Abu Muqawama: Post

Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.

Pres. Obama's Speech to the General Assembly

Here we go!

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary-General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen: I would like to talk to you about a subject that is at the heart of the United Nations - the pursuit of peace in an imperfect world.

 

War and conflict have been with us since the beginning of civilization. But in the first part of the 20th century, the advance of modern weaponry led to death on a staggering scale. It was this killing that compelled the founders of this body to build an institution that was focused not just on ending one war, but on averting others; a union of sovereign states that would seek to prevent conflict, while also addressing its causes.

No American did more to pursue this objective than President Franklin Roosevelt. He knew that a victory in war was not enough. As he said at one of the very first meetings on the founding of the United Nations, "We have got to make, not merely a peace, but a peace that will last."

The men and women who built this institution understood that peace is more than the absence of war. A lasting peace - for nations and individuals - depends upon a sense of justice and opportunity; of dignity and freedom. It depends upon struggle and sacrifice; on compromise, and a sense of common humanity.

One delegate to the San Francisco Conference that led to the creation of United Nations put it well - "Many people," she said, "have talked as if all we had to do to get peace was...to say loudly and frequently that we loved peace and hated war. Now we have learned that no matter how much we love peace and hate war, we cannot avoid having war brought upon us if there are convulsions in other parts of the world." 

The fact is, peace is hard, but our people demand it. Over nearly seven decades, even as the United Nations helped avert a third World War, we still live in a world scarred by conflict and plagued by poverty. Even as we proclaim our love for peace and hatred of war, there are convulsions in our world that endanger us all.

If I am hearing the president correctly, we should all love peace and hate war. That's pretty uncontroversial, in a Matthew 5:9 kind of way.

I took office at a time of two wars for the United States. Moreover, the violent extremists who drew us into war in the first place - Osama bin Laden, and his al Qaeda organization - remained at large. Today, we have set a new direction.

At the end of this year, America's military operation in Iraq will be over. We will have a normal relationship with a sovereign nation that is a member of the community of nations. That equal partnership will be strengthened by our support for Iraq - for its government and Security Forces; for its people and their aspirations.

The Bush Administration deserves much credit for negotiating the Status of Forces Agreement in 2008. (Of course, I can hear you saying they were the ones who got us into the Iraq mess in the first place. Also true.)

As we end the war in Iraq, the United States and our coalition partners have begun a transition in Afghanistan. Between now and 2014, an increasingly capable Afghan government and Security Forces will step forward to take responsibility for the future of their country. As they do, we are drawing down our own forces, while building an enduring partnership with the Afghan people.

So let there be no doubt: the tide of war is receding. 

Er, not exactly. More accurately, U.S. involvement in war is receding. The war in Afghanistan will likely not conform to the U.S. and allied timetable for withdrawal. The war, as evidenced by yesterday's grim events in Kabul, will likely merely transition into a post-NATO phase.

When I took office, roughly 180,000 Americans were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. By the end of this year, that number will be cut in half, and it will continue to decline. This is critical to the sovereignty of Iraq and Afghanistan, and to the strength of the United States as we build our nation at home.

Moreover, we are poised to end these wars from a position of strength. Ten years ago, there was an open wound of twisted steel and broken hearts in this city. Today, as a new tower rising at Ground Zero symbolizes New York's renewal, al Qaeda is under more pressure than ever before. Its leadership has been degraded. And Osama bin Laden, a man who murdered thousands of people from dozens of countries, will never endanger the peace of the world again.

Absolutely. You do not have to like this president very much, but al-Qaeda has gotten the stuffing knocked out of it since this president took office in 2009. In 2011 alone, al-Qaeda's senior leadership has been decimated. Can we all agree to give the administration a tremendous amount of credit for helping make this happen?

Yes, this has been a difficult decade. But today, we stand at a crossroads of history with the chance to move decisively in the direction of peace. To do so, we must return to the wisdom of those who created this institution. The UN's Founding Charter calls upon us, "to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security." And Article 1 of this General Assembly's Universal Declaration of Human Rights reminds us that, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.' Those bedrock beliefs - in the responsibility of states, and the rights of men and women - must be our guide.

In that effort, we have reason to hope. This year has been a time of transformation.  More nations have stepped forward to maintain international peace and security. And more individuals are claiming their universal right to live in freedom and dignity.

One year ago, when we met here in New York, the prospect of a successful referendum in South Sudan was in doubt. But the international community overcame old divisions to support the agreement that had been negotiated to give South Sudan self-determination. And last summer, as a new flag went up in Juba, former soldiers laid down their arms; men and women wept with joy; and children finally knew the promise of looking to a future that they will shape.

Huzzah!

One year ago, the people of Cote D'Ivoire approached a landmark election. And when the incumbent lost, and refused to respect the results, the world refused to look the other way. UN peacekeepers were harassed, but did not leave their posts. The Security Council, led by the United States, Nigeria, and France, came together to support the will of the people. And Cote D'Ivoire is now governed by the man who was elected to lead.

Huzzah!

One year ago, the hopes of the people of Tunisia were suppressed. But they chose the dignity of peaceful protest over the rule of an iron fist. A vendor lit a spark that took his own life, but ignited a movement. In the face of a crackdown, students spelled out the word freedom. The balance of fear shifted from the ruler to those that he ruled. Now the people of Tunisia are preparing for elections that will move them one step closer to the democracy they deserve.

Huzzah!

One year ago, Egypt had known one President for nearly thirty years. But for 18 days, the eyes of the world were on Tahrir Square, where Egyptians from all walks of life - men and women; young and old; Muslim and Christian - demanded their universal rights. We saw in those protesters the moral force of non-violence that has lit the world from Delhi to Warsaw; from Selma to South Africa - and we knew that change had come to Egypt and to the Arab World.

Huzzah!

One year ago, the people of Libya were ruled by the world's longest serving dictator. But faced with bullets and bombs and a dictator who threatened to hunt them down like rats, they showed relentless bravery. We will never forget the words of the Libyan who stood up in those early days of revolution and said, "Our words are free now. It's a feeling you can't explain."

