Obama says Palestine must be based in 1967 borders

[alphamale]

i personally think that the most possible solution that would emerge out in future will be maintaing status quo & recognizing Palestine as a state with some compensation because no nation in this world would like to give away land it possesses.

 

[iPakMan]

Well, there is nothing need to be corrected since I have never denied those conflicts between you two.

Arabs attacked Israel since they believe that is their land and U.K. stole that and gave to Jews. They wanted it back.

Israel believed that is god-given land so that it is theirs as well.

About who started the war first in 1967, well both sides can argue for days, or even years. One can say the other side initiated the threat first, while the other side can say you opened fire first.

If winner told the loser of the war to fxxk-off and get them off once for all, there won't be any problems or issues need to be discussed. The problem is that, whether you call them Arabs or Palestinians, they have lived there for hundreds of years or more than one thousand years. They were the land owners then for centuries while you indeed are not. They have nowhere to go. You have to learn to co-exist no matter how hard you have fought each other, or how much hatred you have against each other. Well, someone mentioned that Jews bought a lot of lands from Arabs then. Foreigner investors can buy the whole Manhattan, it does not change the fact that it is still part of U.S.

You have to find a way to minimize the negative and maximize the positive. Otherwise, except more bloodshed, anything better can turn out miraculously?
Indeed Arabs has lost the wars and Israel won them and grabbed more lands.

The Jews lived there and had a kingdom before any Arab, before there ever was such a country known as Britain, it was taken by the Romans.
This isn`t just a land given by god, this was a land that Jews called home for centuries before it was conquered, it seems you did not know this but this is a historical fact, not just a biblical one.
And Jews lived here even during the Mandate of Palestine with the Arabs, so no, it was never theirs. The kingdom of Israel was conquered centuries ago by many different forces but it was the Kingdom of Jews before it was conquered.

 

[Meengla]

Obama is a lot weaker than the Jewish Lobbies in the US, they have threatened him to sqeeze his fund raisings from jewish donors in the US, but it is OK to discuss it on PDF.

Yes, and there are some red lines which the Democratic Party may not want to cross to annoy Israel. Not only it is the huge amount of campaign donations which can and have made decisive inputs in US elections but there is a powerful group in the media which can come into action. In case of US elections, for example, in Florida--a key swing state which cost Gore presidency in 2000, Jewish votes (traditionally pro Democrats) and money can make Obama lose the bid in 2012.

If Muslims in America had the organization then they would register to vote and make it apparent to Obama and the Democrats that the loss of Jewish votes and money can be compensated by the Muslim Americans. It is still not too late for them to start an active campaign and allay Obama's fears about the tight races like Florida. And it is not really that hard to do so either.

 

[monitor]

Obama's speech to AIPAC -- prepared text

By: Philip Klein 05/22/11 11:02 AM
Senior editorial writer Follow Him @Philipaklein


Via the White House:

Remarks of President Barack Obama at AIPAC Policy Conference--As Prepared for Delivery

Washington, DC

Sunday, May 22, 2011



Good morning! Thank you, Rosy, for your very kind introduction. But even more, thank you for your many years friendship. Back in Chicago, when I was just getting started in national politics, I reached out to a lot of people for advice and counsel, and Rosy was one of the very first. When I made my first visit to Israel, after entering the Senate, Rosy – you were at my side every step of that very meaningful journey through the Holy Land. And I want to thank you for your enduring friendship, your leadership and for your warm welcome today.



Thank you to David Victor, Howard Kohr and all the Board of Directors. And let me say that it’s wonderful to look out and see so many great friends, including Alan Solow, Howard Green and a very large delegation from Chicago.



I want to thank the members of Congress who are joining you today—who do so much to sustain the bonds between the United States and Israel—including Eric Cantor, Steny Hoyer, and the tireless leader I was proud to appoint as the new chair of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.



We’re joined by Israel’s representative to the United States, Ambassador Michael Oren. As well as one of my top advisors on Israel and the Middle East for the past four years, and who I know is going to be an outstanding ambassador to Israel—Dan Shapiro. Dan has always been a close and trusted advisor, and I know he’ll do a terrific job.



