Did Obama’s Mideast Speech Signal U.S. Shift on Israel-Palestine? Democracy Now! Roundtable

In a major speech on the U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and on the Arab Spring, President Obama said a Palestinian state must be based on the 1967 borders, the first time a U.S. president has explicitly taken this position. The Israeli government immediately rejected Obama’s comments, calling the 1967 borders "indefensible." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in the United States today and will meet Obama at the White House. We host a roundtable with author Norman Finkelstein, Palestinian human rights lawyer Noura Erakat and Jeremy Ben-Ami, head of the lobby group J Street.

Norman Finkelstein, author of several books on the Israel-Palestine conflict including, "This Time We Went Too Far: Truth & Consequences of the Gaza Invasion."

Noura Erakat, Palestinian human rights attorney, activist,and adjunct professor of international human rights law in the Middle East at Georgetown University. She is also the Legal Advocacy Coordinator for the Badil Center for Palestinian Refugee and Residency Rights and co-founder of Jadaliyya Ezine.

Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street, a nonprofit advocacy group based in the United States that lobbies for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

video/transcript, when available at the link:


http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/20/did_obamas_mideast_speech_signal_us

SNIP* AMY GOODMAN: President Obama’s decision to put the United States formally on record as supporting the 1967 borders drew cautious support from Saeb Erekat, the top aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

SAEB EREKAT: Mahmoud Abbas expresses his appreciation to the efforts being exerted, the continuous efforts being exerted, by President Obama with the objective of resuming the permanent status talks in the hope of reaching a final status agreement on all core issues, including Jerusalem and refugees.

AMY GOODMAN: But Obama’s comments drew sharp criticism from Israel.

YIGAL PALMOR: Prime Minister Netanyahu, in his visit in Washington, will hope to hear a reaffirmation of the commitments made by the U.S. to Israel in 2004 and which were overwhelmingly supported by both houses of Congress. These commitments refer to the absolute necessity to solve the Palestinian refugee problems within—exclusively within the borders of the future Palestinian state and the non-viability of the ’67 borders as such.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Israeli foreign ministry spokesperson Yigal Palmor.

In his speech, Obama also laid out a U.S. strategy toward the Middle East and North Africa. He unveiled new billion-dollar economic aid packages for Egypt and Tunisia and took a harder line against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Obama also voiced support for opposition leaders in Bahrain while reaffirming the U.S.'s commitment to Bahrain's security. The President denounced Iran’s nuclear program and accused it of sponsoring terror.

Obama did not once mention Saudi Arabia during his speech. The country is a major U.S. ally in the Middle East. It’s staved off the widespread popular protests that have swept across the region since January.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, to further discuss Obama’s speech, we’re joined by three guests.

Noura Erakat is a Palestinian human rights attorney and activist. She’s a professor of international human rights law in the Middle East at Georgetown University and the legal advocacy coordinator for the Badil Center for Palestinian Refugee and Residency Rights. She’s speaking at the "Move Over AIPAC" conference in Washington this weekend.

We’re also joined by Norman Finkelstein, author of several books on the Israel-Palestine conflict, including This Time We Went Too Far: Truth & Consequences of the Gaza Invasion.

AMY GOODMAN: And in Washington, D.C., we’re joined by Jeremy Ben-Ami, founder and president of J Street, a nonprofit advocacy group based in the United States that lobbies for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Jeremy, let’s begin with you. Your reaction to President Obama’s address?

JEREMY BEN-AMI: Good morning, Amy and Juan. It was a terrific speech by the President. And as you’ve pointed out, it broke new ground in putting the United States officially on record as recognizing that the resolution of this conflict, for the benefit of both the Israeli and the Palestinian people, is going to be two states based on the '67 lines with adjustments. It's something that 99 percent of the world understands and accepts and has recognized for quite some time, and it’s really unfortunate to see the Israeli government reacting in this way and unable to accept that this is the basis of their own long-term security interest, recognizing their own borders with their neighbors and finally getting international recognition of their right to self-defense.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Norman Finkelstein, I’d like to ask you about this question of new ground. As you’ve pointed out, President Bush, over three years ago, made a similar speech, and I want to quote from his. He said that "There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people." And Bush went on to say, "These negotiations must ensure that Israel has secure, recognized and defensible borders. And they must ensure that the state of Palestine is viable, contiguous, sovereign and independent." And, "It is vital that each side understands that satisfying the other’s fundamental objectives is key to a successful agreement." So, Bush said that you needed security for Israel and viability for the Palestinian state, that were in the mutual interest of both parties. How different is what Bush said three years ago from what Obama said yesterday?