Day after day, in the face of bullets and bombs, the Libyan people refused to give back that freedom. And when they were threatened by the kind of mass atrocity that often went unchallenged in the last century, the United Nations lived up to its charter. The Security Council authorized all necessary measures to prevent a massacre.  The Arab League called for this effort, and Arab nations joined a NATO-led coalition that halted Qadhafi's forces in their tracks.

In the months that followed, the will of the coalition proved unbreakable, and the will of the Libyan people could not be denied. Forty-two years of tyranny was ended in six months.  From Tripoli to Misratah to Benghazi - today, Libya is free.  Yesterday, the leaders of a new Libya took their rightful place beside us, and this week, the United States is reopening our Embassy in Tripoli. This is how the international community is supposed to work - nations standing together for the sake of peace and security; individuals claiming their rights. Now, all of us have a responsibility to support the new Libyan government as they confront the challenge of turning this moment of promise into a just and lasting peace for all Libyans.

I was never a fan of intervention in Libya and would not support intervention if I knew what I know now. But the Obama Administration should be quite pleased with itself given the way things turned out, and we should all give the administration some credit. The military campaign was incoherent, but the broader diplomatic campaign was impressive, and the end result was great.

So it has been a remarkable year. The Qadhafi regime is over. Gbagbo, Ben Ali, and Mubarak are no longer in power. Osama bin Laden is gone, and the idea that change could only come through violence has been buried with him. Something is happening in our world. The way things have been is not the way they will be. The humiliating grip of corruption and tyranny is being pried open. Technology is putting power in the hands of the people. The youth are delivering a powerful rebuke to dictatorship, and rejecting the lie that some races, religions and ethnicities do not desire democracy. The promise written down on paper - "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" - is closer at hand.

But let us remember: peace is hard. Progress can be reversed. Prosperity comes slowly. Societies can split apart. The measure of  our success must be whether people can live in sustained freedom, dignity, and security. And the United Nations and its member states must do their part to support those basic aspirations.

In Iran, we have seen a government that refuses to recognize the rights of its own people.

Is that all he's going to say about Iran?

And as we meet here today, men, women and children are being tortured, detained and murdered by the Syrian regime. Thousands have been killed, many during the holy time of Ramadan. Thousands more have poured across Syria's borders. The Syrian people have shown dignity and courage in their pursuit of justice - protesting peacefully, standing silently in the streets, dying for the same values that this institution is supposed to stand for. The question for us is clear: Will we stand with the Syrian people, or with their oppressors?

Already, the United States has imposed strong sanctions on Syria's leaders. We have supported a transfer of power that is responsive to the Syrian people. Many of our allies have joined us in this effort. But for the sake of Syria - and the peace and security of the world - we must speak with one voice. There is no excuse for inaction. Now is the time for the United Nations Security Council to sanction the Syrian regime, and to stand with the Syrian people.

Good, strong words here.

Throughout the region, we will have to respond to the calls for change. In Yemen, men, women and children gather by the thousands in towns and city squares every day with the hope that their determination and spilled blood will prevail over a corrupt system. America supports their aspirations. We must work with Yemen's neighbors and our partners around the world to seek a path that allows for a peaceful transition of power from President Saleh, and a movement to free and fair elections as soon as possible.

In Bahrain, steps have been taken toward reform and accountability, but more are required. America is a close friend of Bahrain, and we will continue to call on the government and the main opposition bloc - the Wifaq - to pursue a meaningful dialogue that brings peaceful change that is responsive to the people. And we believe the patriotism that binds Bahrainis together must be more powerful than the sectarian forces that would tear them apart.

The United States is really at odds, politically, with some of its closest allies in the Gulf -- both over the composition and behavior of their regimes as well as over the aspirations of the Palestinian people. I am left wondering what the effects of this alienation will have on the political dynamics in the sub-region, but that's a question better answered by someone like Greg Gause.

Each nation must chart its own course to fulfill the aspirations of its people, and America does not expect to agree with every party or person who expresses themselves politically. But we will always stand up for the universal rights that were embraced by this Assembly. Those rights depend upon elections that are free and fair; governance that is transparent and accountable; respect for the rights of women and minorities; and justice that is equal and fair. That is what our people deserve. Those are elements of a peace that lasts.

Nevermind that we have plenty of friends and allies -- including some in the aforementioned Gulf -- who do not respect the rights of women and minorities. 

Moreover, the United States will continue to support those nations that transition to democracy - with greater trade and investment, so that freedom is followed by opportunity. We will pursue a deeper engagement with governments, but also civil society - students and entrepreneurs; political parties and the press. We have banned those who abuse human rights from travelling to our country, and sanctioned those who trample on human rights abroad. And we will always serve as a voice for those who have been silenced.

A lot of that stuff we say we are going to do is going to be awfully hard when we cut our International Affairs budget by half.

Now I know that for many in this hall, one issue stands as a test for these principles - and for American foreign policy: the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians.

One year ago, I stood at this podium and called for an independent Palestine. I believed then - and I believe now - that the Palestinian people deserve a state of their own. But what I also said is that genuine peace can only be realized between Israelis and Palestinians themselves. One year later, despite extensive efforts by America and others, the parties have not bridged their differences. Faced with this stalemate, I put forward a new basis for negotiations in May. That basis is clear, and well known to all of us here. Israelis must know that any agreement provides assurances for their security. Palestinians deserve to know the territorial basis of their state.

Again, one of the real underreported developments over the past few years has been the deepening cooperation between the Israeli Min. of Defense and the U.S. Dept. of Defense. The Gates Pentagon spent countless weeks working on ways to provide security assurances to the Israelis and had some degree of success with the security professionals in Israel. That did not stop the Netanyahu government from screwing everything up, of course. When Bob Gates left the Pentagon, he was reportedly livid with the Israelis -- Netanyahu especially -- and considered them to be ungrateful allies.

