President Obama, the Middle East, and the Arab Spring
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-05-23/president-obama-middle-east-and-arab-spring
Israel’s President Benjamin Netanyahu speaks at a meeting of pro –Israeli lobby group, AIPAC, today. President Obama addressed the group yesterday. He sought to clarify his remarks concerning the pre 1967 borders for a possible Palestinian state,a premise conservative Israelis rejected wholeheartedly. Join us for a conversation on the latest U.S. Israeli tensions as the U.S. seeks to chart a course amid ongoing political uprisings and crackdowns in North Africa and the Middle East.
Guests
Lisa Anderson
president, The American University in Cairo
Hisham Melhem
Washington bureau chief for Al-Arabiya TV, and Washington correspondent for "An-Nahar."
Jeremy Ben-Ami
president, J Street
author of "New Voice for Israel, Fighting for the Survival of the Jewish Nation" to be published July, 2011
David Sanger
chief Washington correspondent for The New York Times.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I like Mr. Obama's hardball (talk) stance with Israel. Too bad that's all it is, talk. Lets see some holding up of foreign aid, yea right not going to happen or anything else that has teeth in it. Not sure where B.O. is going with this but will bet like everything else he does it will amount to damage done.
A disrespectful lecture by Netanyahu to Pres.Obama, is a product of U.S over indulgence towards Israel. Some "Tough Love" may be in order. Withholding their allowance, may give Israel a clearer picture of their position in our "Special Relationship"
Just saying "Arab Spring" is like throwing a twin coverlet across a king sized bed and expecting Good Housekeeping photography. Any discussant in this context is by definition an apologist. When a general strike comes in France, when the Greek ferries refuse passengers, and the Portuguese gigilo's are too busy revolting to take an alabaster lady's hand then you'll have to admit the hair of the whole Worriald (World) is on fire. Americans must be the most domesticated farm animals on Earth not to realize food is getting scarcer, the oceans dirtier, the poor more numerous and the air thicker. They're even afraid to hoot and bray when the attendant is a half hour late with the slop. Oh, I see the container with our 3X ladies pants has almost arrived from Jordan, the sneakers from South Africa and the ill-fitting socks from Haiti. My English cucumber today is a "wetback", came across the Rio Grande with hundreds of others in an illegal trailer. The watermelons, seedless and organic, must have just rolled up here from Chile like tumbleweeds, like migrating lemmings. The pertinent question is whence comes the American Spring in which us creampuffs sprout legs and start buying farmland and looms with our last benefit checks. It's way beyond the paygrade of the game show hosts. (Those who can't decode "inside jokes" please tune radios to On Point.)
Will the guests discuss the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt? If they are gaining power there (some say they sure are!), does the US really want to support Egypt then?
Most of all, how in the world can Obama promise money to the
"freedom fighters" in the middle east uprisings when the US is absolutely broke??!! The main focus of Obama now should be solving America's economic meltdown.
You're right, Ms. Rankin, American foreign policy can't distinquish buck-buck from leapfrog. Are we gonna let a bunch of Yemenites and Syrians jump past us and get free and fair elections not dominated by corporate oligarchs and their pervasive media before we do? Are they going to enjoy an economic floor under economic democracy while we roll in "free market" mud?
Are we gonna stand idly by while their mercenary palace guards trained and put in place by our elite leadership are disassembled and turned out to pasture? Are olive orchardists and donkey trainers going to have solar electricity and local vegetables before we get any? Trying to get my old laptop online last night I spoke with a sweet voice in Algeria who was on "Verizon property." Will their college grads be hired ahead of our own loan saddled wretches? Look to Eastern European debt peonage for our destiny, because we lack any lubricant (oil) to speak of.
"May your eldest daughter marry a Palestinian, " will be the most courteous toast of this unfolding century. I expect Sasha and Melia will be courting Saudi billionaires before too long. Love finds a way.