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, if you were to juxtapose the two speeches, you would see not only is there no difference in content, but there’s actually no difference in form. It’s the same wording: mutually agreed land swaps based on the June 1967 borders. That’s basically been the position of the United States since, you could say, the last 20 or 25 years. There was no new ground in President Obama’s speech. And frankly, there’s no recipe there, there’s no formula there, for resolving the conflict.

The formula has to be exactly as the International Court of Justice said in July 2004 and as the U.N. General Assembly says every year with near-unanimous support. The Palestinians have the right to self-determination in the whole of the West Bank, the whole of Gaza, with East Jerusalem, the whole of East Jerusalem, as its capital. That’s the Palestinian right. That’s not subject to negotiations. Rights are enforced; they are not negotiated. The moment you say it has to be mutually agreed upon means Israel has a veto over Palestinian rights.

Secondly, Mr. Obama said that the withdrawal of Israeli troops has to be mutually agreed upon. That means Israel can say that, "OK, we’ll withdraw from the Jordan Valley," as they’ve said in the past. "We’ll withdraw in 20 years." And if the Palestinians say no, we’re at an impasse again. It’s not mutually agreed upon.

Thirdly, President Bush—excuse me, President Obama said that Jerusalem is a separate issue. He calls it an issue that remains. But that’s not the law. The International Court of Justice ruled that the whole of the West Bank, as they put it, comma, including Arab Jerusalem, is occupied Palestinian territory. If you say you want to return to the June '67 border, how can you exclude Jerusalem? Jerusalem wasn't part of Israel in June 1967. Jerusalem has the exact same status under international law as the West Bank and Gaza. In the words of the International Court, it is occupied Palestinian territory. To talk about a Palestinian state without East Jerusalem is to talk about an Indian reservation or a bantustan. There can’t be a state without Jerusalem as its capital.

AMY GOODMAN: Noura Erakat, did you have any hope—take, draw any hope from what President Obama said yesterday? Did you think there was anything new in it?

NOURA ERAKAT: I thought that his affirmation of self-determination for all peoples, the right to dignity, as they apply in Tunis, in Egypt, in Yemen, in Bahrain, was inspirational.

I think that what he said in regards to Palestine and Israel, unfortunately, was more of the same, and perhaps even worse. He had indicated that there are numerous Palestinians living to the west of the Jordan River. Well, those happen to be the Palestinians, the indigenous population, that have been living under occupation since ’67, including the refugees who were displaced in 1948.

Additionally, the things that were also of concern is that he described moving to the 1967 borders and qualified that immediately by referencing land swaps. But if we’re referencing land swaps, essentially what we’re discussing is the potential transfer of the Palestinian citizens of Israel into the West Bank. And that transfer is forbidden, or should—I mean, is prohibited by international law.

Finally, he did say, whereas Bush described Israel as a Jewish homeland, Obama went one step further to describe it as a Jewish state, which hasn’t been discussed by Bush before. And this is very troubling, because to describe it as a Jewish state, not a Jewish homeland, is detrimental to those 1.2 million Palestinian citizens of Israel who are Christian and Muslim, who therefore will be relegated to second-class citizenship, as a matter of fact, in institutionalization

in full: http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/20/did_obamas_mideast_speech_signal_us

I very much would have liked to see a full fledged debate between Mr. Finklestein and the representative from J Street. I understand the DN has time limitations, but I always feel disappointed when such interesting discussions are suddenly cut off

continue this discussion at length with Jeremy Ben-Ami another time, I'm not so sure Ben-Ami would agree to it.

"It Takes an Enormous Amount of Courage to Speak the Truth When No One Else is Out There"—World-Renowned Holocaust, Israel Scholars Defend DePaul Professor Norman Finkelstein as He Fights for Tenur.

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/5/9/it_takes_an_enormous_amount_of

on edit for clarity.

=======

That's pretty fucking sick.

And there's no minimizing what he said, as if it's taken out of context....

He's a warmonger and cannot be taken seriously on any matters relating to Jews or Israel.

snip* Do you unequivocally condemn Palestinian attacks against innocent civilians?

It is impossible to justify terrorism, which is the targeting of civilians to achieve a political goal. But it's also difficult to make categorical statements of the kind you suggest. I do believe that Hezbollah has the right to target Israeli civilians if Israel persists in targeting civilians until Israel ceases its terrorist acts.



You famously said that in Lebanon "Hezbollah are the hope" (in terms of standing up to American political influences and Israeli aggression). This elicited much condemnation from the usual quarters. Can you expand on this statement- in what way do you think Hezbollah offer "hope" and to whom?