And at a time when so many young people around the world are standing up and making their voices heard, I also want to acknowledge all the college students from across the country who are here today. No one has a greater stake in the outcome of events that are unfolding today than your generation, and it’s inspiring to see you devote your time and energy to help shape the future.



Now, I’m not here to subject you to a long policy speech. I gave one on Thursday in which I said that the United States sees the historic changes sweeping the Middle East and North Africa as a moment of great challenge, but also a moment of opportunity for greater peace and security for the entire region, including the State of Israel.



On Friday, I was joined at the White House by Prime Minister Netanyahu, and we reaffirmed that fundamental truth that has guided our presidents and prime ministers for more than 60 years—that, even while we may at times disagree, as friends sometimes will, the bonds between the United States and Israel are unbreakable, and the commitment of the United States to the security of Israel is ironclad.



A strong and secure Israel is in the national security interest of United States not simply because we share strategic interests, although we do both seek a region where families and their children can live free from the threat of violence. It’s not simply because we face common dangers, although there can be no denying that terrorism and the spread of nuclear weapons are grave threats to both our nations.



America’s commitment to Israel’s security also flows from a deeper place —and that’s the values we share. As two people who struggled to win our freedom against overwhelming odds, we understand that preserving the security for which our forefathers fought must be the work of every generation. As two vibrant democracies, we recognize that the liberties and freedom we cherish must be constantly nurtured. And as the nation that recognized the State of Israel moments after its independence, we have a profound commitment to its survival as a strong, secure homeland of the Jewish people.



We also know how difficult that search for security can be, especially for a small nation like Israel in a tough neighborhood. I’ve seen it firsthand. When I touched my hand against the Western Wall and placed my prayer between its ancient stones, I thought of all the centuries that the children of Israel had longed to return to their ancient homeland. When I went to Sderot, I saw the daily struggle to survive in the eyes of an eight-year old boy who lost his leg to a Hamas rocket. And when I walked among the Hall of Names at Yad Vashem, I grasped the existential fear of Israelis when a modern dictator seeks nuclear weapons and threatens to wipe Israel off the map.



Because we understand the challenges Israel faces, I and my administration have made the security of Israel a priority. It’s why we’ve increased cooperation between our militaries to unprecedented levels. It’s why we’re making our most advanced technologies available to our Israeli allies. And it’s why, despite tough fiscal times, we’ve increased foreign military financing to record levels.



That includes additional support – beyond regular military aid – for the Iron Dome anti-rocket system. This is a powerful example of American-Israel cooperation which has already intercepted rockets from Gaza and helped saved innocent Israeli lives. So make no mistake, we will maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge.



You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Here in the U.S., we’ve imposed the toughest sanctions ever on the Iranian regime. At the United Nations, we’ve secured the most comprehensive international sanctions on the regime, which have been joined by allies and partners around the world. Today, Iran is virtually cut off from large parts of the international financial system, and we are going to keep up the pressure. So let me be absolutely clear – we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.



Its illicit nuclear program is just one challenge that Iran poses. As I said on Thursday, the Iranian government has shown its hypocrisy by claiming to support the rights of protesters while treating its own people with brutality. Moreover, Iran continues to support terrorism across the region, including providing weapons and funds to terrorist organizations. So we will continue to work to prevent these actions, and will stand up to groups like Hezbollah who exercise political assassination, and seek to impose their will through rockets and car bombs.



You also see our commitment to Israel’s security in our steadfast opposition to any attempt to de-legitimize the State of Israel. As I said at the United Nation’s last year, “Israel’s existence must not be a subject for debate,” and “efforts to chip away at Israel’s legitimacy will only be met by the unshakeable opposition of the United States.”



So when the Durban Review Conference advanced anti-Israel sentiment, we withdrew. In the wake of the Goldstone Report, we stood up strongly for Israel’s right to defend itself. When an effort was made to insert the United Nations into matters that should be resolved through direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, we vetoed it.



And so, in both word and deed, we have been unwavering in our support of Israel’s security. And it is precisely because of our commitment to Israel’s long-term security that we have worked to advance peace between Israelis and Palestinians.