I know that many are frustrated by the lack of progress. So am I. But the question isn't the goal we seek - the question is how to reach it. And I am convinced that there is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the UN - if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is Israelis and Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately, it is Israelis and Palestinians - not us - who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and security; on refugees and Jerusalem.

The reason we are where we are, though, is that the Palestinians and Israelis have both lost all faith in the peace process. After Oslo, the Israelis got ... the Second Intifada. And the Palestinians continue to watch the territory beyond the Green Line "settled" by Israeli extremists with a viable Palestinian state no where in sight. The Palestinian leadership feels this is the most extreme Israeli government with which they have ever interacted, and they have no faith whatsoever in the U.S. administration being able to shepherd along peace negotiations. And why should they? All they have seen, over the past few years, is this Netanyahu Administration put domestic Israeli political coalition-building over strategic concerns -- while insulting its only ally (that would be the United States) at every available turn.

Peace depends upon compromise among peoples who must live together long after our speeches are over, and our votes have been counted. That is the lesson of Northern Ireland, where ancient antagonists bridged their differences. That is the lesson of Sudan, where a negotiated settlement led to an independent state. And that is the path to a Palestinian state.

We seek a future where Palestinians live in a sovereign state of their own, with no limit to what they can achieve. There is no question that the Palestinians have seen that vision delayed for too long. And it is precisely because we believe so strongly in the aspirations of the Palestinian people that America has invested so much time and effort in the building of a Palestinian state, and the negotiations that can achieve one.

We have, actually, invested a lot in state-building in Palestine. We have also invested a lot in negotiations. We have something to show for the former and very little to show for the latter.

America's commitment to Israel's security is unshakeable, and our friendship with Israel is deep and enduring. And so we believe that any lasting peace must acknowledge the very real security concerns that Israel faces every single day. Let's be honest: Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it. Israel's citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. Israel's children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them. Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, looks out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map. The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile, persecution, and the fresh memory of knowing that six million people were killed simply because of who they were.

These facts cannot be denied. The Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland. Israel deserves recognition. It deserves normal relations with its neighbors. And friends of the Palestinians do them no favors by ignoring this truth, just as friends of Israel must recognize the need to pursue a two state solution with a secure Israel next to an independent Palestine.

What percentage of the words in these previous two paragraphs will go unappreciated by the Netanyahu government? 90%? 95%? I'm going to be bold and say 100%.

That truth - that each side has legitimate aspirations - is what makes peace so hard. And the deadlock will only be broken when each side learns to stand in each other's shoes. That's what we should be encouraging. This body - founded, as it was, out of the ashes of war and genocide; dedicated, as it is, to the dignity of every person - must recognize the reality that is lived by both the Palestinians and the Israelis.  The measure of our actions must always be whether they advance the right of Israeli and Palestinian children to live in peace and security, with dignity and opportunity. We will only succeed in that effort if we can encourage the parties to sit down together, to listen to each other, and to understand each other's hopes and fears. That is the project to which America is committed. And that is what the United Nations should be focused on in the weeks and months to come.

I am not sure the president has said anything here that would convince the Palestinian people or their leadership that they have viable options for asserting their right to self-determination beyond what they are doing right now. What, pray tell, is a Palestinian supposed to think of all this? What other viable path toward statehood are we offering? At the end of this speech, the Palestinian leadership -- no Thomas Jeffersons themselves, we should add (or even David Ben-Gurions) -- will still be left with their people in the West Bank living under military occupation and an Israeli government more interested in staying in power than helping to create a Palestinian state.

Now, even as we confront these challenges of conflict and revolution, we must also recognize once more that peace is not just the absence of war. True peace depends upon creating the opportunity that makes life worth living. And to do that, we must confront the common enemies of human beings: nuclear weapons and poverty; ignorance and disease. These forces corrode the possibility of lasting peace, and together we are called upon to confront them.

To lift the specter of mass destruction, we must come together to pursue the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. Over the last two years, we have begun to walk down that path. Since our Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, nearly 50 nations have taken steps to secure nuclear materials from terrorists and smugglers. Next March, a Summit in Seoul will advance our efforts to lock down all of them. The New START Treaty between the United States and Russia will cut our deployed arsenals to the lowest level in a half century, and our nations are pursuing talks on how to achieve deeper reductions. America will continue to work for a ban on the testing of nuclear weapons, and the production of fissile material needed to make them.

As we meet our obligations, we have strengthened the treaties and institutions that help stop the spread of these weapons. To do so, we must continue to hold accountable those nations that flout them. The Iranian government cannot demonstrate that its program is peaceful, has not met its obligations, and rejected offers that would provide it with peaceful nuclear power. North Korea has yet to take concrete steps toward abandoning its weapons, and continues belligerent actions against the South. There is a future of greater opportunity for the people of these nations if their governments meet their obligations. But if they continue down a path that is outside international law, they must be met with greater pressure and isolation. That is what our commitment to peace demands.

Gang, I am sorry, but I deal at the opposite end of the spectrum of war from nuclear weaponry. Someone else will have to provide your ace commentary here.

To bring prosperity to our people, we must promote the growth that creates opportunity. In this effort, let us not forget that we have made enormous progress over the last several decades. Closed societies gave way to open markets. Innovation and entrepreneurship has transformed the way we live and the things that we can do. Emerging economies from Asia to the Americas have lifted hundreds of millions from poverty. Yet three years ago, we confronted the worst financial crisis in eight decades.  That crisis proved a fact that has become clearer with each passing year - our fate is interconnected; in a global economy, nations will rise, or fall, together.

Aaaand, we can't even balance our budget. Or agree to the cuts in mandatory spending (entitlements) that everyone, including the IMF, says we need. Or even a small tax increase to allow for just the tiniest bit of social justice so that, you know, we do not slash every program the helps the poor without asking anything of the rich. (Daniel 4:27, anyone? No one?) So that's us. Follow our leadership, world!

