Obama and the “peace process”

Transcript of speech dealing with the “peace process”

“For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region. For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could be blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them. For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never living in a nation of their own. Moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost to the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security and prosperity and empowerment to ordinary people.

For over two years, my administration has worked with the parties and the international community to end this conflict, building on decades of work by previous administrations. Yet expectations have gone unmet. Israeli settlement activity continues. Palestinians have walked away from talks. The world looks at a conflict that has grinded on and on and on, and sees nothing but stalemate. Indeed, there are those who argue that with all the change and uncertainty in the region, it is simply not possible to move forward now.

I disagree. At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever. That’s certainly true for the two parties involved.

For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.

As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it’s important that we tell the truth: The status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.

The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River. Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself. A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people -– not just one or two leaders — must believe peace is possible. The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.

Now, ultimately, it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them — not by the United States; not by anybody else. But endless delay won’t make the problem go away. What America and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows — a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

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

These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I’m aware that these steps alone will not resolve the conflict, because two wrenching and emotional issues will remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.

Now, let me say this: Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table. In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel: How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? And in the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question. Meanwhile, the United States, our Quartet partners, and the Arab states will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse.

I recognize how hard this will be. Suspicion and hostility has been passed on for generations, and at times it has hardened. But I’m convinced that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians would rather look to the future than be trapped in the past. We see that spirit in the Israeli father whose son was killed by Hamas, who helped start an organization that brought together Israelis and Palestinians who had lost loved ones. That father said, “I gradually realized that the only hope for progress was to recognize the face of the conflict.” We see it in the actions of a Palestinian who lost three daughters to Israeli shells in Gaza. “I have the right to feel angry,” he said. “So many people were expecting me to hate. My answer to them is I shall not hate. Let us hope,” he said, “for tomorrow.”

That is the choice that must be made -– not simply in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but across the entire region -– a choice between hate and hope; between the shackles of the past and the promise of the future. It’s a choice that must be made by leaders and by the people, and it’s a choice that will define the future of a region that served as the cradle of civilization and a crucible of strife.

For all the challenges that lie ahead, we see many reasons to be hopeful. In Egypt, we see it in the efforts of young people who led protests. In Syria, we see it in the courage of those who brave bullets while chanting, “peaceful, peaceful.” In Benghazi, a city threatened with destruction, we see it in the courthouse square where people gather to celebrate the freedoms that they had never known. Across the region, those rights that we take for granted are being claimed with joy by those who are prying loose the grip of an iron fist.

For the American people, the scenes of upheaval in the region may be unsettling, but the forces driving it are not unfamiliar. Our own nation was founded through a rebellion against an empire. Our people fought a painful Civil War that extended freedom and dignity to those who were enslaved. And I would not be standing here today unless past generations turned to the moral force of nonviolence as a way to perfect our union –- organizing, marching, protesting peacefully together to make real those words that declared our nation: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

Those words must guide our response to the change that is transforming the Middle East and North Africa -– words which tell us that repression will fail, and that tyrants will fall, and that every man and woman is endowed with certain inalienable rights.

It will not be easy. There’s no straight line to progress, and hardship always accompanies a season of hope. But the United States of America was founded on the belief that people should govern themselves. And now we cannot hesitate to stand squarely on the side of those who are reaching for their rights, knowing that their success will bring about a world that is more peaceful, more stable, and more just.

May 20, 2011 | 6 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

6 Comments / 6 Comments

  1. It boggles the mind that people can’t (or is it that they won’t) see that Palestinians don’t want their own state, they want Israel and the annihilation of the Jewish people and nothing less. This whole process is a one-sided thing in which Israel is the only party really interested in negotiations and peace.
    It seems even Netanyahu hasn’t figured this out yet, or if he has, he is not willing to admit it openly and do what is necessary to dash all Palestinian hopes to achieve their goal. It can’t be easy to try and please the whole world but there has to come a time when the “process” must end and decisive action be taken.

  2. Actually, 90% of this speech is harmless. It is the little “details” inserted therein that are so insidiously dangerous.

    The bit about a “contiguous” Palestinian state…I guess according to NCHO, they deserve to be contiguous, and Israel doesn’t.

    And the moral equivalence he throws in about the suffering of the Palestinians versus the Israelis. That is particularly bad. Ah, Mr. Appeasement Freak President, why – under what differing circumstances – did the Palestinians die versus the Israelis in the exmaple you cite? What brought about the “humiliation” of the Palestinians? How about a little “C-O-N-T-E-X-T” here? That’s too big a word for his teleprompter, I guess.

    “Never” having a state of their own? There is this perfectly good state right next door to Israel, where according to one Palestinian Moslem Jordanian democracy activist I know, 92% of the population is Palestinian. Majority rule there, and PRESTO, you’ve got a Palestinian state! Sure a lot easier than pushing Israel around, but I guess pushing Israel around is so much more satisfying for an extreme liberal left ‘f*** you whitey’ acaedmia twit.

    Worst of all, he requires Israel to make territorial concessions before the Palis are asked to do anything. So, even if Israel immediately complied with everything he says he wants for right now, and the Palis got their state, then they’d still be jumping up and down and screaming for “right of return”, and Jerusalem, and all that, and in the highly unlikely event that NCHO were re-elected, then there’d be another speech from him, in which he’d be whining, “Aw, c’mon, Israel. Now, just let those refugees and their descendents come right on into your country. It’ll be just fine. And we can’t support you if you keep humiliating them like that. And you can share Jersusalem; you’re just being imperialistic colonialists if you don’t.”

    January 2013 can’t come soon enough.

  3. “[H]as anyone ever told you that you have a way with words?”

    I do hear that from time-to-time, yes — although they don’t always like the words! I’m happpy to know that you do. Best wishes, and my thanks.

  4. “There is no such thing as a ‘peace process’….”

    “Peace process” is to peace

    as “processed cheese” is to cheese.

    — A lot more process than ‘peace.’

    They like to use the term, “peace process”

    because it’s IMPOLITIC to use the term, surrender process.

    “[H]opefully there won’t be a President Obama for too much longer.”

    Keyn ye-HEE ra-TZOHN.

    InshallAH.

    Lord willin’ an’ the crick don’t rise.

    etc.

  5. Obama and the “peace process”

    It sounds something like “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs”.

    There is no such thing as a “peace process”; and hopefully there won’t be a President Obama for too much longer.

  6. “…hardship always accompanies a season of hope.”

    …a season of whose hope, Sir?

    The hope of the scum, Sir?

    Damn their hope, Sir.

    And damn you WITH it,

    you low-life punk,

    Sir.