Now, I have said repeatedly that core issues can only be negotiated in direct talks between the parties. And I indicated on Thursday that the recent agreement between Fatah and Hamas poses an enormous obstacle to peace. No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction. We will continue to demand that Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace: recognizing Israel’s right to exist, rejecting violence, and adhering to all existing agreements. And we once again call on Hamas to release Gilad Shalit, who has been kept from his family for five long years.



And yet, no matter how hard it may be to start meaningful negotiations under the current circumstances, we must acknowledge that a failure to try is not an option. The status quo is unsustainable. That is why, on Thursday, I stated publicly the principles that the United States believes can provide a foundation for negotiations toward an agreement to end the conflict and all claims – the broad outlines of which have been known for many years, and have been the template for discussions between the United States, Israelis, and Palestinians since at least the Clinton Administration.



I know that stating these principles – on the issues of territory and security – generated some controversy over the past few days. I was not entirely surprised. I know very well that the easy thing to do, particularly for a President preparing for reelection, is to avoid any controversy. But as I said to Prime Minister Netanyahu, I believe that the current situation in the Middle East does not allow for procrastination. I also believe that real friends talk openly and honestly with one another. And so I want to share with you some of what I said to the Prime Minister.



Here are the facts we all must confront. First, the number of Palestinians living west of the Jordan River is growing rapidly and fundamentally reshaping the demographic realities of both Israel and the Palestinian territories. This will make it harder and harder – without a peace deal – to maintain Israel as both a Jewish state and a democratic state.



Second, technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself in the absence of a genuine peace.



And third, a new generation of Arabs is reshaping the region. A just and lasting peace can no longer be forged with one or two Arab leaders. Going forward, millions of Arab citizens have to see that peace is possible for that peace to be sustained.



Just as the context has changed in the Middle East, so too has it been changing in the international community over the last several years. There is a reason why the Palestinians are pursuing their interests at the United Nations. They recognize that there is an impatience with the peace process – or the absence of one. Not just in the Arab World, but in Latin America, in Europe, and in Asia. That impatience is growing, and is already manifesting itself in capitols around the world.



These are the facts. I firmly believe, and repeated on Thursday, that peace cannot be imposed on the parties to the conflict. No vote at the United Nations will ever create an independent Palestinian state. And the United States will stand up against efforts to single Israel out at the UN or in any international forum. Because Israel’s legitimacy is not a matter for debate.



Moreover, we know that peace demands a partner – which is why I said that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with Palestinians who do not recognize its right to exist, and we will hold the Palestinians accountable for their actions and their rhetoric.



But the march to isolate Israel internationally – and the impulse of the Palestinians to abandon negotiations – will continue to gain momentum in the absence of a credible peace process and alternative. For us to have leverage with the Palestinians, with the Arab States, and with the international community, the basis for negotiations has to hold out the prospect of success. So, in advance of a five day trip to Europe in which the Middle East will be a topic of acute interest, I chose to speak about what peace will require.



There was nothing particularly original in my proposal; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. Administrations. But since questions have been raised, let me repeat what I actually said on Thursday.



I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.



As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.



That is what I said. Now, it was my reference to the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps that received the lion’s share of the attention. And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means.



By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.



If there’s a controversy, then, it’s not based in substance. What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately. I have done so because we cannot afford to wait another decade, or another two decades, or another three decades, to achieve peace. The world is moving too fast. The extraordinary challenges facing Israel would only grow. Delay will undermine Israel’s security and the peace that the Israeli people deserve.



I know that some of you will disagree with this assessment. I respect that. And as fellow Americans and friends of Israel, I know that we can have this discussion.



Ultimately, however, it is the right and responsibility of the Israeli government to make the hard choices that are necessary to protect a Jewish and democratic state for which so many generations have sacrificed. And as a friend of Israel, I am committed to doing our part to see that this goal is realized, while calling not just on Israel, but on the Palestinians, the Arab States, and the international community to join us in that effort. Because the burden of making hard choices must not be Israel’s alone.



