Well This is Going Swimmingly

Remember back when everyone was mad at Netanyahu? That was because just as Joe Biden was in Israel trying to get peace talks started, Israel announced it was going to build a whole bunch of new settlement housing in East Jerusalem, in a neighborhood called Ramat Shlomo.

As part of the newest round of proximity talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, Israel annouced yesterday that it would not build the approved Ramat Shlomo neighborhood for at least two years. There, are you happy now?

Israel had pledged not to build in the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood of East Jerusalem for two years and that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas vowed that he would work against incitement of any sort.

But then today, one day later, oops.

Just two days after resuming peace talks with Israel, the Palestinian Authority has reported to the United States what it termed the first violation of negotiation terms, a senior Palestinian official said Monday.

Yasser Abed Rabbo said the construction of 14 housing units for Jewish settlers in an East Jerusalem neighbourhood, as reported by the Israeli Peace Now pressure group, violated the terms of new talks.

About the first round of talks, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said:

Erekat said that during their meeting, Abbas gave Mitchell a letter outlining the Palestinian Authority's position on proximity talks and the issues it wants to discuss. Abbas would head the Palestinian negotiating team himself, Erekat said, adding that the Palestinians view the talks as aimed at "The end of the occupation and creation of a Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel along the 1967 borders."

And Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak echoed his sentiments at a separate event:

"Without an agreement, we will be subject to international isolation, and we will suffer a fate similar to that of Belfast or Bosnia, or a gradual transition from a paradigm of two states for two peoples to one of one state for two peoples, and some people will try to label us as similar to South Africa. That's why we must act," Barak said. If both sides are willing to make brave decisions, he said, "it will be possible to get to direct negotiations and a breakthrough toward an agreement."

So it looks like Barak is super duper ready to make a two-state solution with the Palestinians, but clearly the rest of the government is not on board. Ah, well, no matter. I'm sure Netanyahu and Lieberman and all those guys will enjoy being a Jewish minority in, oh, 20 years.

Natan Sharansky and Netanyahu Outline New Jewish Agency Strategy

Yesterday, the Jewish Agency for Israel officially announced its new strategy for recruiting jews to live in Israel, which basically consists of spending more money on PR. The official press release quoted in the Ynet article doesn't say this, of course, but I was at an event sponsored by Masa on Tuesday night, which preceded the official announcement in New York by only a few hours. The Masa event, held in Jerusalem, was designed to strengthen the jewish disaspora's connection with Israel and included speeches by chairman of the Jewish Agency Natan Shransky, as well as Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Basically, Sharansky said the major question in approving the new strategy was, "Why should Israel have to pay for spoiled American kids to come visit?" I'm paraphrasing, clearly. But thankfully, Sharansky says, Netanyahu approved funding for this purpose.

The plan calls for building Jewish identity of Jews around the world and in Israel by forging a strong connection to Israel, Jewish heritage and people. The plan also introduces recommendations for new initiatives of social activism in Israel, and calls for directly engaging young Israelis on issues of Jewish identity.

I have uploaded Sharansky's speech and included it below, but I have had some internet problems which prevent me from uploading Netanyahu's speech so far. But stay tuned, it's coming.

PS I apologize for the terrible video quality here, I don't know what was up with my camera. Maybe it decided on its own that it would be best for my readers not to see Sharansky's face in focus.

Abbas: Obama, Mitchell Useless, Settlements Not So Bad

In an interview with Saudi-owned newspaper Asharq Alawsat, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas hints that he was making more headway with Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni than he is with Obama and Mitchell and that in reality, Obama insisting on a settlement freeze puts Abbas in an awkward position. He can't very well publicly say that a settlement freeze is not necessary in order to continue negotiations, but he tells Asharq Alawsat's journalists that in previous negotiations with Olmert, he was prepared to ignore the issue, at least temporarily.

And that's not all. This article is filled with fascinating tidbits about the insides of such a complicated negotiation. Here are some important parts and my take on them.

[Asharq Al-Awsat] Would it have been possible to reach an agreement with Olmert alone?
[President Abbas] I believe it would have been possible that I go up a little, and he comes down a little. It was possible to find a solution. He said that he would give me 100 percent.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] This is important and fundamental?
[President Abbas] He said 100 percent. He would take from this side, and I would take from that side. He presented maps to me. The maps included that he would take the settlements blocs (in the West Bank) in exchange for territories in the north, west, and south of the West Bank, in addition to territories to the east of Gaza.

