Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu replied by return of statements to the speech made yesterday by U.S. President Barack Obama: "Israel welcomes Obama's commitment to peace - Netanyahu said a few hours before his departure for Washington - but the boundaries of 1967 are indefensible and would leave large portions of the Israeli population in Judea and Samaria from the boundaries of Israel.
" Judea and Samaria is the way in which a large part of the political refers to the Israeli West Bank. Netanyahu added that he expect from the American willingness to consider the annexation by Israel of several large settlements built beyond the Green Line of 1967. Settlements considered illegal under international law and UN resolutions.
The reference is to a letter from the White House dated 2004 (when there was George W. Bush and was in the midst of the war in Iraq) in fact suggested that Washington's annexation of the settlements most populous. The explicit mention that Obama did in his speech to the activity of settlement construction "going forward" despite the efforts of his administration, makes it difficult, however, a credit to the current Israeli government in this direction.
The White House seems to favor the exchange of territories, the settlements included in the Israeli border, while areas populated by Palestinian citizens of Israel may be given to the new state of Palestine. There are several passages of Obama's speech that triggered reactions in Israel and among Palestinians.
Beyond the reference to the 1967 borders, in fact, Obama's speech is full of references, notes and cold showers for both parties. "What Obama needs to do is to launch a new slogan, but do not take concrete steps to protect the rights of the Palestinians and the Arab nation," said Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman.
And if the Israelis Obama said that "the status quo can not be maintained," the Palestinians made it clear that "efforts to delegitimize Israel are doomed to fail. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel to the UN in September will not create an independent state. " The reference is to the unilateral declaration of independence and the demand for recognition that the Palestinian Authority is going to present the UN General Assembly in September.
"The Palestinian leadership will have neither peace nor prosperity if Hamas insists on the path of fear and rejection - added Obama - And the Palestinians do not ever realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist." Beyond the more precise (Palestinian borders with Jordan, Egypt and Israel, was demilitarized, guarantees for Israel's security), Obama has both Israelis and Palestinians in front of the main issue, namely to discuss at a later time the nodes difficult to solve, namely the status of Jerusalem and the right of Palestinian refugees living elsewhere in the Middle East.
The agreement signed in Cairo a few weeks ago, Hamas has reaffirmed that both the right of return as East Jerusalem as capital of a future Palestinian state are key points of his political platform and now we must see what will be the common position of the new unity government national training between Gaza and the West Bank.
Obama on the issue has raised allegations about Israeli distrust of Hamas, but left open a crack, saying that it is up to Palestinians to prove that you can deal with this leadership. And if by PNA there was no official reaction yet to the presidential address, the debate is rather vehement in the Israeli press.
The daily newspaper Ha'aretz, for example, Gideon Levy, one of the toughest critics of the Israeli occupation in the West Bank, writes that Obama's speech "demolishes the hopes of a Palestinian state." Levy argues that openly criticizing the Palestinian UN action to recognize the new state, Obama has stated its position that the U.S.
and perhaps even take on the Europeans also criticized the newfound unity and postponing any discussion of Jerusalem and refugees, Obama "U.S. policy has not changed: the U.S. remain with Israel." Above all, according to Levy, the fact that Obama did not include the Palestinians in the long list of oppressed peoples in the Middle East, it means that even peaceful protests by the Palestinians are being treated differently from those in other Arab countries.
"Do not Turn it too - he warns Levy - We've heard these things sometimes, not only of American presidents, but also by Israeli prime ministers. What have we got? A new Jewish neighborhood in East Jerusalem. " The reference is to 1500 new homes for Jewish settlers that several ministers of the Israeli government will open next week in Ma'ale Hazeitim, a Jewish apartment complex in the heart of the Palestinian neighborhood of Ras al-Amud.
From the columns of the much more right-handed Jerusalem Post, Alan Dershowitz speaks openly instead of "error" of Obama. The error is that it evoked the "alleged right of so-called refugees" to return, Dershowitz writes: "Any peace agreement must provide for the waiver of this right which does not serve to unite the families but to make Israel a Palestinian state with an Arab majority.