Even as we do all that’s necessary to ensure Israel’s security; even as we are clear-eyed about the difficult challenges before us; and even as we pledge to stand by Israel through whatever tough days lie ahead – I hope we do not give up on that vision of peace. For if history teaches us anything—if the story of Israel teaches us anything—it is that with courage and resolve, progress is possible. Peace is possible.



The Talmud teaches us that so long as a person still has life, they should never abandon faith. And that lesson seems especially fitting today,



For so long as there are those, across the Middle East and beyond, who are standing up for the legitimate rights and freedoms which have been denied by their governments, the United States will never abandon our support for those rights that are universal.



And so long as there are those who long for a better future, we will never abandon our pursuit of a just and lasting peace that ends this conflict with two states living side by side in peace and security. This is not idealism or naivete. It’s a hard-headed recognition that a genuine peace is the only path that will ultimately provide for a peaceful Palestine as the homeland of the Palestinian people and a Jewish state of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.

Thank you. God bless you. God bless Israel, and God bless the United States of America.

 

[monitor]

Israel and Palestine: Obama's flawed approach
US president's speech showed a lack of will and capacity to pressure Israel into striking compromise with Palestinians.
Richard Falk Last Modified: 21 May 2011 11:31

Email

Jewish activists in New York denounce Obama's call for a return to Israel's pre-1967 borders. But the US president declared his 'unshakeable support' of Israel and did not condemn its illegal settlement building [GALLO/GETTY]


There is no world leader that is more skilled at speechmaking than Barack Obama, especially when it comes to inspiring rhetoric that resonates with deep and widely held human aspirations. And his speech on Middle East policy, symbolically delivered to a Washington audience gathered at the State Department, was no exception - and it contained certain welcome reassurances about US intentions in the region. I would point to his overall endorsement of the Arab Spring as a demonstration that the shaping of political order ultimately is a prerogative of the people. Further, that populist outrage - if mobilised - is capable of liberating an oppressed people from the yoke of brutal and corrupt dictatorships, and amazingly to do so without recourse to violence.

Obama also was honest enough to acknowledge that the national strategic interests of the United States sometimes take precedence over this preferential option for democracy and respect for human rights. Finally, his proposed $1 billion in debt relief for Egypt was a concrete expression of support for the completion of its revolutionary process, although the further dollars promised - tied to an opening to outside investment and a free trade framework was far more ambiguous, threatening the enfeebled Egyptian economy with the sort of competitive intrusions that have been so devastating for indigenous agriculture and industry throughout the African continent.

But let’s face it, when the soaring language is taken away, we should not be surprised that Obama continues to seek approval, as he has throughout his presidency, from the hawks in the State Department, the militarists in the Pentagon, and true capitalist believers on Wall Street. Such are the fixed parameters of his presidency with respect to foreign policy, and they explain why there is so much disappointment among those who were formerly his most ardent supporters during his uphill presidential campaign - those who were once energised and excited by the slogan: "Change - Yes we can!" Succumbing to Washington "realism" (actually a recipe for imperial implosion), the unacknowledged operational slogan of the Obama presidency has become "Change - No we won't!"

With these considerations in mind, it is not at all surprising that Obama's approach to the Israel/Palestine conflict remains one-sided, deeply flawed, and a barrier rather than a gateway to a just and sustainable peace. The underlying pressures that produce the distortion is the one-sided allegiance to Israel, saying: "Our commitment to Israel's security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempt to single it out for criticism in international forums."

The blame game

This leads to the totally unwarranted assessment that failure to achieve peace in recent years is equally attributable to Israelis and the Palestinians, thereby equating what is certainly not equivalent. Consider Obama's words of comparison: "Israeli settlement activity continues, Palestinians have walked away from the talks." How many times is it necessary to point out that Israeli settlement activity is unlawful, and used to be viewed as such - even by the United States government - and that the Palestinian refusal to negotiate comes while their promised homeland is being despoiled not only by settlement expansion and settler violence, but by the continued construction of an unlawful barrier wall well beyond the 1967 borders. Obama never finds it appropriate to mention Israel's reliance on excessive and lethal force, most recently in its response to the Nakba demonstrations along its borders, or its blatant disregard of international law, whether by continuing to blockade the entrapped 1.5 million Palestinians locked inside Gaza or by violently attacking the Freedom Flotilla a year ago in international waters - while it was carrying much needed humanitarian aid to the Gazans - or by the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem.