So basically this is a territory swap he's talking about. Israel gets to keep the settlements they've built already and Palestine gets land that is not currently being used by anyone.

Wait. Not used by anyone? Don't we mean used by Palestinian residents of Israel? No.

[President Abbas] In a distant region (from the triangle region), because I explained from the beginning that I would not accept anyone (from the Palestinians of Israel). We were doing well. God is my witness, he was all right; he said to me: You will not find anyone other than me; and I said to him: But you will find someone other than me.

I guess Palestine has enough people. This brings a whole new angle to the argument about the Right of Return.

[President Abbas] Obama laid down the condition of halting the settlements completely. What could I say to him? Should I say this is too much? Moreover, halting the settlements is the second article of the Road Map, and it is something I want. At the end they blame me, and they say that the condition of halting the settlements was not on offer during the negotiations with Olmert. Bear in mind that at every meeting with Olmert the issue of the settlements was discussed.

And regarding Abbas' repeated threats to step down as president and his newest announcement that he will not seek re-election:

[Asharq Al-Awsat] Is not this decision tantamount to running away from the battle?
[President Abbas] Is the issue merely one of clinging to the chair? The chair does not matter to me.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] This is despite the fact that there is no alternative to you at this stage?
[President Abbas] It is wrong to say that there is no alternative. How can you say that there are 8 million Palestinians, but there is no alternative?
(Erekat [chief Palestinian negotiator with Israel]: I believe that the president did not say I do not want to be a candidate because he was scheming, maneuvering, or fed up).
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Or he might be sulking as he used to sulk in the past?
[President Abbas] No it is not sulking.

Hilarious. In what other situation would you find a journalist accusing a president of sulking during a private interview?

Moving along, Abbas says that Iran is standing in the way of a reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas (the former rules the West Bank and that latter is in charge of the Gaza strip).

[President Abbas] Brother, they saw the Egyptian document before we saw it, they agreed to it, and then we signed, but they refused to sign. Why, because there are regional sides that do not want this.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] What are these sides?
[President Abbas] Iran is the first one. This is indisputable.

And here Abbas idealizes a bit. I think the situations he refers to have improved in the past several years, but naturally he is overemphasizing his success at reform.

[Asharq Al-Awsat] What can a Palestinian State offer?
[President Abbas] It can offer a democratic state that has equality and transparency. I challenge anyone to say that there was a single case of corruption in the Palestinian Authority in the past two or three years. I mean a single case of corruption.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Does this include political detentions?
[President Abbas] Or a single political detention.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Does this mean that all the detentions are not political?
[President Abbas] The detentions are carried out in cases of weapons, security, money smuggling, or money laundering. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] What about the issue of women?
[President Abbas] Women are equal to men. On every occasion we emphasize the need to advance women. The proof of this is that the Legislative Council has allocated a quota for women, whether the others like it or not; one of every three members of the Legislative Councils has to be a woman. This also applies to the local councils.

There is much too much in this interview for me to paraphrase everything, so I urge you to read the whole thing if you have an interest.

Everyone Hates Netanyahu

Remember last week when I described how Netanyahu inserted his foot fully into his mouth with that whole Biden thing? Well, now clean-up is happening.

Firstly, yesterday, Bibi was apparently trying to explain that he handled the situation with Biden:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he thought his apology to Joe Biden over the ill-timed announcement of east Jerusalem construction was sufficient and believed the matter was closed.

This he says the same day he was "harshly reprimanded" on the phone by Sec. State Clinton. She expressed this sentiment herself:

In an interview with CNN, Friday Secretary of State Clinton said the move was "insulting" to the US.

"We have to make clear to our Israeli friends and partner that the two-state solution which we support, which the prime minister himself said he supports, requires confidence-building measures on both sides," she said.

And then today, when Netanyahu sees that everyone is still talking about it, he tries again:

"We opened the newspapers today and read all kinds of commentaries and estimates about the crisis with the United States. I suggest that we avoid getting carried away and calm down."

But the fact that he, himself, called it a "crisis" belies his message. In any case, the more interesting question to some will be whether Netanyahu really didn't know that the Interior Ministry would make the announcement on the same day as Biden's visit. My sources say no, that in fact, Israel really is that disorganized. But Netanyahu intends to remedy that:

Netanyahu on Saturday decided to form a committee comprising senior officials in the aims of preventing such mishaps.


