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.

Obama Gives up on Peace Process

My Dear Reader,
I haven't written in many months, much to the chagrin of my biggest supporters (mom, et al). So if you're reading this, it means you either know me personally and have been warned I would begin writing again, or you have just stumbled upon this blog for the first time. Welcome, I say, to the latter. Welcome back, to the former. And I also must issue a warning: this blog may be hazardous to your political correctness. Side effects of reading this blog include uttering tasteless jokes, racist jokes, and offending friends and acquaintances in general. I am not a humanitarian, I am not a peacemaker, I can only barely be called a journalist. But along with a lack of human compassion comes a lack of emotional involvement in the affairs of the Israeli and Palestinian governments. I mock them both equally, where mocking is called for.

I also sometimes mock fellow bloggers and journalists.

Now, I will begin my update with a summation of the situation as of the last time I wrote, which was in August, and any developments since then.

1. Obama had been in office half a year and everyone was eager to see what his big plan was to solve Middle Eastern Conflict. Obama appointed George Mitchell as his special envoy to this end and after conferring with the region's leaders for five minutes or so came up with this totally original and incredibly detailed plan:

   President Barack Obama's new Mideast envoy called Wednesday for an end to Hamas weapons smuggling and a reopening of Gaza's borders, seeking to strengthen the shaky cease-fire between Israel and Palestinian militants thrown into turmoil by new violence.

   This reads like Mitchell thinks he's the magic peace fairy and he can just ask what each side wants and then POOF there it is. [The link to that article has since died, super sorry about that, but the quote is accurate.]
   
   And then yesterday, this gem appeared in Ha'aretz, "Obama: U.S. expectations for Middle East peace too high." Obama is quoted as saying:

   I think it is absolutely true that what we did this year didn't produce the kind of breakthrough that we wanted and if we had anticipated some of these political problems on both sides earlier, we might not have raised expectations as high.

   Reading this article, I was shocked not only by the way Obama is willing to level with journalists, but also with his seemingly clear and realistic grasp on the situation. He summed up the key current issues as such:

   Both sides ... have found that the political environment, the nature of their coalitions, or the divisions within their societies were such that it was very hard for them to start engaging in a meaningful conversation.
   
   And I think that we overestimated our ability to persuade them to do so when their politics ran contrary to that. From Abbas' perspective, he's got Hamas looking over his shoulder and I think an environment generally within the Arab world that feels impatient with any process.
   
   And on the Israeli front, although the Israelis I think after a lot of time showed a willingness to make some modifications in their policies, still found it very hard to move with any bold gestures.

2. Gilad Shalit is still held in captivity somewhere in Gaza. The Israeli soldier was taken in a cross border raid over three years ago and his imprisonment has played a key role in negotiations since that time. On August 12 of last year, this article revealed that Hamas was confident Israel would finally yield to its demands.

   Mohammed al-Ghoul, the Hamas minister for prisoners' affairs, said "the Israeli occupation will soon surrender to the conditions that we have outlined for the release of Gilad Shalit."
   
   According to al-Ghoul, Israel will release the Palestinian prisoners whose names appear on a list Hamas has passed to Egyptian officials. The list includes a number of prisoners serving life sentences, as well as women, children, and some elderly inmates.

   First of all, al-Ghoul? Is that really someone you want to designate as any kind of representative to the western world? And secondly, that list has passed back and forth between Israel's and Hamas' hands so many times it probably carries swine flu, AIDS, and mad cow. The numbers of prisoners on the list has reportedly fluctuated wildly between 150 and 1,000 names. First Israel wouldn't release prisoners serving terms for murder, and then they would, but only certain ones, but Hamas wasn't happy with those certain ones, and so on. There are so many cooks in the kitchen on both sides that no matter the disposition of The List, it will never pass final muster. Sure enough, just one day later, a different Hamas rep was saying something else.

   Hamas politburo chief Khaled Mashaal said there is no real progress in talks for the release of captive Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, despite recent reports to the contrary.
   
   In an interview to Qatari newspaper al-Watan, that will be published in full on Sunday, with parts of it published on the Hamas website Thursday, Mashaal said mediation efforts in the matter were ongoing, but that no real progress has been made. He said this was due to "the manner in which the Zionist enemy's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is handling the matter.'

   And most recently, any mention of progress in the swap has halted except for this item from January 19:

   Mohammed Nazal told the Lebanese daily A-Sapir that the deal has been delayed thus far due to Israel's refusal to heed Hamas' demand to see top militants Marwan Bargouthi and Ahmed Sadat freed.

   So basically at this point, Hamas is mainly concerned with these final two guys, but they're biggies. This is the first I've heard of this Ahmed Sadat dude, but Bargouthi is a Palestinian "freedom fighter" who is so popular it's basically assumed that if he's released, he'll win the Hamas presidency. He's considered to be the leader of both the first and second intifadas but strongly supported the peace process, including the Oslo accords. He's basically the Nelson Mandela of Palestine. Further research (meaning I can use google) has revealed that this Sadat guy is pretty popular too but he doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist and was in opposition to the Oslo process. He was Secretary-General of the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) beginning in 2001 after the previous secretary was assassinated. The PFLP is basically Fatah's armed wing that they keep all hush-hush like when you have a retarded child that you keep in the basement just to feed annoying salesmen and Jehovah's Witnesses. Anyway, Sadat was accused of planning the assassination of Israel's tourism minister, who was the founder of right wing party Moledet and advocated the forced transfer of Israel's Arabs to neighboring countries.
   
