| Submit your comments on this article | ||||
| Israel-Palestine-Jordan | ||||
| Obama links Israel peace plan to 1967 borders deal | ||||
| 2008-11-16 | ||||
The proposal gives Israel an effective veto on the return of Arab refugees expelled in 1948 while requiring it to restore the Golan Heights to Syria and allow the Palestinians to establish a state capital in east Jerusalem. On a visit to the Middle East last July, the president-elect said privately it would be “crazy” for Israel to refuse a deal that could “give them peace with the Muslim world”, according to a senior Obama adviser. The Arab peace plan received a boost last week when President Shimon Peres, a Nobel peace laureate and leading Israeli dove, commended the initiative at a Saudi-sponsored United Nations conference in New York. Peres was loudly applauded for telling King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who was behind the original initiative: “I wish that your voice will become the prevailing voice of the whole region, of all people.” A bipartisan group of senior foreign policy advisers urged Obama to give the Arab plan top priority immediately after his election victory. They included Lee Hamilton, the former co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Democrat former national security adviser. Brzezinski will give an address tomorrow at Chatham House, the international relations think tank, in London. Brent Scowcroft, a Republican former national security adviser, joined in the appeal. He said last week that the Middle East was the most troublesome area in the world and that an early start to the Palestinian peace process was “a way to psychologically change the mood of the region”. Advisers believe the diplomatic climate favours a deal as Arab League countries are under pressure from radical Islamic movements and a potentially nuclear Iran. Polls show that Palestinians and Israelis are in a mood to compromise.
Obama is also looking to break a diplomatic deadlock over Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons technology. A possible way forward, suggested last spring by Dennis Ross, a senior Obama adviser and former Middle East envoy, would be to persuade Russia to join in tough economic sanctions against Iran by offering to modify the US plan for a “missile shield” in eastern Europe.
Ross and Daniel Kurtzer, a former American ambassador to Israel, accompanied Obama on a visit to Israel last July. They also travelled to Ramallah, where Obama questioned Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader, about the prospects for the Arab plan. According to a Washington source Obama told Abbas: “The Israelis would be crazy not to accept this initiative. It would give them peace with the Muslim world from Indonesia to Morocco.” Kurtzer submitted a paper to Obama on the question before this month’s presidential elections. He argued that trying to reach bilateral peace agreements between Israel and individual countries in the Middle East, was a recipe for failure as the record of Bill Clinton and George W Bush showed. In contrast, the broader Arab plan “had a lot of appeal”. A leading Democratic expert on the Middle East said: “There’s not a lot of meat on the bones yet, but it offers recognition of Israel across the Arab world.” Livni, the leader of Kadima, which favours the plan, is the front-runner in Israeli elections due in February. Her rival, Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of Likud, is adamantly against withdrawing to borders that predate the Six Day war in 1967. Ehud Olmert, the prime minister, last week expressed his support for Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank Golan and east Jerusalem. | ||||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #22 God help us if the next US president is even more clueless about the Middle East than European leaders. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2008-11-16 22:37 |
| #21 "it would be 'crazy' for Israel to refuse a deal that could 'give them peace with the Muslim world'" True, but it is also true that there can be no peace with the Muslim world as long as the Muslim world practices what it preaches. Thus any such deal is a fantasy. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2008-11-16 14:11 |
| #20 I think a LOT of people are going to regret voting for BO. Here is a man that has NEVER made a major decision. He voted "Present" in the Illinois Senate something like 140 times. He's seldom voted on a bill that had serious repercussions. Now he's President. There's no side-stepping decisions now - he either makes them, or he abdicates his position and authority. Either is possible, but in today's world a strong leader is absolutely essential. Instead, we have an empty suit. Personally, I think he'll have a stroke or heart attack in the first two years. He's never lived with stress in any position he's ever held. Now he's in a position where stress is a constant companion. Stress kills, if you're not used to dealing with it. Biden is no better, and may actually go first. Let us pray that the Republicans can retake the House before that happens, or we'll have President Pelosi - another empty-headed fool. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2008-11-16 12:49 |
| #19 Why don't we leave Isreal alone to do what they do best??? Defend themselves and their land. They have shown time and again they know how to deal with their enemies. |
| Posted by: WolfDog 2008-11-16 11:49 |
| #18 Because 6 decades of policy of pressuring Israel to appease Arabs have been so rewarding to USA. Then go it alone, g(r)omgoru. At least you (and Israel) will die on your feet. |