The new committee will be responsible for establishing procedural guidelines to prevent the reoccurrence of similar incidents in the future.

Basically, everyone is mad at Netanyahu. Also, the word "crisis" was used exactly seven times in this one article.

Netanyahu is Going to Get Impeached

According to this AP article Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu really put his foot in it yesterday. VP Joe Biden showed up in Israel to try to re-start the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and what does Israel do? Announce its plans to build 1,600 new housing units in the East Jerusalem settlement of Ramat Shlomo.

The announcement was made just before Biden was scheduled to arrive to a planned dinner with Netanyahu. Meanwhile, Biden was on the phone with Washington asking just what he was supposed to do with this steaming pile of dung that had previously resembled a peace prospect. This caused him to be over an hour late to the dinner, a blunder which was perceived as an insult to Netanyahu, on top of the fact that he publicly condemned the move.

Israel's opposition party, Kadima, is reportedly planning a no-confidence vote to oust Netanyahu, which is not as far-fetched as it sounds. Israeli prime ministers who rub the U.S. the wrong way have suffered the same fate before. In fact, one of the reasons Bibi did not win re-election after his first term as prime minister is that he failed to please Clinton. And even Rabin, who would later be America's darling because of Oslo, stepped down partially due to the fact that he and Carter had bad chemistry.

Hamas Again Advertises for New PR Rep

This is nothing but a cry for help, just as this was.

"Hamas will keep rejecting the occupation and refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. Priority will remain building and developing the resistance," said Meshal, who lives in Syria along with other Hamas leaders in exile.

The "Zionist entity." Does he have any idea how out of touch that makes him sound? This is a sci-fi series that has outlived its potential. If the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were a reality TV show, this would be the part where the contestants are urged to crawl through a tunnel of worms to win a phone call home.

If sounding like C-3P0 was the way to win hearts and minds, Meshal would have this thing handled.

Meanwhile, in the West Bank:

Abbas has said repeatedly he will not resume negotiations without a complete Israeli settlement freeze in the West Bank and east Jerusalem - areas claimed by the Palestinians for a future state. The Obama administration initially demanded such a freeze as well, but relented when Netanyahu resisted.

Netanyahu instead agreed to a 10-month slowdown in West Bank construction. But Netanyahu insists he will not relinquish any part of Jerusalem. The Palestinians seek the city's eastern sector as their future capital.

If we boil this whole thing down to a fictional conversation between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his counterpart Mahmoud Abbas, you get this:
Abbas:[folds arms across chest and turns his back]
Netanyahu:Come on, talk to me. Please.
Abbas: No. You're just going to keep building more settlements and taking all our land. You're trying to force us into bantustans.
Netanyahu: [gasps] I would never do that to you. Now, come on, turn around and talk to me.
Abbas:[turns around] Well ok. Hey, what's that sound [settlement building resumes behind him]?
Netanyahu: What sound? I don't hear any sound. [settlement builder gives Netanyahu the thumbs up that he's done] Nevermind, I think we're all done here.
Abbas: [turns around and screams like Homer Simpson.]

This is Netanyahu's "realities on the ground" expansion plan.

Israel's Moderates Quiet As Usual

Way back in the day (meaning mid-June), I wrote about how Obama's Cairo speech, and mid-east policy in general, was affecting the Israeli populace.

But Obama's loudly-proclaimed intentions have led to a more clearly defined divide among the Israeli people: those who value America's support above all else and those who are committed to settlement of the West Bank above all else.

But the issue of settlements may be a smart litmus test of Israel's intentions, because it draws a clear line between those in Israel and among its supporters abroad who support a two-state solution, and those who don't. Obama is betting the ayes have it.

Basically Obama just went ahead and put that out there, and now he's sitting back and waiting for internal strife in Israel to make Netanyahu more agreeable to a two-state solution.

And according to this article in today's Haaretz, that internal strife is bringing the settlement issue further into the limelight than it's been since The Disengagement in 2005. Basically, this latest development is that Israeli settlers are accusing the Israeli government of "colluding" with leftist Israelis against them. Notice how many times I used the word "Israelis" in that last sentence? That's because this argument is a family one. Leftist Israelis are pretty happy about Obama butting in to force the government's hand, but rightist Israelis would thank everyone to please mind their own business. I'm sure this is why the right wingers feel they're being colluded against but if the government is colluding with anybody, it's the settlers.