Here is the border problem. The 200 large Israeli settlements on the Palestinian side of the 1967 (Green Line) border, containing half a million Israeli residents, are strategically placed to constitute a permanent Israeli claim to all of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria). It is too late to partition the land. With so many Jews living in the West Bank and so many Arabs living in Israel, the whole thing is one bi-ethnic, bi-lingual state. The two-state train has left the station.
Correct Howard Moreland, there's something in corporate hegemony doesn't love a border. The two state thing is as racist as the Confederacy. Reconstruction, not Jim Crow.
I find it interesting that a group of people who were treated so badly until 1967 and had almost no land whatsoever feel they can now treat another group of people so inappropriatly.
Joe
Orlando FL
While the two state, (Israeli and Palestinian), solution sounds like a reasonable and acceptable approach, how does this differ from other political programs based on separation of groups by ethnicity or race, such as Jim Crow in the US and Apartheid in South Africa?
What will happen to the Palestinians who have Israeli citizenship by virtue of their birth within the current geographic boundaries? Will they be able to choose to live within Israel with all the rights and responsibilities of citizens of Israel, or will they be forcibly deported to the Palestinian homeland?
If the US support is what keeps Israel from striking an agreement with the Palestinians, then why not give an advertisede 2-3 year time period, and if an agreement is not reached, ALL support will be stripped from both Israel and Palestine?
This is more of the "Why" Americans have a problem with how our government is functioning. Here at home we are giving up 'entitlements' so that billions of dollars can go to other countries to support wars and unending threats - many of which come back at us in the form of funding our enemies with our own money.
The good 'ol U.S.A. is required to give billions to support everyone else while we have given up our own basic democracy to corporate-owned elections.
We-the-people here have little say in who and how our government functions anymore. The corporate donations decide elections before the votes come in - and it is apparent from the past several elections that if the corporate choice is not chosen by the voters, the vote is challenged and overturned.
Corporations have been given the status of a person for certain benefits but at the same time are not responsible to pay taxes - the people of the corporation pay personal taxes but the corporations do not pay taxes - corporations only rake in the profits.
How can a country that has spent all of its money and has no available credit continue to pay out allowances to undeserving countries elsewhere in the world?
Freedom isn't free - as we can see the billions add up to pay for wars as well as payoffs to other governments which are more corrupt than our own government.
This is a perfect opportunity for all sides to seriously consider a one-state solution. Both sides have legitimate claim to the same land. Rather than further dividing themselves, the Israelis and the Palestinians should unite in one secular democracy that protects freedoms for all.
Obama's approach seems reasonable, logical and ethical as usual. If he's opposed by the theological, the corporate, the special interests, and the hysterical, what's new? Fight the good fight. When he did show characteristic flexibility at AIPAC, a rabbi with a lobbying group (I can't recall which, a BBC interview) actually cast it as weakness.
Some have mentioned it, but I'm not sure what racism has to do with "two states", which by definition is about national sovereignty. I don't know how much support there is for a secular democracy either way. To my knowledge, Arabs in Israel are regularly discriminated against, have poor community services and the like, much as Jewish minorities in Muslim countries.
US has raised a spoiled child, never demanding that Isreal learn to live with it's neighbors. If Isreal was reasonable; defending it's territory would not be such a challenge.
We should have been an influence on Isreal's growth, instead Isreal plays American policy like a fiddle.
Thankfully, Israel is getting strong as the US is getting weak. The US has become an albatross around Israel's neck. If Obama wants Israel to withdraw to the 1949 Armistice lines, and take half a million Jewish "settlers" with them, then at the very least they should be swapped in exchange for the 1.5 million ARabs living in Israel too? The Israeli Arabs fully populate the Galilee and the Negev and take up much scarce and precious Jewish land.
If the Arabs and Obama - their principle negotiator- want to push the Jews back to the pre-67 armistice lines, then I want the 1.5 million Arabs who take up so much land in Israel to go east in exchange! Why is ISrael, who won 6 wars, being treated like the vanquished rather than the victor of six wars started by the Arabs?
