What Obama Actually Said in 2010

Palestinians claim that when they go to the United Nations this Friday to receive recognition as an independent state, they will just be adhering to President Obama's words before the General Assembly last year. They say he called for the acceptance of Palestine as a member state within a year. Well, that isn't exactly what he said.

Here's the paragraph where he referred to Palestine as a member of the UN, with my own emphasis added:

"This time, we should draw upon the teachings of tolerance that lie at the heart of three great religions that see Jerusalem’s soil as sacred. This time we should reach for what’s best within ourselves. If we do, when we come back here next year, we can have an agreement that will lead to a new member of the United Nations — an independent, sovereign state of Palestine, living in peace with Israel."

So no, what the Palestinians plan to declare on September 23, 2011 is not in line with what Obama declared on September 23, 2010. He did not say a Palestinian state should be declared and admitted into the UN "when we come back here next year" no matter what. He hoped there would be an agreement that would lead to the establishment of Palestine. That is the exact opposite of what the Palestinians have decided to do.

Obama should quote himself in his 2011 UN address. He should emphasize that he called for an agreement bred by Israeli-Palestinian tolerance, not for a move that is counter to Israel's wishes. He can point out that during this year, neither the Palestinian or Israeli leadership acted tolerantly toward the other side. If Obama doesn't do so, Netanyahu should use the quote, not as a reminder to the American administration, which is on Israel's side on this one anyway, but as a reminder to Palestinians and to European countries.

Sept. 2011: Middle Eastern Hurricane Season

Less then a month after Hurricane Irene struck New York (albeit as a downgraded tropical storm), Hurricane Abbas is scheduled to hit Manhattan around September 20. The United Nations Headquarters will be right in the eye of the Category 3 storm, which is not expected to continue north to Massachusetts and Canada, but rather to go east, gather strength over the hot Atlantic Ocean and hit the Middle East as a Category 5 hurricane at the very least.

Israeli officials fear that the fierce winds will sweep with them rockets from Gaza, as well as Palestinian refugees, who will be thrust uncontrollably onto Israel's borders from the Palestinian territories, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and the Mediterranean Sea. Despite the fact that the government knows about the hurricane, a new report by MK Shaul Mofaz shows they are doing nothing to mitigate its consequences. Perhaps PTSD (Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder, in this case) is paralyzing them.

Meteorologists point out that Hurricane Abbas is unlike any other cyclone in history. For one thing, it isn't forming near the western shores of Africa, but rather at its final destination - Israel and the Palestinian territories. Scientists have also observed that it is the first man-made hurricane in recorded human history. Some have even said that this wonder, though destructive, may merit the awarding of a Nobel Prize to Mahmoud Abbas, Benjamin Netanyahu, Barack Obama and several other Palestinian, Israeli, American and world leaders. The problem is that Nobel rules limit the number of people who can share a prize, and the list of people who have contributed to the formation of Hurricane Abbas is endless. Perhaps this will be the first time that "et al" wins a Nobel.

Scientists are not sure which Nobel Prize the creators of this Middle Eastern phenomenon will be awarded. Needless to say, it won't be the Peace Prize. Perhaps it will be the Chemistry (or lack thereof) prize, or a Nobel in physics. Another possibility is the Literature Prize, for all the tales politicians are expected to spin in an effort to convince people that they did not do anything wrong.

Ruth Gavison: No to Solidarity March

In yesterday's Haaretz (Hebrew/English), Prof. Ruth Gavison explained why she will not join the march in support of a unilateral declaration of Palestinian Statehood, despite the fact that she supports a two-state solution. I couldn't have said it better:

From the time I became politically aware I have supported the "two states for two peoples" solution, for both diplomatic and ethical reasons. Still, I won't join the solidarity march in support of the Palestinian demand to declare independence. Not because I have more important things to do, or because I don't understand the voice of history, or because I'm a captive of fear or hatred, as Yael Sternhell claims. And not because I'm afraid that my participation will seem patronizing - a fear allayed by Talmudic studies professor Ishay Rosen Zvi. It's because I feel that a unilateral declaration at present represents more of a danger to the chance of implementing a two-state solution than a way to promote it.

I'm not very optimistic about the chance of implementing this solution in the foreseeable future, but I don't want to do anything that will weaken it even further.

The solidarity march is the answer of those of us who believe that the side that bears the main responsibility for the failure to implement the two-state vision so far is Israel, which is ruled by a right-wing government and the settlers. Making it clear that there are Jewish Israelis who support this agreement, and trying to greatly increase their number and specific gravity, is supposed to change this situation and put greater pressure on the government - as opposed to the diplomatic activities of the Palestinians themselves. According to this approach, there is no need to build incentives that will cause the Palestinians, too, to change their views, as a precondition for a just and stable agreement.

I don't accept this analysis. Alongside viewpoints of certain elements in the Israeli public that are strongly represented in the Israeli government and that really do want to prevent any chance of progress toward a division of sovereignty between the river and the sea, Israel has a large majority ready for a stable compromise agreement. Moreover, the present Israeli government, as right-wing as it may be, is officially committed to a two-state solution.