From this morning's article:

Settler representatives met with Defense Ministry officials earlier in the week in a bid to discuss a negotiated compromise on removing West Bank outposts. The state is interested in gaining settler acquiescence to voluntarily evacuate the outposts in exchange for the building of new neighborhoods in existing settlements, Army Radio reported.

Officials in the Yesha council of settlers told Army Radio they have no intention of discussing the voluntary removal of outposts.

This whole dog and pony show is really amusing to those of us who know that the settlers are completely dependent on the government for their ability to settle anywhere in the West Bank. So the government arguing about whether they should or should live on this or that hilltop is just for show. It's a delay tactic, wrapped and tied with a bow, direct from Netanyahu to Obama.

But anyway, back to that internal strife I was talking about. The theory was that Obama wanted to see whether the majority of Israelis supported settlements more, or U.S. support more. Both right and left have been more active, vocal, and organized of late. But it's not yet clear which of them can claim greater numbers.

Lieberman Pulls an Olmert

Israeli Foreign Minster Avigdor Lieberman announced today that if charges are filed against him for bribery and fraud, he will resign his appointment as foreign minster and as head of the Israel Beiteinu party. Wait, what year is this? Because in summer of 2008, Israel's Prime Minister also agreed to step down amid accusations of bribery and fraud.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman responded Monday to the police announcement that it would recommend an indictment against him, saying that if he could go back, he would do everything exactly the same.

Of course he would. The resignation is nothing- he doesn't need to work anymore. He is accused of, "setting up a chain of front companies and bank accounts that allowed him to take in more than NIS 10 million."

He said that during the previous night he had "gone over the events of recent years, and I am at peace with everything that I've done. If I had to go back, I would do it all exactly the same. I would behave the same way if there was a second chance."

The only question left is why a ten year investigation just happened to turn up enough evidence for an indictment a few months after Lieberman's appointment as foreign minister. It's like someone had this dirt on him and promised to make it go away if he would stay out of the spotlight. But no, Netanyahu had to appoint someone as foreign minister who was referred to as having "erased in 20 minutes years of efforts to advance the peace process" between Israel and the Palestinians.

Israelis Are Worried

Wow, it's tense over here with this Obama-Israel rift in the making. Y'all know I wrote about Obama's Cairo speech, called "A New Beginning" and the effect it had on Israelis.

Well.

Things have continued on in that vein. Public Sentiment, the great barometer of the little people, has spoken. I give you two examples:

First, this article in Time Magazine
The title- "Can Netanyahu Repair the Rift With the U.S.?" pretty much says it all. Israelis are well aware that they stand at a precipice. On one side is their sovereignty, on the other is their prosperity. Israelis receive about $10 billion of aid money from the U.S. every year (more on that below) and $7 million daily just for military use. If Netanyahu ignores Obama's demands polite requests to freeze settlement construction that aid may be jeopardized. Even though Obama did call the U.S.-Israel bond "unbreakable" in his Cairo speech, he also made it clear he won't stand for any more riff-raff. ("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 these settlements to stop.")

The article says:

When an Israeli cabinet minister proposes that his country impose sanctions on the United States, his government is clearly in a state of distress. Pressure from the Obama Administration to freeze Israeli settlement construction and move toward a two-state peace with the Palestinians has reportedly spurred Minister-without-Portfolio Yossi Peled (who belongs to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's own Likud party) to recommended that Israel shop outside the U.S. for aircraft and military hardware, sell sensitive technology to clients disapproved of by Washington, and invite America's rivals to play a greater role in the Middle East.

This is clearly a knee-jerk reaction and these sanctions are very unlikely to come to fruition. It's big-talk for Obama's benefit.

But Obama's loudly-proclaimed intentions have led to a more clearly defined divide among the Israeli people: those who value America's support above all else and those who are committed to settlement of the West Bank above all else.

But the issue of settlements may be a smart litmus test of Israel's intentions, because it draws a clear line between those in Israel and among its supporters abroad who support a two-state solution, and those who don't. Obama is betting the ayes have it.