Gee, when is Mexico going to demand that the US go back to its pre-1847 borders?
When is the US, Mexico and Central America going to consider a "one-state" solution, and end the "illegal immigrant" situation once and for all? One United Estados, from the Canadian border to the Columbian border!
The One-State solution was considered back in 1921, and all consideration was ended with the Hebron Massacre of 1929, when Arab rioters hacked up Jewish children in Hebron. So, back in 1929, the hopes of many Jewish idealists, that a one state solution with Jews and Muslim Arabs were permanently dashed.
A one state solution with Mexico makes a lot more sense to me.
Here's the problem: 1.5 million Arabs living in the Jewish state who take up most of the Galilee and much of the Negev, and thus leave little room for Jews to live in. OF course, since Prime Ministers of Israel are elected by Arab as well as Jewish votes, Netanyahu cannot tell the whole truth. But the truth is, that 1.5 million Arabs in Israel make it difficult for Jews to have anyplace to live. Israel is almost 8 million people, 1/4 Arabs, living on 8,000 square miles, or 1000 per square mile. But 64% of the country is almost uninhabitable desert. By contrast, the Arabs have 3 million square miles for the Arabs to live in. Plenty for all Arabs especially since they drove out almost all their JEws out after 1948. Let the Palestinian Arabs settle on abandoned Jewish lands in Morocco, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, and so on.
That was 90 years ago! The biggest obstacle to a one-state solution now is reluctance on both sides to have a secular government, especially Israel. It would mean the end of Israel being a Jewish state, but as a Jew I'd welcome the change. Israel has remained in a state of siege since its formation. Transforming to a secular nation that strongly defends religious freedom would protect Israel's ethnic and religious heritage and bring a true, lasting peace.
To Diane
If this conflict is ever resolved, half the media is out of a job! This conflict has taken up as much, if not more air time than almost all the other conflicts combined.
Be careful what you wish for.
Our money doesn't seem to buy much in this part of the world, certainly no one seems grateful or obligated.
I think our money would be better spent elsewhere.
I lived in Israel for ten years; how long have YOU? Israel is a secular Judean state. Yes, there are religious parties as there are in many other countries, and yes there are some limited domestic Jewish matters, such as matrimony, divorce, burial and the like that is heavily under the sway of the Rabbinate, but otherwise, Israel is as secular as Ireland or Greece, and almost the US. Israel is NOT a theocratic state, like Iran, where Mullahs and Ayatollahs rule. Not at all. Rabbis have influence but do not rule in Israel.
WEll, money never buys love, as the Beatles sang, and Israel's democratic values were not taken from the United States. Jews are a democratic people by their very nature. Jewish DNA is democratic.
But it was Jewish BLOOD and SWEAT, WORK and TEARS that built the JEwish state, not just American money. Not a single US GI ever came to fight for ISrael in 1948 (except a few JEwish volunteers), as they did for South Korea, South Vietnam, Britain in WWII, Kuwait, etc. All Israel ever asked for was the tools (weapons) to defend themselves with, and never for the lives of the sons and daughters of American mothers!
But America's contribution to Israel's defense has been HUGELYI overexaggerated, to say the least.
Some facts: America did not help Israel build its nuclear weapons. Israel has developed many of its own weaponry, including its own tanks, UAVs, assult rifles, Jericho missiles, and much more and is not dependent soley on US weapons either.
So a lot of Americans have to get off this DELUSION that America gave birth to ISrael, and that Israel is somehow America's creation or love child. IN fact, the whole State department was against the birth of ISrael in 1947. It was Czechoslovakian arms that saved the Jews in 1948, not American arms which never came. The US had an arms embargo on Israel in 1948. Look it up.
Diane called Lisa Anderson "Lee Sanderson." Well, Diane also called Ron Paul by his son's name, Rand Paul. Has Diane given any thought to retirement? Has NPR given any thought to retiring her?
