solution...

I guess its time for them to pull out the kahane chai t-shirt again.

[azurnoir]

59. well most likely they do support a two state solution however

I don't think Israel and Jordan is what President Obama has in mind

[Douglas Carpenter]

53. I love President Obama very much (I REALLY do) but I will believe it when I see it!

And it is not because I doubt President's Obama's commitment. I think he really does understand.

But the political forces that are arrayed against a just and lasting peace are very strong and they are relentless too.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

76. I listen to Democracy Now too faithfully to *love* Obama but I did find this exciting! nt

[HamdenRice]

61. Here's some more background on the Clinton/Mitchell strategy

that seems to fit in with the OP article. Sorry I don't have a link because I heard it on the radio. Here's a cross post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3835612&mesg_id=3836024

I'm not really worried about what the government in Israel says right now, if this analysis is correct. I heard it on either NPR or Pacifica a few days ago.

Mitchell and Clinton plan to use the same strategy that Mitchell used in Northern Ireland. The problem was that both sides leaders were intransigent. There seemed to be nothing to negotiate between Catholic and Protestant "leaders."

So instead, Mitchell played ju jitsu and went behind their backs, slowly building support among their constituents for a peace plan. Instead of talking to leaders, he talked to women's groups, religious organizations, community groups, and so on.

Ultimately, the constituents of the leaders demanded peace from the leaders and the leaders realized they had no support for their intransigence.

According to this report, Mitchell is focusing on building support for peace among the constituent civil society groups on both sides, and when that process is complete, he can tell the leaders that they are no longer in step with their constituents.

I also saw this process up close in South Africa. There was a lot of behind the scenes consensus building, led largely by Americans, while the apartheid government and ANC were still posturing.

[shira]

81. If that's the strategy, this won't work

Mitchell can expect such a strategy to work in open, self-critical societies.

The PA, especially Hamas, simply won't allow Palestinian constituents for peace to undermine their ongoing "resistance" efforts. Palestinian moderates learned long ago that if they want to stay alive with all body parts attached, they'd better as hell not allow Hamas to ever think they're "collaborators" who want to make nice with the dreaded zionist occupation. Arafat's thugs were even worse when it came to "collaborators" who wanted peace.

If this is the plan, it's doomed before it ever begins.

[Sezu]

84. Yeas, everybody avoids the elephant in the room

"Unidentified gunmen affiliated with Hamas fired at three members of their rival Fatah party in the Jabaliya area of the northern Strip Thursday night, a Fatah spokesman said.

Fahmi Az-Za'arir said in a statement that the men were taken to Kamal A'dawan Hospital for treatment after being shot in the legs. They were identified as Khaled, Ismail, and Mus'ab Ad-Darduni, all from the same family.

According to Az-Za’arir the attackers drove off on a motorcycle toward the Al-Ihsan Mosque, “which is under the control of Hamas. “

http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=37173

3 state solution anyone?

[Vegasaurus]

85. Can;t make peace with people who don't want peace

Hamas won't even make peace with their own brethren.

They refuse to make peace with Israel, and have promised eternal war.

So, this is all a bunch of nonsense talk.

Obama can't force a peace treaty on people who don't want it.

[shira]

87. Hamas are teddy bears

They love all Palestinians, including Fatah members and those who collaborate with the zionist entity want peace. Their intentions are pure. Once they sign the contract that they'll be forced to sign, peace is a foregone conclusion.

[Vegasaurus]

93. Yes! Then they will be handing out candies

and sweets to Israeli children and they will all be singing Kumbaya!

Won't it be great?:):):)

[ProgressiveMuslim]

64. More on the report, from Richard Silverstein

Obama’s Tough Love to Bibi

Apr 16th, 2009 by Richard Silverstein | 7
H/t to M.J. Rosenberg for noting one of the most amazing newspaper reports coming out of Israel in months, if not several years. Yediot Achronot reports (quotations are taken from a translation not available online and supplied by Benor Consulting) that Rahm Emanuel astonishingly promised a major American Jewish leader that Barack Obama will see the creation of a Palestinian state before the end of his first term:

(snip)

The Obama administration has been sending clear messages lately that President Obama has no intention of waiting two years until Netanyahu crystallizes a vision on the future negotiations with the Palestinians. Senior American officials said that former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni already established an outline solution that has been accepted by the international community.

I have been waiting 40 years to see a president do what needs to be done regarding Israeli intransigence and unwillingness to negotiate an end to the conflict. While an unsourced report in an Israeli newspaper is not the most credible source, if even half of this Yediot report is true Obama will be the president of my dreams, at least regarding Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Also interesting is a U.S. linkage between resolving the Iranian nuclear issue and removing Israeli settlers and settlements from the West Bank:

Senior US administration officials are fully aware of the linkage that Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak have created between Israeli willingness to make advances on the Palestinian track and their expectations of the Americans to address the Iranian threat, and senior American officials have begun to talk about “Bushehr for Yitzhar.” Namely, if you want us to help you defuse the Iranian threat, including the nuclear reactor in Bushehr, get ready to evacuate settlements in the West Bank, with Yitzhar considered to be a token of an Israeli withdrawal from West Bank territory.

While I’m in favor of using any leverage available to bring Israel to negotiate an end to this conflict, I’m not so sure that tying two such disparate issues as Iran’s nuclear capability and Israeli settlements together is wise. What if the U.S. fails to secure Iranian agreement to end its nuclear program? What if whatever agreement the U.S. does reach with Iran doesn’t satisfy Israel? There are too many ways to weasel out of this one I’m afraid. This reeks of a Bibi-Barack devised trick.

(snip)

I note also that the Israelis haven’t even secured any date to meet Obama. In other words, the president is leaving him high and dry. To not have a new prime minister attend the national Aipac conference will be a huge blow not just to Bibi, but to Aipac as well. The group prides itself as being the major power broker and liaison between American Jewry, and Israel’s and America’s political leadership. Obama is deliberately depriving them of their traditional role. There must be much gnashing of teeth in Aipac’s offices today.

When Rahm Emanuel was first appointed chief of staff many worried that he would be a pro-Israel Likudist pushover. If Shimon Shiffer’s story is any indication, this fear turns out to have been completely unfounded. I can’t tell you how pleased I am to know that my president and his chief of staff are willing to kick ass to get things done. Higiya zman (”it’s about time”)!

UPDATE: I just had a conversation with Sol Salbe about this Yediot story and he and I both agree that there is a shifting of tectonic plates both in this country’s relationship with Israel and the power of the Israel lobby. Sol is more declarative than I’m willing to be and believes that in the history of Israel the years 1948 and 1967 were landmarks. The events of those years were epoch-changing and what came afterward was nothing like what came before. And he thinks that 2009, or at least the four years of Obama’s first term will be equally historic.

(snip)

If Obama succeeds as Emanuel promises he will and there is a new Palestinian state, then there is no doubt that there will also be peace between Israel and Syria, that Lebanon will eventually normalize relations, that Hezbollah will cease being Israel’s mortal enemy, and Iran will stand down from its threatening rhetoric and actions toward Israel. And this WOULD BE the birth pangs of a new Middle East.


http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/04/16/obamas-tough-love-to-bibi/

[Barack_America]

86. Wow. That's very encouraging.

Thanks for posting it!

[Violet_Crumble]

91. One of my concerns about Obama has vanished...

That concern was that he'd not take a balanced stance on the I/P conflict, and this is showing that he means business...