Basically Obama just went ahead and put that out there, and now he's sitting back and waiting for internal strife in Israel to make Netanyahu more agreeable to a two-state solution.

Opinion polls often find a majority of Israelis willing to give up West Bank settlements in exchange for a genuine peace, and that same majority is unlikely to be willing to jeopardize Israel's relationship with the United States in order to defend the settlers' right to build on Palestinian land, a right the settlers say is based on the argument that it forms part of the Biblical Land of Israel.

Despite this trend, the status quo is a very powerful thing and it takes a lot of momentum to shift it. Obama knows this and has apparently calculated that now is the time to roll with that forward momentum.

Netanyahu pleads that his hawkish coalition will collapse if he does as Obama asks, but skeptics point out that the Prime Minister chose to ally with the far-right when he might have chosen the centrist Kadima party, which has enough seats to shore up a government committed to a two-state solution.

Ooooopsie. Wrong choice, Bibi.

And he'll also likely take down one or two outposts built without permission by Israeli zealots outside of the boundaries of their existing settlements. Such actions will provoke televised clashes between settlers and police, and make the case that Netanyahu is acting on the settlement issue (without necessarily stopping construction within the boundaries of settlements, as demanded by Washington).

So right. The government cannot, I mean literally cannot go up against any group of settlers without a violent and highly publicized reaction.

Secondly, Israel's SNL Shows us the Score:
The Israeli comedy show Eretz Nehaderet (Beautiful Country), which is similar to America's Saturday Night Live, had a skit last night commenting on the possible rift between the U.S. and Israel. Actor-comedian Tal Freedman was dressed as PM Bibi Netanyahu and hosted a parody of the show "Million Dollar Race." Only the prize amount was ten billion (the same amount as Israel receives from the U.S.) and the possible sources of the money were various other rich and powerful world countries. Contestants competed for a new sponsor for Israel.

So that basically sums up the situation over here at the moment.

UPDATE:

I forgot about this. A week ago, journalist Max Blumenthal and Ta'ayush activist Joseph Dana published a video on youtube called "Feeling the Hate in Jerusalem" in which they interviewed drunk American Jews about Obama's upcoming speech. The speech hadn't even been made yet and everybody was all in a tizzy about what he would say. All the interviewees are basically ignorant and racist ("Who's Bibi Yahoo?") but something had to have prompted them to respond so viciously to their own president, whom, statistically speaking, they probably voted for.

Obama's Name Lacks Desired Effect

President Obama gave his speech to a packed audience at the American University of Cairo last week and you can bet everyone had something to say about it. While the speech gave fair lip service to both Israelis and Arabs, the effect was not the same on both groups. Arabs, who are used to a certain amount of verbal abuse and misunderstanding from American leaders, were basically pleased. Israelis, who are used to unconditional support from America, were basically disappointed.

He began with a nod to Islamic history and progress and acknowledged the role Muslims have played in advancing the interests of the US. He commented on our shared global destiny, his plans for Afghanistan, Iraq, and Gitmo. And then he fully and unequivocally recognized Israel and called the US-Israeli bond "unbreakable." Then he denounced extremist violence. Then he said Israelis should stop building settlements.

Here is the part of the speech concerning the Israel-Palestine issue:

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed - more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction - or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews - is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, 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 neighboring 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 Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers - for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.

That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them - and all of us - to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. 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 these settlements to stop.

Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

To someone who is educated on the issue but is not either Israeli or Arab, this speech seems totally fair and balanced. But that's not what everyone heard. I give you [drum roll] a random sampling of Israeli and Arab bloggers responding to "A New Beginning."

Arabs

Rantings of a Sandmonkey:

The speech was everything was expected and more. The guy achieved his goals and executed it effectively and brilliantly...My favorite parts of the speech had to be the following in order: The way he deliverd el salamu alaikom (the audience looked like it just had a collective orgasm), the Koranic shout outs, the pandering to Hijabis, the dig at Hillary (women became leaders in islamic countries, while the US is still "struggling with it"? Nice!), and the way he spoke of the Israel Palestine Issue. For me, again, it didn't say what he intends to do, but it made people happy. They were walking outside saying how , for the first time, they hear an american leader "talk with some balance on the issue".