At least in Obama's Cairo speech of June 2009 there was a strong recognition of Palestinian suffering through dispossession, occupation, and refugee status: "...it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians - have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighbouring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own."

Of course, this formulation prejudges the most fundamental of Palestinian entitlements by confining any exercise of their right of self-determination as a people to a two-state straight jacket that may no longer be viable or desirable, if it ever was. And throughout the speech in Cairo there was never a sense that the Palestinians have rights under international law that must be taken into account in any legitimate peace process, taking precedence over "facts on the ground".

But at least in Cairo Obama was clear on the Israeli settlements, or reasonably so: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for the settlements to stop." Even here Obama was only pleading for a freeze, rather than dismantling what was unlawful. In the new speech, settlement activity is blandly referred to as making it difficult to get new negotiations started - but nothing critical is said, despite resumed and intensified settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This unwillingness to confront Israel on such a litmus test of a commitment to a negotiated peace is indicative of Obama's further retreat from even the pretense of balanced diplomacy as measured against Cairo.

The role of Hamas

And there were other demonstrations of pro-Israeli partisanship in the speech. On the somewhat hopeful moves toward Palestinian Authority/Hamas reconciliation as a necessary basis for effective representation of the Palestinian people at the international level, Obama confines his comments to reiterating Israeli complaints about the refusal of Hamas to recognise Israel’s right to exist. What was left unsaid by Obama is that progress toward peace might be made by at last treating Hamas as a political actor, appreciating its efforts to establish ceasefires and suppress rocket attacks from Gaza, acknowledging its repeated acceptance of a Palestinian state within 1967 borders - buttressed by a long-term proposal for peaceful co-existence with Israel, and lifting a punitive and unlawful blockade on Gaza that has lasted for almost four years. It is possible that such an approach might fail, but if the terminology of taking risks for peace is to have any meaning it must include an altered orientation toward the participation of Hamas in any future peace process.

Perhaps the most serious flaw in the Obama conception of resumed negotiations is the separation of the territorial issues from the wider agenda of fundamental questions. This unfortunate feature of his approach has been obscured by Israel's evident anger about the passage in the speech that affirms what was already generally accepted in the international community: "The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognised borders are established for both states." If anything this is a step back from the 1967 canonical and unanimous Security Council Resolution 242 that looked unconditionally toward "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territory occupied in the recent conflict".

Obama's innovation involves deferring consideration of what he calls "[t]wo wrenching and emotional issues ... the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees." Leaving Jerusalem out of the negotiating process is in effect an uncritical acceptance of Israel's insistence that the city as a whole belongs exclusively to Israel. What is worse, it allows Israel to continue the gradual process of ethnic cleansing in East Jerusalem: settlement expansion, house demolitions, withdrawal of residency permits and deportations, and overall policies designed to discourage a continued Palestinian presence. It must be understood, I believe, as an unscrupulous American acceptance of Israel's position on Jerusalem, which is not only a betrayal of legitimate Palestinian expectations of situating their capital in East Jerusalem but also a move that will be received with bitter resentment throughout the Arab world.

Similarly, the deferral of the refugee issue is quite unforgiveable. As of 2010, 4.7 million Palestinians are registered with the UN as refugees, either living within refugee camps under conditions of occupation, or in precarious circumstances in neighbouring countries within camps - or as vulnerable members of a host country. This refugee status has persisted for more that 60 years, despite the clear assertion of Palestinian refugee rights contained in General Assembly Resolution 194, adopted in 1948 and annually reaffirmed: "The refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date." This persistence of the Palestinian refugee status six decades later is one of the most notorious denials of human rights that exist in the world today. To remove it from the peace process, as Obama purports to do, is to consign the refugees to an outer darkness of despair, and as such, is a telling disclosure of the bad faith embedded in the most recent Obama rendering of his approach to peace. Those who are dedicated to achieving a just peace for the two peoples - Israelis and Palestinians - are doomed to fail unless the refugees are treated as a core issue that can neither be postponed nor evaded without a grave betrayal of justice.