Great, they don't need our money and it doesn't do anything for us.
Let's put it to better use. Less ideology, more practicality.
I corrected - I didn't mean to suggest Israel is a literal theocracy, just recognize the influence of theology in policy and discourse (and US is no exception)
Personally, I haven't heard exaggerations of U.S. contribution to Israel, unless sources are entirely wrong that "In 2007, the United States increased its military aid to Israel by over 25% to an average of $3 billion per year for the following ten year period" (and more provisions), making Israel first(?) in foreign aid, per capita. And personally, I'd rather feed some hungry kids than support the blockade of Gaza.
Today's show on the Middle East had worthy guests who presented their points of view well. However, with something as sensitive as the Middle East, the show needed to be more careful about selection of an adequate spectrum among the guests and their points of view. Unfortunately, the show omitted someone to represent or at least effectively explain the Israeli point of view. Next time, I would urge the show to more effectively represent the Israeli side of the debate among the selected guests when discussing the Middle East.
Too bad no one during this discussion, Diane, the panel, or audience, mentioned the fact that a loud vocal minority (lets hope it's a minority) in the Jewish crowd steadfastly believe that Israel was given to them by God, and in no way will they accept anything but totalitarian rule by Jews in Israel and strive towards Armageddon. Peace, Palestinians, and anyone else in their way be damned.
P.S. Organized religion is the root of all evil.
PART ONE
The manifest ignorance, combined with anti-Israel bias, of many of the people commenting here is on full display. Before parading your prejudices, or your pie-in-the-sky “solutions”, a few facts are in order:
1) The right of Palestine to exist, like the right of Israel to exist, comes (as one of the guests said early in the show) from the original U.N. Partition Plan for the area, the origin of the “two-state” solution. So, unless you are going to accuse the U.N., and all the nations that approved that Plan, of “racism”, the claim that it’s racist to create a separate state of Palestine is nonsense.
2) Israeli Arabs already have the full rights of citizenship. They vote in Israeli elections, have Arab representatives in the Knesset, and even have had members in the government.
3) Whatever the designs or desires of the Likud party (currently in charge of the government), they are not shared by the majority of the Israelis citizens - most of whom are not willing to face endless war or the threat of war (and/or terrorism) as the price for maintaining the settlements.
4) The problem is that Israel’s election system is based on proportional representation rather than “winner takes all”. The result (as in Italy, which has the same system) is that there is no majority government, and coalitions must be made. This gives extraordinary power to the minority religious parties, who are the main supporters of the settlements and the fantasy of “Judea and Samaria”. (I mention this as a cautionary note for those who want a proportional system adopted here. The results will be the same: minority parties will wield far too great an influence.)
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
5) The Palestinians could have had their own state decades ago, if they had simply accepted the U.N. plan. They chose war and terrorism instead. There is a price to pay for choosing to go outside the law, for being “outlaw”. While that is not a reason to allow the settlements to remain, it does mean that a simple return to the 1967 borders is not possible. But neither is this a justification for keeping all the settlements.
6) While Hamas’ charter continues to call for the destruction of Israel, no serious negotiation can possibly take place. (Unless you think the Palestinians would be willing to negotiate with an Israel that added to its constitution a provision calling for annexing all of Judea and Samaria, and expelling all Palestinians. Somehow, I don’t think so. Why, then, should Israel negotiate with Hamas?)
7) Simply put, the two-state solution is the only solution!
8) And please stop using the (supposed) “budget crisis” as a reason to beat up on Israel. The total amount spent on foreign aid for all countries (not just Israel) is the proverbial “drop in the bucket”. We could eliminate all of it, and the deficit wouldn’t even decrease by 3%! (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/13/barack-ob...).
So while the Republican drive to slash entitlements may be due to many things (my opinion: it’s due to “mindless ideology”), it certainly isn’t to pay for foreign aid!