On the other hand, along with Palestinians who declare that they are ready for a solution involving a division of the land, significant groups clearly declare that as far as they are concerned, the goal is Palestinian sovereignty over the entire area. Just as important, the entire Palestinian leadership, including its most moderate elements, is apparently unable to declare that it understands that the two-state vision means waiving recognition of the "right" of the refugees and their descendants to return to their homes in the State of Israel.

The dead end in the negotiations is based on the Palestinians' positions no less than those of Israeli opponents of partition. Therefore, a proper process of progress toward implementing the two-state vision must include clear and consistent Israeli and international activity to create political, economic, social and ethical incentives that will convince the two sides to accept the "painful concessions" required.

Although the unilateral step in the United Nations, and particularly outside support for it from the international community and Jews in Israel, puts pressure on Israel to do what is necessary to achieve a solution, there is no element of similar pressure on the Palestinians. On the contrary. Such processes only reinforce the feeling among the Palestinians that someone else is doing the work for them and that they are likely to see their just demands met without committing to the necessary painful concessions.

I hope that history really is on the side of the two-state solution. To help it along, supporters of this solution in Israel and worldwide must show a greater effort than that reflected by taking part in the solidarity march.

UN Recognition and Hamas

Other than the issue of refugees, which I addressed in my previous post, I have another major problem with the idea of unilateral recognition of a Palestinian State at the United Nations. Mahmoud Abbas totally ignores the issue of Hamas control of Gaza in his NY Times op-ed.

Fatah and Hamas have recently reached a tentative agreement to share power. However, there is no guarantee it will ever be implemented, nor is it clear who would recognize or be willing to deal with a Palestinian government which includes Hamas. Hamas's militiamen would retake Gaza the second Fatah did something they didn't like, or if they lost an election, which they would immediately claim was rigged.

Who knows, maybe reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah before the September vote at the UN is good for Israel. I hope less countries would be willing to create a new independent state with terrorists in its government.

Abbas Puts Refugees Front and Center

In his op-ed in the New York Times, President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority calls upon the United Nations to unilaterally recognize the State of Palestine. What struck me was how central the Palestinian refugees and the right of return were to his argument. He starts the article with his own story of expulsion from Safed, and calls the right of return a "most basic of human rights". He also says that a core issue the new state will negotiate with Israel would be "a just solution for Palestinian refugees based on Resolution 194". In other words, their return.

I do not expect Abbas to drop the right of return before there is an agreement in place. However, Israel will never be able to agree to a mass repatriation of Palestinians into its own territory. This is the main reason why Israel and its allies must not allow the establishment of a Palestinian State, or a UN recognition thereof, without a signed final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Recognition of a state can only come in a treaty where Palestinians will simultaneously recognize that mass return into Israel cannot be implemented and where an alternative solution is reached.

If the State of Palestine is already recognized by the world community, Palestinians will have less incentive to reach a compromise, even if they are still under Israeli military control. They will bet that now that IDF presence will become an illegal occupation of a whole foreign nation (as opposed to the situation now, where settlements are illegal, but the occupation itself is not) other countries will be more willing to do the Palestinians' work for them and force Israel to give in to all or most of their demands.

For the Millionth Time, Fire Avigdor Lieberman!

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman gave a speech at the 65th session of the United Nations General Assembly today. He was speaking as the official representative of the State of Israel, of course, and so should have spoken about the Israeli government's official policy. That isn't what he did. Instead, he pushed his own agenda, saying peace with the Palestinians isn't possible in the next few years and that any peace deal would have to include not only land swaps but swaps of the populations on that land (meaning that technically, the people would stay put, only the border would move and, in the case of Israeli Arabs, their citizenship would change). So now, despite Benjamin Netanyahu distancing himself from Lieberman's words, this speech is now taken as the official policy of Israel by many countries. I can't blame them. After all, a foreign minister addressing the UN General Assembly is always assumed to be speaking for his country. That's part of diplomacy - when the president, prime minister or foreign minister of a country says something, it has has official significance.

Avigdor Lieberman has always been a loose cannon. Appointing him to be Israel's top diplomat was one of the most irresponsible things Netanyahu ever did. This speech at the UN should have been the final straw. In a normal country, a foreign minister who strays from official foreign policy at such an important international forum would be fired. That's what should happen in this case. I have no illusions. I know Bibi is too dependent on Yisrael Beitenu to keep his coalition together, and not losing the prime minister's seat is more important to him than Israel's standing in the world.

Something For Everybody in IAEA Report

The latest report by the IAEA regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions is a bit confusing. On the one hand, the agency now knows less than it ever did about the Iranian nuclear program. On the other hand, Iran is now increasingly cooperating with the IAEA. Each side of the debate over whether to do anything against Iran, economically or militarily, can use this ambiguous report to bolster its arguments. Just pick one part of the report and ignore the other.

Now here's the big question: if Iran is cooperating more than before, how come Mohamed ElBaradei's crack team of experts knows less than in the past? Either the cooperation is still very partial, even if better than before, or the IAEA is just incompetent. Which one is it?

Daily Show Reveals: The Jews Run Israel

Here's a funny clip from the Daily Show: Senior Diplomatic/British/Middle East/Anything Correspondent John Oliver interviews Danny Gillerman, Israel's ambassador to the United Nations.