Declaration of statehood

And finally, Obama does his best to dash Palestinian hopes about their one effort to move their struggle a step forward, gaining their acceptance as a state by the United Nations in September of this year. In a perverse formulation of this reasonable, even belated, Palestinian effort to enlist international support for their claims of self-determination and statehood, Obama resorts to deflating and condescending language: "Efforts to delegitimise Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state."

This language is perverse because the Palestinian diplomatic initiative is meant to legitimise itself, not delegitimise Israel. And the BDS campaign and other international civil society initiatives carrying on the "legitimacy war" being waged against Israel, by way of the global Palestinian solidarity movement are not aimed at delegitimising Israel, but rather seek to overcome the illegitimacy of such unlawful Israeli policies and practices as the Gaza blockade, ethnic cleansing, wall building in defiance of the International Court of Justice, settlement expansion and settler violence and excessive violence in the name of security.

In many respects, Obama's speech, aside from the soaring rhetoric, might have been crafted in Tel Aviv rather than the White House. It is a tribute to Israel's extraordinary influence upon the US media that has been able to shift the focus of assessment to the supposed Israeli anger about affirming Palestinian statehood within 1967 borders. It is hardly a secret that the Netanyahu leadership, aside from its shrewd propaganda, is opposed to the establishment of any Palestinian state, whether symbolic or substantive. This was much was confirmed by the release of the Palestine Papers that showed that, behind closed doors - even when the Palestinian Authority made concession after concession in response to Israeli demands - the Israeli negotiating partners seemed totally unresponsive, and appeared disinterested in negotiating a genuine solution to the conflict.

Underneath the Israeli demand for recognition of its character as a Jewish state is the hidden reality of a Palestinian minority of more than 1.5 million people living as second class citizens within Israel. The Obama conception of "a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace" seems completely oblivious to the rights of minority peoples and religions. Such ethnic and religious states seem incompatible with the promise of human dignity for all persons living within a political community. Homeland for peoples is fine, and the Jewish claim in this regard has the force of history behind it, but to consign the Palestinians to a homeland behind the 1967 borders is a covert way to invalidate the claims of refugees expelled in 1948 from historic Palestine, as well as the Palestinian minority living within Israel at present.

In a profound sense, whatever Obama says at this point is just adding more words which are beside the point. He has neither the will nor the capacity to exert any material leverage on Israel that might make it more amenable to respecting Palestinian rights under international law, or to strike a genuine compromise based on mutuality of claims. Palestinians should not look to sovereign states, or even the United Nations, and certainly not the United States, in their long and tormented journey to realise a just and sustainable destiny for themselves.

Their future will depend on the outcome of their struggle, abetted and supported by people of good will around the world, and increasingly assuming the character of a nonviolent legitimacy war that mobilises moral and political pressures that assert Palestinian rights from below. In this regard, it remains politically significant to make use of the UN and friendly governments to gain visibility and legitimacy for their claims of right. It is Palestinian populism, not great power diplomacy, that offers the best current hope of achieving a sustainable and just peace on behalf of the Palestinian people. Obama's State Department speech should be understood as merely the latest in a long series of disguised confessions of geopolitical impotence, but of one thing we can be sure, it will not be the last.


Richard Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Research Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He has authored and edited numerous publications spanning a period of five decades. His most recent book is Achieving Human Rights (2009).


He is currently serving his fourth year of a six year term as a United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

 

[Evil Flare]

Who is God ? where is he ?

Bring him & Let the whole world ask him first

 

[ovarel]

bunch of freaks,nothing more...

 

[ephone]

That does not fly well to the world. The Huns used to have an empire way powerful in Northern China more than two thousand years ago. All of those grassland in Northern China were under their control.