Asharq Alawsat:

Obama's speech addressed those that we have always described as the silent majority, in other words the ordinary citizen who abhors extremism, backwardness and attrition [e.g. war of attrition fought between Egypt and Israel] where the situation is neither that of war nor peace. [Obama speech addressed] the citizen who desires an education, and wishes [only] to live with dignity.

And Saad Edin Ibrahim of Voices for a Democratic Egypt said on Riz Khan:

He was very reconciling, he was very firm, he was very fair. And I think the fact that he talked about Muslim communities, not about the Muslim world, was also well pointed.

Israelis:

Tikkun Olam:

He is playing right into the so-called Palestinians' hands by placing the onus on Israel, and basically not requiring anything of the Arabs-an extremely one-sided, unjust deal. I had my problems with Bush's "Road Map," but this is even worse: Obama is preaching to the entire world words which indicate that Israel, and Israel alone-is the culprit by creating obstacles to peace in the Middle East.

West Bank Mama:

What Obama said [about settlements] is not new at all. It really describes most of the world’s perception of the conflict pretty well – although it makes me angry that my living in my home is equated with terrorists killing innocent men, women, and children. Am I really as dangerous as a suicide bomber? I am a suburban mom raising three kids, and have never threatened anyone – I just live in a place that some think is “disputed”. Why are my actions compared to a terrorist who shoots rockets at civilians?

Israpundit:

By and large, President Obama’s address yesterday in Cairo has been well received in both the so-called “Muslim world” and by other audiences. Nobody may be happier with it, though, than the Muslim Brotherhood - the global organization that seeks to impose authoritative Islam’s theo-political-legal program known as “Shariah” through stealthy means where violence ones are not practicable. Egyptian Muslim Brothers were prominent among the guests in the audience at Cairo University and Brotherhood-associated organizations in America, like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), have rapturously endorsed the speech. The Brotherhood has ample reason for its delight. Accordingly, Americans who love freedom - whether or not they recognize the threat Shariah represents to it - have abundant cause for concern about “The Speech,” and what it portends for U.S. policy and interests.

What is most interesting about this last writer's opinion is that the "Muslim World" (which is what exactly, and what's with the quotes?) differs quite a bit. The article in Asharq Alawsat I already quoted also said of the Muslim Brotherhood:

As for the Muslim Brotherhood, they believe that Obama's speech contains an unjust view on the Palestinian issue. We do not know how [they can believe this] when Obama insisted upon the right to existence for a Palestinian state, as well as insisting that America will not turn its back on the suffering of the Palestinians.

It is not only the Muslim Brotherhood who is confused [with regards to Obama's speech], Hamas is as usual playing the game of presenting two faces [to the word], a moderate face, and a hawkish face. And so whilst one face compares Obama to Martin Luther King, another says that Obama's speech is unjust and contains nothing new. This is normal, and not surprising from Hamas, who is essentially unconcerned with Palestinian unity, or establishing a Palestinian state. This can be seen in the Hamas movement's order to its gunmen to treat the security agents of the Palestinian Authority as they would the soldiers of the Israeli occupation.

We can possibly extrapolate from this that Muslim and Arab leaders who are supportive of Obama are also critical of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. Meanwhile, extremist Israeli leaders are pretty unhappy with just everything right now, especially Obama's speech in Cairo.

Ynet quotes the Yesha settlement council as saying,"Only time will tell if the US president is Barack or Hussein." The Shomron settlers' committee also said, "The State of Israel is paying the price for its leaders' defeatism. Hussein Obama opted to adopt the Arab's bogus versions over the Jewish truth."

These references to Obama's middle name is a symbol of the divide between the president and Israeli settlers- his first name, Barack, means "shining thing" or "lightning" in Hebrew. His middle name, Hussein, is Arabic for "handsome one."

I'm serious.

If there ever were a president that could get respect from both of these groups, it's him. The potential is built-in.

The Ynet article continues, "Baruch Marzel, chairman of the rightist National Jewish Front movement, said in response to the speech 'we will continue to settle the Land of Israel whether Obama likes it or not. Obama and American administration officials can make declarations, but the actions of the youths are what will determine the results on the ground.'"

Marzel has a strong following among the Orthodox and settler communities in Israel and the West Bank, but he by no means represents the majority of Israelis. Evidence of this is the fact that his own government has declared one of his groups, Kach, a terrorist organization. Marzel and his party were banned from participating in the 1992 Israeli elections under a new law that bars parties who attempt to incite racism.