   So...what was my point? Oh yeah, transferring prisoners between Israel and Palestine is complicated.
   
   Good god this update is exhausting. One more item.
   
   
3. Operation Price Tag is still in full swing. It was way back in October of 2008 that I first wrote about this lovely little grassroots movement wherein Israeli settlers damage Palestinian cemeteries, farms, and livestock, injure Palestinian children on their walks to school, and injure and sometimes kill Palestinians and/or Israeli soldiers who try to stop them in an attempt to curb opposition to the Israeli expansion project. How it works is, every time the Israeli governments clamps down and actually follows its own laws regarding the disposition of West Bank land, settlers in the area do some sort of damage that is designed to remind Palestinians and Israelis alike that there is a price tag to their opposition. I found the latest incarnation of this movement on Ha'aretz yesterday and here is the gist:

   Recent violence by Jewish settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank, occupied by Israel since 1967, has been linked by some activists to the Israeli government's decision to impose a temporary, partial freeze on building in the enclaves.
   
   Through a strategy known as the "price tag", the settlers have targeted Palestinians and their property whenever the Israeli government is seen moving, or thinking of moving against the settlements, which are deemed illegal by world powers.
   
   Israeli police this month arrested four settlers on suspicion of involvement in an arson attack last month on a mosque near Nablus. Carpets and holy books were burnt in that attack.

   These backlashes typically follow the evacuation of an illegal West Bank settlement by Israeli officials. Meanwhile, the freeze continues in name only as concrete foundations continue to be poured throughout areas planned for West Bank settlement.
   

And that's all kids. My snarky mockery will continue unabated as I'm in-country for a stay now.

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.

Let Mommy and Daddy Talk, Kids

Ha'aretz says today that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak went to Washington DC to discuss with George Mitchell about whether or not Israel would agree to a temporary freeze of settlement construction. Their four-hour "discussion" (Mommy and Daddy aren't fighting, kids, we're discussing) did not seem to bring them any closer to a decision. But that might be because Obama and Michell have not explicitly demanded an end to settlement construction, instead saying, "that Jerusalem must take 'action' on the matter."

And this article talks about a deal where settlers in Migron (a tiny settlement just East of the Palestinian city of Ramallah) would be relocated in Adam, a settlement annexed to Jerusalem and much closer to the green line.

Ha'aretz says:

Barak was quick to present the plan to evacuate Migron and build at Adam as an effort meant to deter a petition by Peace Now, scheduled to be brought before the court Monday. The defense minister's aim is to gain more time. In any case, the Defense Ministry argues, the construction of the new neighborhood in Adam will take at least two years - a decent amount of quiet time. Barak based his gamble on the images of the violent evacuation of the Amona outpost and is hoping that the justices will be deterred from another clash with the settler-invaders, and will jump at the opportunity to put the whole matter to rest for a long time.

Every single time, I am dumbounded that an entire government acts as a frightened child with even the thought of action from a violent minority of their own population. Again and again, it's been made clear to us "outsiders" that the settlers have the Israeli government on a short leash.

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.

Settlements Not an Obstale to Peace

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in Washington meeting with President Obama this week, and he made some surprising concessions, in theory at least. Only time will tell if he will make good on his promises.

Israeli settlements in the West Bank are of two types: state-sponsored and illegal. The "legal" settlements are built by the Israeli government, are protected by the Israeli military, and are usually much larger than the second type. Illegal settlements are those that are built in areas not approved for settlement by the government. These settlements are sometimes home to only one family, or several families.

Of the 26 illegal outposts on record, Israel will dismantle "a number of" them. No mention of dismantling any of the "legal" settlements. But no matter. According to Netanyahu, those are not really an issue.

From Haaretz:

The document, which Netanyahu issued for distribution only after meeting Obama, says Israel is ready to evacuate the illegal outposts. As for stopping construction in the settlements the document was more cagey, saying the settlements were not an obstacle to peace and that the evacuation of settlements in Gaza only led to the establishment of a Hamas terror base in the Gaza Strip.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak also added, "the new Israeli government would take action against the outposts, not because it was told to do so by the United States, but because Israel 'is a state of law."

It is widely understood that these statements were the price Netanyahu paid for Obama's support regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton is taking a tougher stance on even the officially recognized West Bank settlements.

WASHINGTON - U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took a hard line against settlement construction in the territories Wednesday, including a call to freeze building for natural growth. Her statement came in contrast to the general terms U.S. President Barack Obama expressed about the issue to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier in the week.