Hezbollah demands that the ordinary principles of international law be applied to Israel as well. Israel must stop treating neighboring countries as long- or short-term parking lots. It must stop indiscriminate attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure. This is Hezbollah's message and I agree with it. When Ehud Barak recently threatened, "Maybe we'll have to occupy Lebanon again," Sayyed Nasrallah said the next day, "Maybe we''ll have to occupy the northern Galilee." What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

You must know that you are more or less hated by the Israeli Likud/right-wing establishment and their supporters, and indeed have been accused, inevitably, of being an enemy of Israel and an 'enabler of terrorism'. This is probably water off a duck's back to you. Nonetheless, what is your response?

Judging by opinion polls, Israel has bigger problems than me. It is among the most hated countries on the planet. It should stop acting like a lunatic state. Once it carries on like a normal country, I will be happily redirect my energies elsewhere.

Do you unequivocally condemn Palestinian attacks against innocent civilians?

It is impossible to justify terrorism, which is the targeting of civilians to achieve a political goal. But it's also difficult to make categorical statements of the kind you suggest. I do believe that Hezbollah has the right to target Israeli civilians if Israel persists in targeting civilians until Israel ceases its terrorist acts.

http://palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=16783

Imagine any pro-Israel DU'er saying...

It is impossible to justify terrorism, which is the targeting of civilians to achieve a political goal. But it's also difficult to make categorical statements of the kind you suggest. I do believe that ISRAEL has the right to target PALESTINIAN civilians if HAMAS persists in targeting civilians until HAMAS ceases its terrorist acts.

Ultimately, it is your choice shira, but it sounds like you have made up your mind about him long ago.

I don't understand why you can't just cut that warmonger loose and distance yourself from his disgusting views.

But maybe now you understand why liberals have problems with the "progressive" antizionist crowd which would include Finkelstein's zombie cheerleaders like Tony Kushner and Helen Thomas.

Finkelstein and the rest of his fascist loving crew prove why there's still a need for Jews to have their own state. If you can't see the foul and psychotic hatred in Finkelstein's lunatic mumblings, and only see legit criticism, you don't want to see it. Just as millions of zombies didn't want to see it when they were on the wrong side of history some 70 odd years ago in Europe.

You can understand what he is saying and why or not, your choice.

...punishment, the kind Finkelstein advocates WRT Hezbollah's "right" to terrorize the Israeli civilian population?

And when "progressives" became so proud of their illiberal, rightwing views?

Jefferson, you should know you no longer have any credibility - zero crediblity - if ever in the future you bring up Israel's policies of "collective punishment", immorality, illegal actions, etc. Your views are no better than the most extreme, violent, rightwing pro-settler views.

I've posted credible, and since you now specify I no longer have any credibility...I see that as a step forward for you.

Congratulations shira.

snip* Hezbollah demands that the ordinary principles of international law be applied to Israel as well. Israel must stop treating neighboring countries as long- or short-term parking lots. It must stop indiscriminate attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure. This is Hezbollah's message and I agree with it. When Ehud Barak recently threatened, "Maybe we'll have to occupy Lebanon again," Sayyed Nasrallah said the next day, "Maybe we''ll have to occupy the northern Galilee." What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

You must know that you are more or less hated by the Israeli Likud/right-wing establishment and their supporters, and indeed have been accused, inevitably, of being an enemy of Israel and an 'enabler of terrorism'. This is probably water off a duck's back to you. Nonetheless, what is your response?

Judging by opinion polls, Israel has bigger problems than me. It is among the most hated countries on the planet. It should stop acting like a lunatic state. Once it carries on like a normal country, I will be happily redirect my energies elsewhere.

Do you unequivocally condemn Palestinian attacks against innocent civilians?

It is impossible to justify terrorism, which is the targeting of civilians to achieve a political goal. But it's also difficult to make categorical statements of the kind you suggest. I do believe that Hezbollah has the right to target Israeli civilians if Israel persists in targeting civilians until Israel ceases its terrorist acts.

http://palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=16783

Please don't disappoint me by voicing any future displeasure or shock against anyone uttering something similar.

I think we need to remember this discussion in future Goldstone debates, etc.

As if there's some alternate interpretation more in line with progressive, pro-peace values?

But you can't articulate what that is?

And only true believers who know the secret handshake understand and can "see"?

:eyes:

I think I've had this kind of conversation before with christian fundamentalists. I guess I have to be a true believer to 'KNOW' - as you do - what Finkelstein really meant...

indefinitely.