Today, we confront the challenges that have followed that crisis. Recovery is fragile. Markets are volatile. Too many people are out of work. Too many others are struggling to get by. We acted together to avert a Depression in 2009. We must take urgent and coordinated action once more. Here in the United States, I have announced a plan to put Americans back to work and jumpstart our economy, and committed to substantially reduce our deficit over time. We stand with our European allies as they reshape their institutions and address their own fiscal challenge. For other countries, leaders face a different challenge as they shift their economies towards more self-reliance, boosting domestic demand while slowing inflation.  So we will work with emerging economies that have rebounded strongly, so that rising standards of living create new markets that promote global growth. That is what our commitment to prosperity demands.

To combat the poverty that punishes our children, we must act on the belief that freedom from want is a basic human right. The United States has made it a focus of our engagement abroad to help people to feed themselves. And today, as drought and conflict have brought famine to the Horn of Africa, our conscience calls on us to act. Together, we must continue to provide assistance, and support organizations that can reach those in need. And together, we must insist on unrestricted humanitarian access so that we can save the lives of thousands of men, women and children. Our common humanity is at stake. Let us show that the life of a child in Somalia is as precious as any other. That is what our commitment to our fellow human beings demands.  

To stop disease that spreads across borders, we must strengthen our systems of public health. We will continue the fight against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. We will focus on the health of mothers and children. And we must come together to prevent, detect, and fight every kind of biological danger - whether it is a pandemic like H1N1, a terrorist threat, or a treatable disease.  This week, America signed an agreement with the World Health Organization to affirm our commitment to meet this challenge.

Today, I urge all nations to join us in meeting the WHO's goal of making sure all nations have core capacities to address public health emergencies in place by 2012. That is what our commitment to the health of our people demands.

To preserve our planet, we must not put off the action that a changing climate demands. We must tap the power of science to save those resources that are scarce. Together, we must continue our work to build on the progress made in Copenhagen and Cancun, so that all of the major economies here today follow through on the commitments that were made. Together, we must work to transform the energy that powers are economies, and support others as they move down that path. That is what our commitment to the next generation demands.

And to make sure our societies reach their potential, we must allow our citizens to reach theirs. No country can afford the cancer of corruption. Together, we must harness the power of open societies and open economies. That is why we have partnered with countries from across the globe to launch a new partnership on Open Government that helps ensure accountability and empower their citizens. No country should deny people their rights because of who they love, which is why we must stand up for the rights of gays and lesbians everywhere. And no country can realize its potential if half its population cannot reach theirs. This week, the United States signed a new Declaration on Women's Participation. Next year, we should each announce the steps we are taking to break down economic and political barriers that stand in the way of women and girls. That is what our commitment to human progress demands.

I know that there is no straight line to progress, no single path to success. We come from different cultures, and carry with us different histories. But let us never forget that even as we gather here as heads of different governments, we represent citizens who share the same basic aspirations - to live with dignity and freedom; to get an education and pursue opportunity; to love our families and our God. To live in the kind of peace that makes life worth living.

It is the nature of our imperfect world that we are forced to learn this lesson over and over again.

Obama the Calvinist?

Conflict and repression will endure so long as some people refuse to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Yet that is precisely why we have built institutions like this that bind our fates together - because those who came before us believed that peace is preferable to war; freedom is preferable to suppression; and prosperity is preferable to poverty. That is the message that comes not from capitals, but from citizens.

When the corner-stone of this very building was put in place, President Truman came here to New York and said, "The United Nations is essentially an expression of the moral nature of man's aspirations." As we live in a world that is changing at a breathtaking pace, that is a lesson that we must never forget.

Peace is hard, but we know that it is possible. Together, let us resolve to see that it is defined by our hopes and not our fears. Together, let us work to make, not merely a peace, but a peace that will last. Thank you.

No, Mr. President. Thank you. That speech you just gave was frustrating (for no one more than the Palestinians), but was no where near as incoherent as what I had to wade through yesterday.

Israel, Palestine, United Nations

28 comments

I could have done without the

I could have done without the end zone celebration about revolutions in Egypt and Libya that are not over yet and could still turn out badly.

It would be one thing if having been seen to "win" in these countries helped President Obama in domestic politics. It doesn't, not with the economy in the state it's in. I'd also note that the 3 to 1 ratio of space in this speech given to Libya and Egypt, respectively, is a generous measure of the actual attention Obama's administration has given to a nation approximately 1/12 the size of its neighbor. Obama went through an abbreviated version of the usual misty-eyed oration about Selma and non-violence with respect to Egypt, ending with the jubilant note that change had come. Well, yeah: Egypt had Mubarakism with Mubarak, and appears to be moving toward Mubarakism without Mubarak. That it will end up there is not a certainty, but will be more likely if the world joins Obama in declaring "mission accomplished" and moving on.

Your implication that

Your implication that Netanyahu is responsible for the failure to produce any progress in Palestinian-Israeli peace talks
is pretty wide of the mark. Barak and Ohlmert offered great deals and the PLO and PA rejected them. Until the Palestinians publicy withdraw the right of return, all the negotiations will be nothing more than a diplomatic dance. That you left out this essential issue in your commentary reveals your rather embarrassing bias and incompetent analysis. As Obama said, let's put the Palestinians in the Israelis' shoes. If you grant the right of return, there would be more Jews in Palestine than Arabs. You really think that Arabs would be comfortable with that arrangement? One of the leaders of the PA said that Palestine should be Jew free. If you believe in the right of return, meaning that Jews in Israel would nearly be outnumbered by Arabs in Israel, then you believe in the end of Israel. Considering that Netanyahu's number one job is to protect Israel, I think he has his priorities straight.

Good point about Obama's

Good point about Obama's rather optimistic view of the war in Afghanistan. It will most likely simply enter a new phase once the US withdraws. The fact that he offers a timetable for withdrawal doesn't help the campaign against the Taliban/Haqqani insurgents, its just a case of them hunkering down.

You are also correct that Obama deserves much credit for taking the fight to AQ. Not only has he managed to decimate the leadership of AQ, but he has shown up the hypocrisy of some of the Democrats as well, many of whom used to attack the very same policies when they were employed by Bush.