| Posted by: Milton Fandango 2008-11-16 11:29 |
| #17 our own TW is proof that not all American Jews are Democrats, but I do think, despite condi's marathon efforts for a dead roadmap, that Israel will look back on 2000-2008 as the "good old days" Republican voters are generally more pro-Israel than the populace, and even more so than Democrat voters and politicians. My point is not that Israel is a central interest to Jews here, but they could do better than endorse twits like Carter, Obama, Clinton, Brzezinski, et al, which are even more Paleo and Arab-loving |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-11-16 11:21 |
| #16 Yerusalem is worth far more to Us than Washington DC. |
| Posted by: newc 2008-11-16 09:25 |
| #15 Look up USA policy vs. Islael 1948 - 1967, A5089. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-11-16 08:58 |
| #14 Frank, Darth, IMO, your posts contain two implicit assumptions. (a) Israel is a primary concern for American Jews. (b) Republicans are better for Israel than Democrats. In general, I find that examining one's implicit assumptions seldom hurts---and, in many cases, could be quite enlightening. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-11-16 08:42 |
| #13 Hell, have you been bitching for 60 years already? Seems like yesterday..... Shouldn't that be 30 years or so already? Original foreign benefactors were IIRC the USSR, very shortly, then, France, oddly enuff. |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2008-11-16 08:38 |
| #12 I think there are going to be a lot of American Jews that are going to deeply regret voting for this piece of trash. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-11-16 07:56 |
| #11 why did Democrat American Jews vote for this piece of shite? Nice going. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-11-16 07:27 |
| #10 Because 6 decades of policy of pressuring Israel to appease Arabs have been so rewarding to USA. Hell, have you been bitching for 60 years already? Seems like yesterday..... |
| Posted by: .5mt 2008-11-16 04:36 |
| #9 All they've been doing is launching Qassam rockets and sharpening their knives. Those rockets are being fired from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, Fatah/PA dominated West Bank has been very quite for many months, and the Palestinian security services have been keeping a tight leash on Hamas on the West Bank, albeit for their own interests rather than Israel's security. Why would Isreal do what Obama tells it to do? Because America gives them $2 billion a year every year and veto's down every anti-Israel UN resolution, among other things? |
| Posted by: Cherelet and Tenille1095 2008-11-16 03:14 |
| #8 Why force an ally to do something our sworn enemies would never do? Because 6 decades of policy of pressuring Israel to appease Arabs have been so rewarding to USA. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-11-16 02:54 |
| #7 Why force an ally to do something our sworn enemies would never do? |
| Posted by: badanov 2008-11-16 01:58 |
| #6 This again speaks to the arrogance of Obama. Why would Isreal do what Obama tells it to do? But the way I understand it, even for a moment thinking there can be any compromise until a fundamental reform of Islam is undertaken is impossible. As I understand it, it is written in one Hadith or another that the reason the Jews lost Israel was because they refused to accept Mohammad as God's prophet and the Quran as the word of God and that the Jews would never regain Israel until they do. So a religious Muslim can never accept that Israel exists without, by the same token, invalidating that Hadith. So unless it is decided at some high level that the Hadiths can be in error generally and that one in particular, a Muslim has no choice but to refuse to recognize Israel regardless of any land deal. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2008-11-16 01:05 |
| #5 All the words above -- go together to show Obama's position on the Middle East, is one of go-along-to-get-along..... as is all his positions so far. He truly doesn't understand that adage, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." Our enemies are pulling him closer and closer to them, even before he takes office... and there is nothing standing in their way. He is placing in positions of power, those folks that Clinton had in place, that led us to 9/11. My imagaination isn't broad enough to envision what it is that Osama is planning when he extends a welcome to Obama, telling him, he is planning a hit on us bigger than 9/11 -- We can only pray, that all those "secretive" W's executives order, his programs that extend into the next few years, will win us some time. So far, our President Elect is running his office just as he did his time in the Senate -- Four years in the Senate. Two of those years campaigning for this job. He's already campaigning for his second term, cause, the only thing he know how to do really good, is campaign. |
| Posted by: Sherry 2008-11-16 01:00 |
| #4 If you are going to f*ck up domestically, you might as well balance the sheet with foreign policy f*ckups right out of the chute. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2008-11-16 00:59 |
| #3 Bambi should first have to recide 1 (only one) condition of any agreement with Israel the Arabs have kept. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2008-11-16 00:55 |
| #2 Yes. Sounds like a great idea. Redraw the borders to the proven unpeaceful pre '67 borders to make peace. Brilliant. Dildos. Every. Last. One. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2008-11-16 00:53 |
| #1 Hussain Obama? Nah! |
| Posted by: 3dc 2008-11-16 00:19 |