They existed before China first united empire Qin. Do you see any Hun's descendants from Europe come back to claim part of China is theirs? I bet that was also supposed God-Given land to them before two thousand years ago. For centuries, they and Han Chinese have peaceful time but also fought major battles throughout different period. They were finally defeated and taken by Han Chinese even though that was a land where the Huns called home for centuries.

To be honest, what you have said you may think is logical to you. However, to anyone else, it is really not that logical at all.

The Jews lived there and had a kingdom before any Arab, before there ever was such a country known as Britain, it was taken by the Romans.
This isn`t just a land given by god, this was a land that Jews called home for centuries before it was conquered, it seems you did not know this but this is a historical fact, not just a biblical one.
And Jews lived here even during the Mandate of Palestine with the Arabs, so no, it was never theirs. The kingdom of Israel was conquered centuries ago by many different forces but it was the Kingdom of Jews before it was conquered.

 

[500]

Arabs attacked Israel since they believe that is their land and U.K. stole that and gave to Jews. They wanted it back.

Well their belief has nothing to do with reality. Britain captured Ottoman Emire lands and gave 99.8% to Arabs. Then remaining 0.2% was devided by UN between Arabs and Jews.

 

[Hammy007]

Those borders are indefensible, Obama may not remember that his former promised no 67 borders in written obligations, but Israel does.
No Prime Minister will give up sovereignty over the Jordan Valley, which is essential for Israel`s security, no matter what the President says.

if your father is saying vacate those illegal regions post 1967, then it means no american help for those illegal regions

 

[somebozo]

I say we forget about israel and worry more about keeping the grand Aqsa mosque under Muslim control. Peace with Israel can be made in exchange of muslim sovergenity over Aqsa. The land is a historical axis of conflicts and fighting one other is not gonna help.

 

[somebozo]

Benjamin Netanyahu President Obama | Andrea Mitchell | Video | Mediaite

Andrea Mitchell: Israel PM Lectured Obama And Treated Him Like ‘A Schoolboy’

 

[iPakMan]

I say we forget about israel and worry more about keeping the grand Aqsa mosque under Muslim control. Peace with Israel can be made in exchange of muslim sovergenity over Aqsa. The land is a historical axis of conflicts and fighting one other is not gonna help.

It already is and has been under Muslim sovereignty for a long time. The imam is a suicide bombing endorsing chap.

 

[Meengla]

To be honest, what you have said you may think is logical to you. However, to anyone else, it is really not that logical at all.

I have read some Old Testament. Enough to know that 'God' indeed 'gave' the land to the Israelites. My understanding is also that there were people ALREADY used to live there before the ancient Hebrews settled there. Those people (Cananites?) were displaced. May be butchered or displaced.
I don't know.
But I do know one thing: There are NO 'original' owners of land in this world. It is how far we want to go back to suit our own case.
In case of Israelis they -might have- used to live before the genetic ancestors of modern day Palestinians hundreds, if not over a thousand years ago. It also possible that the modern day Palestinians--who too are Semites--are the 'original' owners themselves, having lived there hundreds of years themselves. Palestinians may well have been Jews who converted to Islam. They are supposed to be Semites anyway.

But if you follow the logic by iPakman etc then Palestinians--and it has really pained them to say 'Palestinians' finally (they still cannot say 'West Bank' and call it 'Judea and Samaria')--have no right to the land because Jews were present before. WHAT IF Pals say that they were the people displaced by the Jews thousands of years ago?!

Israeli 'logic' is utter BS and landgrab. I can understand their need for 'security' but that cannot come at the expense of millions of others who too have lived in this land for hundreds, if not thousands of years. And who too could lay a claim.

Again, there are no 'original' inhabitants anywhere in this world. We open a Pandora's Box if we attempt that. Bottom line: Israelis cannot displace 4-5 million Palestinians from the land they think they should own. These people may become, say, 15 million by 2100--and better armed in every sense of the word.

 

[fallstuff]

The duality of Obama. This is speaking with a forked tongue.

He is saying the Palestanian State must be based on 1967 border ( so far sounds great), but all changes took place afterwards 1967 including but not limited to possession, settlements, Israel's security also have to considered ( this is the poison pill in his statement) .

Essentially nothing new. Just serving old wine in a new bottle.