I was never a fan of intervention in Libya and would not support intervention if I knew what I know now.

Do you believe the 'imminent massacre in Benghazi' claim? A lot of the debate surrounding intervention rests on this claim.

After Oslo, the Israelis got ... the Second Intifada. And the Palestinians continue to watch the territory beyond the Green Line "settled" by Israeli extremists with a viable Palestinian state no where in sight.

The second intifada erupted 7 years after the signing, during which time Palestinians watched more land theft and ethnic cleansing or as Israeli ministry calls it 'redeeming the land'. Surely you should have worded that sentence differently. I attended a meeting in Jerusalem of ICAHD last year, during which time I was informed by one activist that she wouldn't be surprised if a third intifada erupted, ecause peace from the Palestinians has never been rewarded, really rewarded. And the peace in the West bank since the end of the second intifada has been met with yet more land theft. She said it was only a matter of time.

This sentence from President Obama - "Let's be honest: Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it." Is either a flat out lie, or one said by a man woefully uneducated on the conflict. The only war in which Israel was not the belligerent, was the Yom Kippur war of 1973. (And Yes Israel (the Jewish Agency were the belligerents in 1948, contrary to received wisdom)

we should add (or even David Ben-Gurions),/i>

I think you have a rather rose tinted view of ben-Gurion. The man would easily be classed a war criminal today, and he wasn't afraid to extol the virtues of ethnic cleansing, or 'compulsory transfer' as he referred to it.

Jeffrey W. Ludwig's claim above that "Barak and Ohlmert offered great deals and the PLO and PA rejected them" is again one stated by a man woefully misinformed. The generous offer myth of Barak (Olmert's was allegedly little different) was put to bed by Robert malley. But even if an american delegate isn't to your cup of tea, one of the |Israeli delegation, Shlomo Ben-Ami admitted this - "if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well." An offer of statehood less than 100% of West bank and Gaza (to a people who have already been forced 78% of their own land), which included Israel to maintain control on borders, a military presence in Jordan Valley for at least 20 years, control of the nascent Palestinian States electromagnetic sphere etc etc. Anyone who thinks that at Camp David Israel put a serious offer on the table, is deluded.

That you left out this essential issue in your commentary reveals your rather embarrassing bias and incompetent analysis

Mr Ludwig i would consider Mr Exum to be actually leaning more towards the Israeli position in his analysis. But I've no doubt he's actually trying to be as fair as he can. So if you think he's biased one way, I the other, what does that tell us? And btw Mr Ludwig, you quite clearly left plenty out in your 'analysis', otherwise you wouldn't have made the incompetent reference to the long debunked Camp David myth.

Best regards

Apologies for the above post,

Apologies for the above post, it reads strange because i attempted to put a few quotes in. They have appeared as normal text.

on what basis should Israel

on what basis should Israel or Netanyahu want or cooperate on this future Palestinian state? In what self-interest?

this is the state that is headed by a Holocaust-denier, a state whose government is in a reconciling 'differences' with Hamas, a proto-fascist religious organization that basis its national charter on the Koran and the czarist fabrications "Protocols of Elders", nevermind its use of suicide bombers and its established death cult.

Why would anyone in their right mind negotiate or settle for a neighboring state whose people and government refuse to recognize you as people? Abbas has repeatedly refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, nor acknowledge Israelis as people, and a senior PA official declared that his future state will be 'Jew-free"

From Arafat to Abbas, the message of these leaders to their own people was and is, that Israel will be 'liberated' and statehood is just a first step to this 'liberation', done either by military or demographic means such as 'right of return', aka population flooding and annexation.

And Netanyahu is an 'ungrateful' ally for refusing to go along with this ridiculous plan.

On Calvinism: Sounds more

On Calvinism: Sounds more like Ecclesiastes to me, though you might say, "Well, isn't Ecclesiastes also Calvinist?" Sure. Though Obama might have gotten his Calvinism--such as it is--via Lincoln.

Obama made some good points,

Obama made some good points, but left one essntial factor out. Note that Obama, in talking about Israel/Palestine, said nothing about Palestinian recognition of Israel, in whatever borders, as a Jewish state. Yet that is at the heart of the conflict today. Whatever borders are established, the conflict will not end until Palestinians agree to accept Israel as a Jewish state.

Obama lost all credibility in

Obama lost all credibility in resolving the Iran nuclear dispute when he dismissed out of hand the 2010 Tehran Declaration. Brokered with the help of Brazil and Turkey, he had previously given a green light to it, thinking the Iranians would reject it. It was an astonishing act of insincerity.strt

Just in time...the money hit

Just in time...the money hit for translators!

All World Language Consultants, Inc., Rockville, Md., is being awarded a $6,815,361 modification under previously awarded contract (HQ0034-08-F-1058) to provide Arabic-speaking interpreters/linguists to assist defense counsel with interviews of Arabic-speaking detainees and witnesses, and to translate documents. Work will be performed in Arlington, Va., with an estimated completion date of Feb. 22, 2012. The bid was solicited through the Internet, ith one bid received. Washington Headquarters Service is the contracting activity.

Part of this speech I agree

Part of this speech I agree with, lots I don't. Does not matter, it is not worth the effort to write about it.

Bottom line: There is only one paragraph of this speech that is meaningful to the purpose for it being given. The part that Exum said this about, "What, pray tell, is a Palestinian supposed to think of all this?"

And the deadlock will only be broken when each side learns to stand in each other's shoes. That's what we should be encouraging.

That is the Obama double step.

What matters is the UN vote this week. If I saw the future, I would say that this administration is wearing out the phones and the carpet in NY trying to get world leaders to see things their way. I would like to know what that effort will cost the US taxpayer. The long chance is Palestine getting the Security Council blessing. What will most likely happen is the Palestinians will get their UN status upgraded outside the Security Council and have a year to work out issues with Israel. That forces the parties back to the peace table. History tells us that Israel and Palestine will not come to an agreement. Israel is not rolling back to the '67 borders (Faced with this stalemate, I put forward a new basis for negotiations in May. That basis is clear, and well known to all of us here. In June Israel started construction again in the disputed lands. Ungrateful??? How about Obama having a fantasy? Obama did not have the balls to repeat, "1967 borders again" so he buried it in words.)