"Natural growth" refers to home additions designed to better accommodate a growing family. For example, adding a room onto the house when you've had a new baby. Or adding another small home to the property when one of your children marries. This type of natural growth is common in Arab families, as one piece of land is often lived on by many generations of a growing extended family. Unfortunately in many cases, this natural growth is deterred by the denial of building permits. In East Jerusalem, Arab homes are sometimes demolished because a proper permit was not obtained.

Yes We Did

San Francisco's Bush Street became Obama Street shortly before the 9am inauguration yesterday. This of course was not an official change and did not apply to every Bush Street sign, but as you can see, this one is very convincing.

McCain Backpedals on Iraq Timetable

Once upon a time, I wrote about how the Iraqi Prime Minister agreed with Barack Obama's timetable for troop withdrawal.

But then they backpedaled:

Mr. Maliki’s statement had been “as not conveyed accurately regarding the vision of Senator Barack Obama, U.S. presidential candidate, on the timeframe for U.S. forces withdrawal from Iraq.”

Now everyone is jumping on that bandwagon.

McCain backpedals on Wolfe Blitzer:


I think when you jump on your opponent's bandwagon, you have to admit at that point that he's got the upper hand.

Obama Visits Israel, Say Scary Stuff

At the end of Obama's Israel visit, he said to Prime Minister Olmert:

Obama reportedly told Olmert that he is interested in meeting the Iranians in order to issue clear ultimatums. "If after that, they still show no willingness to change their nuclear policy, then any action against them would be legitimate," an Israeli source quoted him as saying.

Really? Any action?

Let's not forget that the US and Israel have nuclear weapons in numbers that make a girl swoon.

Earlier in Sderot, he said:

"A nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon," Obama stated.

The Illinois senator also warned that a situation in which Iran had achieved this capability would be "game-changing."

"Not just in the Middle East, but around the world," he added. "Whatever remains of our Non-Proliferation Treaty would begin to disintegrate."

The Non-Proliferation Treaty was a document signed by 189 countries back in 1968. The treaty consists of three parts: non-proliferation, disarmament, and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology.

While Iran continues to claim they are using nuclear technology peacefully, with no evidence to the contrary, they are not in violation of the NPT.

The US however, by threatening to nuke Iran (remember, Obama said "any action"), is in violation of the portion of the NPT that states nuclear weapon states should not use or threaten to use those weapons on non-nuclear weapons states.

But this is not the first time this has happened. From Wiki:

The U.S. also had nuclear warheads targeted at North Korea, a non-NWS state, from 1959 until 1991.

Obama Visits Israel, Says Boring Stuff

Obama visited Israel today as part of his Middle East tour. He toured Yad Vashem (the Holocaust Museum) and bomb-riddled Sderot, among other things, and gave a speech in which he said:

I'm here on this trip to reaffirm the special relationship between Israel and the United States and my abiding commitment to Israel's security and my hope that I can serve as an effective partner, whether as a U.S. senator or as president.

He said some other stuff too, I think, but I fell asleep in the middle and when I woke up at the end, he was saying that part over again.

But more importantly, this is my dog:

He gave a speech in which he said:

Ruh-Row!

Iraqi Gov't Issues Oops

In a follow-up about this thing I wrote two days ago...

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki got George Bush to agree to a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq. But this didn't get him any street cred in his part of the world. Al Jazeera said:

There's a rumor going around that Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is feeling his oats, flexing his muscle, and displaying a newfound confidence that has allowed him to challenge the American occupation of Iraq...But that's mostly wrong.

Now he's losing even more cred as he backtracks in a really lame way. In an interview with Spiegel:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports US presidential candidate Barack Obama's plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. When asked in and interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded "as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned." He then continued: "US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

But then somebody was like, "shit, what if Obama loses?" and issued this official fart:

Dr. Ali al-Dabbagh, a spokesman for the Iraqi government, issued a statement saying Mr. Maliki’s statement had been “as not conveyed accurately regarding the vision of Senator Barack Obama, U.S. presidential candidate, on the timeframe for U.S. forces withdrawal from Iraq,” but it did not address a specific error.

The New York Times says about this:

Naturally, Mr. Maliki did not want to imply he was backing one candidate over another in a foreign election.

And the Atlantic Monthly says:

Matthew Yglesias, a blogger for the Atlantic Monthly, was astonished by "how little effort was made" to make the Baghdad denial convincing.

Plus, Spiegel has, like, transcripts.

So basically the moral of the story is that Maliki can't get no R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

SNL: Real News

I really feel like watching parodies of political news are a great way to keep abreast of political issues. The creators of these parodies are paying attention to the details of political interaction and candidate characteristics and they translate it into an entertaining format. You get the meat of the issue and your brain absorbs it even more because you're entertained.

For example:

Fake Hillary: It seems that, a: I'm getting the tougher questions and, b: with me, the overall tone is more hostile.

Fake Tim Russert: Senator Obama, do you think the American people will vote for you?
Fake Obama: well, I certainly hope so, and that's all I can do.

Basically, Hillary was portrayed as intelligent, capable, boring, and annoying and Obama was portrayed as likeable, optimistic, dumb, and simple.

Accurate? You decide.