The official Israeli government response to Obama's speech was positive, with Netanyahu vowing to comply with Obama's terms.

Netanyahu Gives Lip Service

President Obama's new Middle East peace plan has been outlined, and according to The Australian:

Under the Obama proposal, Palestinian refugees would not be permitted to return to Israel, but they would be permitted to return to the Palestinian state that would arise on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Those who continue to reside in Arab countries where they have been largely confined to refugee camps for 60 years would be given citizenship of those countries, ending their refugee status.

On the critical question of Jerusalem, Mr Obama will support the Arab demand that Palestinians be permitted to establish their capital in East Jerusalem, which was captured by Israel in the Six Day War in 1967. However, the walled Old City at the heart of Jerusalem, where the principal holy sites of Christianity, Judaism and Islam are located, would become an international enclave and fly the UN flag.

The Palestinian state would be demilitarised, maintaining a significant police force to keep order but not an army that might pose a security threat to Israel.

But according to Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Netanyahu said of his meetings with Obama:

Last night I returned to Jerusalem, our capital, from a very important visit to Washington, capital of the United States. It was very important for me to come back to participate in this ceremony and say the same things I said in the United States:

United Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Jerusalem has always been - and always will be - ours. It will never again be divided or cut in half. Jerusalem will remain only under Israel's sovereignty. In united Jerusalem, the freedom of worship and freedom of access for all three religions to the holy sites will be guaranteed, and it is the only way to guarantee that members of all faiths, minorities and denominations can continue living here safely.

The truth is somewhere in the middle and one thing to remember is that, like all politicians, Netanyahu must give lip service to his far right constituents in order to make gains for his far left constituents, and vice versa.

Lieberman Makes Me Sad

Prime Minister Netanyahu, who began his official premiership today, appointed Avigdor Lieberman, of the Yisrael Beitanu party as foreign minister.

Can we just take a minute to examine what this means?

Lieberman is the very same politician who advocates forced expulsions of Israel's Arabs and who, at the very least, has been pushing for this population to face a tough choice: swear their loyalty to the Zionist state or have their citizenship revoked. To the outsider, this may seem natural. After all, why should defectors get to live in a state they oppose? However, it is possible to oppose Zionism and still support Israel.

Have we not many American citizens who love this country but oppose capitalism? Wanting to change some aspects of your government is not the same thing as wishing the whole state to disappear.

But Lieberman and his cronies, thinking as they do, are motivated by fear. And in a world where everyone is out to get you, you have to do whatever you can to stay on top. In Lieberman's view, the only way to be safe is to be the most powerful, or alternately, for everyone around you to be just like you.

Despite Netanyahu's mumblings about peace, his government is likely to take a hard line approach to peace efforts. Which basically means he will try to bully the Palestinians into submission. Like Operation Cast Lead, Bibi will apply pressure in all the most sensitive places so that giving Israel whatever it wants seems like the only option.

There is virtually no way peace will be made between Israel and Palestine without dismantlement of the settlements, and peace talks cannot even be taken seriously until Israel stops expanding existing settlements.

But this won't happen with Lieberman as foreign minister. He rabidly supports the settlement of the West Bank by Jewish Israelis.

It seems like what I wrote back in August is coming to fruition. Palestinian Authority officials said peace talks with anyone but Tzipi Livni would fail.

Bibi Makes Headway

The AP announced today that Avigdor Lieberman, the far-right leader of Israel's Yisrael Beitanu party, has joined the Likud coalition, headed by former Israeli PM Bibi Netanyahu. This virtually guarantees that Netanyahu will become the next Prime Minister, which is as much a victory for Israel's right as Obama's was for America's left.

Tzipi Livni, leader of the centrist Kadima party and PM hopeful, was also asked to join the coalition, but her response was in the negative:

"Today the foundations were laid for an extremist right-wing government under the leadership of Netanyahu," Livni's office quoted her as telling a meeting of Kadima members. "That is not our way and there is nothing for us in such a government ... We must be an alternative of hope and go into opposition."

The victory of these far right parties means more delays for peace talks, since Netanyahu does not value peace efforts in their current form. He prefers to use force as leverage to get the Palestinians to agree to his terms. This may put him at odds with President Obama, who has vowed to push for peace in the region on more liberal terms.