Thing that is fuzzy in the crystal ball is if Palestinians decide to have their own version of the Arab Spring. They have just been told that everyone else in the hood got their way by having a tantrum, but the Palestinians have to wait for Obama. Not sure that will go over well seeing that Obama made himself out as a rock star in Egypt 2009. This is what Obama said in his Egypt speech, "America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own." The Palestinian leaders are under a lot of pressure. Mahmud Abbas looked like he needed some alkaseltzer during Obama's speech.

Looks like the Republicans are not the only people that say NO in Washington. giggle.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/obama-egypt-speech-video_n_2112...

Some history.

Some history. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2003/2/DISPUTED%20TERRITO...

The irony about this speech is that in one sentence Obama reconfirms the 1967 border for Palestinian land for negotiations, then in another sentences he says that he will vote "no" in the UN for a Palestinian state. A "yes" vote gives the Palestinian people the land based on 1967 borders.

Clear as mud.

I don't get the sanctity of

I don't get the sanctity of the 1967 "borders" (which were actually just a ceasefire line and never ratified by any treaty, far as I know.) None of the parties involved, especially the Muslims, were satisfied with them back then-why would they be satisfactory now? I mean, except in the sense that a move back to the 1967 borders would involve Israel taking a hit in exchange for promises of peace, which gives every Western leftist a warm glow of irrational satisfaction. But in that case, why not demand a move back to the 1948 borders?

Folks, the Palestine issue is

Folks, the Palestine issue is intractable and Obama is coming pretty late in the day to be dumped on for failing to present a clear-cut, fair solution. The 1967 borders with land swaps have always been the presumed basis for a final deal, and those who harken back to the Ehud Barak deal are mistaken if they think it was a missed opportunity for the Palestinians. It was no deal at all, when you dig into it. For all the shabby Palestinian rhetoric, their denial of Israel's right to exist, their constant whining and inability to come to grips with the hard work of governing, they are entitled to a state on the West Bank and Israel needs to give up on this "Judea/Samaria" nonsense. Hard to see that happening in the present Israeli political climate, and I certainly don't blame Obama for failing to resolve this persistent crisis.

All about O getting the

All about O getting the AmericanJewish vote. Nothing more. Doesn't get any deeper than that.

B on September 22, 2011 -

B on September 22, 2011 - 3:14am

Some of your answers are here ... http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2003/2/DISPUTED%20TERRITO...

The six day war war really was not a six day war, just like Korean War never really ended..... http://www.sixdaywar.org/content/242drafters.asp

Ralph Hitchens on September 22, 2011 - 8:17am

Hard to see that happening in the present Israeli political climate, and I certainly don't blame Obama for failing to resolve this persistent crisis.

Think it has to do with the approach. Obama owns American FP. Obama walked in and tooted his horn saying how he was going to do sooooo much better than GW. Not sure I feel any better today than I did in 2009 about US FP. For all the money and Jet A that this administration has given, Americans do not have proportional results to show for it. Obama has flown the wings off AF1. The military jets that Hillary flies cost a lot of money. You would think that people sooooo much into green energy would find a more progressive way to communicate. They redistribute American wealth.

Have they heard of Bell's invention? The Intranet? Secure Communications? Fiber Optic?

The Illinois Democrats, the place Obama came from and where Rahm went to, cannot figure out why they have a huge state deficit so they keep raising taxes. Raising taxes to pug holes is becoming a State joke. The Democrats have ran Illinois for about ten years. They can not figure out where to cut the budget. Illinois DOT has a fleet of Lear Jets for the Democrats to ride in. They all want to live in Chicago. Even the Illinois Governor is in Chicago, the Governor's mansion in the Illinois Capital Springfield, Il which the people of Illinois built for Illinois Governors was not good enough for any of the Illinois Democrat Governors. It is sort of like having the State Dinner on the WH lawn when a purpose build structure is yards away.

Have to say that Rahm did have an awakening. EX Mayor Dailey got his Illinois taxpayer paid six-man security detail cut to three on-duty Chicago Police Officers. That detail lives with Dailey 100% of the time. Rahm reduced the police car privileges, the cars have to be sent back to the police station so that they can be used for fighting crime when not at the Dailey residence.

No where in any Illinois rule or law book do EX-anything get taxpayer funded security details.

Little goes a long way, it starts in Chicago and goes all they way to Washington to Israel.

Obama has history and a heavy load to carry.

Illinois was just vote the third WORSE place to start a business cause of the tax climate and the F'ed up government. Go JOB creation.

BTW.....Exum. You lamented about taxes and quoted the bible. Or even a small tax increase to allow for just the tiniest bit of social justice so that, you know, we do not slash every program the helps the poor without asking anything of the rich. (Daniel 4:27, anyone? No one?)

This is one of the reasons that budgets get cut. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-administration-orders-spend...
Sixteen dollar muffins. Like this is new. What did everyone do in the Obama Administration after Pelosi's $2,500 bottle water bill a couple years ago???? Sit on their butts? First is the matter that there is tap water in the House of Reps. Second is the bally hoo over natural resources to make all those plastic bottles !!!! Crap, we went through the worst recession ever and now Obama is just asking for probes into DOJ expenses !!!!! That is sort of like waiting three years for a full court press on job creation ! Then expecting the whole government to respond to the emergency !!!! It is always hurry it up with Obama. I call that poor planning on his part.

This is too rich.

Israel's claims to the disputed lands are based on international law, Exum. Hilter killed Jews, that was not base on any law. One thing that people forget, Hitler also burn US POW's in those ovens. As well as political prisoners.

Do your history on Flossenburg. It was hushed up post war to keep American from killing Germans again.

Obama's speech and action at

Obama's speech and action at the UN is largely a Pyrrhic victory on the international sceen (no comment on whether it'll suceed domestically). Obama's trying to avoid having to use the US veto in the UNSC, because he's afraid of the damage it will do to US standing across the Middle East. I suspect he'll succeed in that (none of the other members want to be forced into a vote there). However, after that speech, and Netanyahu's and Lieberman's gloating (not to mention the massive - though expected - sellout of the poor Bahrainis), I'd say the damage to the US reputation will pretty much be the same with or without the formal veto.

It's sad to watch Obama wreck our international position for no good reason or advantage. I hope he at least gets a political boost, so we can pretend something good came of this.

>they are entitled to a state

>they are entitled to a state on the West Bank and Israel needs to give up on this "Judea/Samaria" nonsense

Are there other ethnicities out there who are "entitled" (whatever the hell THAT means) to their own state and presently lack one due to losing wars? I'm thinking the Kurds, Druze, Baluchi, Hazara, Ainu, Hakka, Hmong, Kachin, Shan, Maori, Basques, Australian Aborigines, Yezidis, Alawites, Copts, Welsh, etc. might be next in line.

Where do you live, dude? Perhaps there is a group of Native Americans who feel entitled to a state encompassing your home, and feel you need to give up on your Michigan/Oregon/whatever nonsense. You got any standing aside from your ancestors massacring theirs, or buying land from the guys who did? Some scripture or something like that, maybe? In short, physician, heal thyself.

"It is the nature of our

"It is the nature of our imperfect world that we are forced to learn this lesson over and over again. "

This is more Niebuhrian than Calvinist. A true Calvinist in the mold of Jonathan Edwards (if we could imagine him at the UN) would have said something like "God, we ask you to provide those in authority the wisdom to govern justly; to teach the nations who have forgotten your precepts."

I love the idea of

I love the idea of land-for-peace. It's a close variant of an important related idea, money-for-peace. The UN, as all educated readers know, began in San Francisco. If you go to UN Plaza in SF today and stand around looking affluent, you're sure to be engaged in a money-for-peace process. So I think our new world order is really built on this principle.

And look what happens to you if you reject a land-for-peace proposal. Look at Jozef Beck, a simple Polish peasant, who in 1939 was offered land for peace. "Nie!" said the stubborn, rustic Beck. That same year, his entire farm was overrun by Panzerdivisionen, and all his Juden were gassed. Don't be like Farmer Beck! Why die for Danzig? Peace out.

AM: I would be interested to

AM:
I would be interested to hear why you think that the administration's focus on settlements is wrong.

Charlie Rose interviewed the Palestinian ambassador and the Israeli ambassador the other night. Why Zuckerman was included, I don't know.
The Israeli ambassador made two valid points which made me question what I thought I believed:
First, the "right of return". The Palestinians have to let this go. Israel can never agree to this without commiting demographic suicide.
Second, it has been my admittedly simplistic position that the 1967 borders need to be respected, and that all the settlers need to removed from Palestinian territory as defined by these borders. But, it seems that these borders present an unacceptable security problem for Israel.
I have no idea how to solve this problem. Land swaps, I guess.
The Palestinian ambassador implied that NATO peacekeepers in Palestine would be acceptable. This has crossed my mind in the past as a way to help the Palestinian police stop terrorist attacks against Israel. Does this make it easier for Israel to accept an end to the occupation if there are sufficient UN forces to back up the police?

Perry is a dangerous asshole. One who may just be President in 2012.

Rich S. on September 24, 2011

Rich S. on September 24, 2011 - 1:00pm Perry is a dangerous asshole
Hummm. Lets look around, who surged the troops in Afghanistan, spending $1 Billion/day. Perry? Is the government of Afghanistan any less corrupt and ready to take over in 2011 compared to 2009? (how's 2014 looking?). Who authorized going across international boarders, outside a declared war zone to kill UBL? Perry? How's relations with our war Ally the one we haul the majority of war materials into Afghanistan through their country? Who opened up another front on the WOT in Libya, spending over a billion dollars on a country that was not critical to US FP? Perry? Who expanded the CIA war machine, new drone bases for Somalia? Perry? Who was the residing President that lost the US AAA rating? Perry? Who ran up the highest US deficit and still whats to spend more? Perry? Who has maintained a 9% unemployment rate through out his Presidency? Perry? can keep going. Someone has a history already, it is not Perry.

Only thing I have seen Perry do is create jobs in a down economy, manage Texas, and say that of you mess with Texas children you will be introduced to Sparky.

One person is all hat and no cow, who is that? http://perceptionasreality.blogspot.com/2011/08/rick-perry-barack-obama-...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8EL5Atp_vF0#

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU3toJYfQRk

Enough.

I went through Abbas's, BN's, and Obama's UN speeches. All were predictable. Interesting thing, Abbas drew a picture of Palestinians having only peace in their hearts, and totally left out Hamas. Abbas swore off violence for the PLO and Palestinians as #2 in his do list giving in the speech. Thing is, he is not speaking for Hamas. That to me is a tell. Hamas is part of the discussion, they ARE the reason for Israel's hard line.

The UN should not vote on anything. What they need to do is define international law and the UN resolutions defining the disputed territories and clean up the worlds perception, in clear terms. Lay out the role of each party clearly defined and stop this recreation of history. The six-day war happened. The Arabs, Palestinians, and Persians attacked Israel and lost. As a result, Israel paid for the West Bank in blood. The land is disputed, not occupied.

Sorry. I do not see Palestinians as victims. Getting all the people in all the local countries to actually believe that stability is their only future is their responsibility, not America's. If these people can not do it, it will not be lasting. Outsiders can not do it for them. With out stability there will be no jobs and they can flush the Arab Spring in history's toilet. Egypt is already finding the future by ending their tourism industry. These people have everything and they have everything to loose.

Wake up people. It is your future. Don't like America? We can leave.

Well, Billy, I'm admittedly

Well, Billy, I'm admittedly not worthy to argue these points with a man such as yourself who gets his news, opinions, and view of reality from Rush Limbaugh.
I'm also not going to waste time belaboring the "From Whence the Deficit" thing. Everyone with an open mind and a habit for reading a newspaper knows this one.
Blaming the 30 years of deregulation and the resulting housing bubble on Obama? Really?
Furthermore, what would you have done with Afghanistan? Leave those people to the Taliban? Great! With all the cable channels we have now maybe the soccer stadium executions will be televised. Oh, boy! I think we fucked them over one time too many by pulling out after the Soviets left. My conscience bothers me a little. How about you? Is the US a force for good in the world, or do we only give a fuck about ourselves in some selfish, short-sighted Ayn Rand sort of way?
When it comes to Libya and, I think, somewhat applicable to Afghanistan, I remind you of the following:
A March 28, 2011 post by AM regarding an Obama speech about Libya that said in part:
"The part where the president pointed out that we are not China. We cannot afford to remain who we are and take some detached, uber-realist view of the world. We do not just let atrocities happen. (Well, we do. But it's true that it offends Americans, in our psyche, to stand aside when atrocities are taking place.) Values matter to the United States -- even when our interests are unclear. We act on our perceived values and do not always take the kind of cold, calculating approach to things that some foreign policy analysts (myself, often, included) wish we would take."

Rich S. on September 24, 2011

Rich S. on September 24, 2011 - 11:32pm

Is the US and world in better shape today as it was in 2009 ?

The US has proven itself to the world, has Obama proven himself to all Americans?

These are the questions that will be answered in the 2012 election.

Btw, Palestinians going to the UN should have been avoided. In May Obama could have stepped away from the 1967 requirements and brought the two sides together. The peace discussion will never have a chance unless the parties are in the same room. Getting the people in the same room was the objective. Obama missed that opportunity. That was a test of this leadership. America is not in this to dictate the terms of peace, we are only facilitators. Obama owns US FP 100%, he can not explain that failure away.

No mention of the Saudis?

No mention of the Saudis? Hmmmm.... how would that have gone?

"While Saudi Arabia has been the most vigorous opponent of the rising tide of democratic movements across the Middle East, from Libya to Tunisia to Egypt to Bahrain, they are a long-term close ally of the United States and a source of stability in the region. Now, detractors might also note that the Caribbean slave plantation system of the 17th and 18th centuries was also a source of 'regional stability.' The stability conferred by a dictator's iron rule over a people with legitimate democratic aspirations cannot really be condoned. However, we also have numerous economic arrangements with the Saudis that are of great benefit to the United States - they are our #3 supplier of oil, and our #1 purchaser of weapons, and future deals are in the works - nuclear reactors in particular. Some say that these weapons sales, such as the $60 billion arms deal I just oversaw, are doing much to destabilize the region and raise tensions with Iran. Some argue that the Saudis should not be trusted with nuclear reactors, and point to the possible outcomes if Gaddafi had been given nuclear reactors some years ago."

"Nevertheless, we will continue with these arms sales. We, the United States, are the world's biggest supplier of such weapons and these sales help our economic bottom line, particularly in these difficult times. Look at BAE - they're laying off employees in the thousands in Britain, and that's because they weren't able to cut another Al Yamameh deal with the Saudis - we got in there first. Economic competition is a reality, you know. So. Leave the Saudis out of it, alright? They're our friends and allies, and we're not going to support democratic revolutions in that country, no, nor in Bahrain either. However, Syria and Iran are a different story. The legitimate democratic aspirations of their people simply MUST be respected. Some would call that hypocrisy, but I say too bad, welcome to the real world. Now I'd like to leave you with the words of Sir Winston Churchill:"

"The Middle East is one of the hardest hearted areas in the world. It has always been fought over, and peace has only reigned when a major power has established firm influence and shown that it would maintain its will. Your friends must be supported with every vigour and if necessary they must be avenged. Force, or perhaps force and bribery, are the only things that will be respected. It is very sad, but we had all better recognise it." - from Churchill By Himself, pg 437.

As far as what President Obama would have said about the Israel nuclear weapons program? Not even a whisper on that one, I don't think.

The Obama White House and

The Obama White House and Middle East Peace

One would have thought President Obama understood coming into the White House about how NOT to conduct US Middle East policy: Don’t promise anything unless you are 100% certain you can deliver it and within a relatively short time span. Raising false expectations is more dangerous for both the US and the parties in the region than ongoing pessimism. Don’t launch a peace campaign until you have all the pieces, domestic and foreign, in place. If you do venture forth without having settled all these problems, you will be chewed up and spit out quickly. Don’t try to use rhetoric as a substitute for action. Having repeated these fundamental mistakes, the White House has further harmed the image of the United States in the eyes of the world.

Negotiating in Circles The

Negotiating in Circles

The contours of a settlement between Israelis and Palestinians have been known to both parties for years and if the al Jazeera leaks about the incredible concessions Saeb Erekat made during negotiations with the Olmert government are true, then we can believe the Olmert team when they say that they had been “very, very close.” Time ran out, just as it did in Taba during Ehud Barak’s last weeks in office. [No, they were NOT anywhere close at Camp David. It is worth remembering that the Palestinians went to Camp David with the promise that they would not be pressured into an agreement since their negotiations thus far had not brought them close enough to expect that they could get that far. Clinton later admitted that he had chose to put the blame on Arafat in the hopes of seeing Barak reelected.] What has happened is that when the parties make progress, the next Israeli government refuses to honor the positions reached by the previous team.

Anyway, the ticking clock is making the two-state solution OBE. The significant growth of settlements and a growing Palestinian population between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River will ultimately determine just what political arrangements will have to be made to accommodate both of these peoples.

Which intern has to mop the

Which intern has to mop the floor under Exum's desk after an Obama speech?

Intern? Think it is more like

Intern?

Think it is more like this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4WYHJNYX7k

Makes being in Texas as good as being in Tennessee.

You know, after CBC Maxine started to make sense. Glad someone noted that a Harvard Law Professor patronizes people. This guy has been patronizing half the US population for the past three years !

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64405.html

Add your comment

CNAS retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p> <br> <hr><blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Search