" "The president missed an opportunity in his speech announced - writes Dershowitz, one of the most listened to commentators among the hawks - We are no longer close to the negotiations than we were before the speech." The best-selling Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot, the comments are divided.
Hanoch Daum alleges that the U.S. president to have equated the victims of Palestinian and Israeli ones, and Sever Plocker accuses him of having adopted "the essence of the Israeli-Zionist narrative." "Prime Minister Netanyahu and the others who have criticized Obama's words - writes Plocker - should read more carefully to his speech.
I doubt there will be a Palestinian politician willing to accept the words of Obama. " Netanyahu is expected to be Obama for 11.15 hours in Washington and later held a speech at the AIPAC conference, the main American Jewish lobby, very close to the positions of the Israeli government. From that and from that speech, the international observers are expected directions for the future of the negotiations and to understand whether, as Levy says, that Obama "is just another discourse or whether it is really the beginning of a new course, first between Israel and the United States and then among the Israeli government and Palestinian National Authority, for the moment silent.
According to reports published both by diplomatic Ha'aretz Yediot that, however, the tension between the White House and the Israeli government would be through the roof. Netanyahu has been deliberately kept in the dark passages of the presidential address that concern Israel and Palestine, and that, within hours of his visit to Washington, is seen as a clear snub.
Obama, according to Israeli reporters gathered by the confidences of the presidential entourage, would have no confidence in Netanyahu's ability to make the concessions necessary to reach a peace agreement. If this is so, the interview takes on new light yesterday by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak at the Los Angeles Times.
The former prime minister - who missed the goal to close the negotiations with Arafat - said that Israel must be ready to "bold concession" to restart the peace process. The risk, warns Zeev Sternhell in Ha'aretz, is that Netanyahu bring Israel to become a "pariah state", isolated from the rest of the international community and the object of lobbying by American and European public opinion, now fully convinced of the need for a Palestinian state.
Joseph Zarlingo Letter 22 
" Judea and Samaria is the way in which a large part of the political refers to the Israeli West Bank. Netanyahu added that he expect from the American willingness to consider the annexation by Israel of several large settlements built beyond the Green Line of 1967. Settlements considered illegal under international law and UN resolutions.
The reference is to a letter from the White House dated 2004 (when there was George W. Bush and was in the midst of the war in Iraq) in fact suggested that Washington's annexation of the settlements most populous. The explicit mention that Obama did in his speech to the activity of settlement construction "going forward" despite the efforts of his administration, makes it difficult, however, a credit to the current Israeli government in this direction.
The White House seems to favor the exchange of territories, the settlements included in the Israeli border, while areas populated by Palestinian citizens of Israel may be given to the new state of Palestine. There are several passages of Obama's speech that triggered reactions in Israel and among Palestinians.
Beyond the reference to the 1967 borders, in fact, Obama's speech is full of references, notes and cold showers for both parties. "What Obama needs to do is to launch a new slogan, but do not take concrete steps to protect the rights of the Palestinians and the Arab nation," said Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman.
And if the Israelis Obama said that "the status quo can not be maintained," the Palestinians made it clear that "efforts to delegitimize Israel are doomed to fail. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel to the UN in September will not create an independent state. " The reference is to the unilateral declaration of independence and the demand for recognition that the Palestinian Authority is going to present the UN General Assembly in September.
"The Palestinian leadership will have neither peace nor prosperity if Hamas insists on the path of fear and rejection - added Obama - And the Palestinians do not ever realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist." Beyond the more precise (Palestinian borders with Jordan, Egypt and Israel, was demilitarized, guarantees for Israel's security), Obama has both Israelis and Palestinians in front of the main issue, namely to discuss at a later time the nodes difficult to solve, namely the status of Jerusalem and the right of Palestinian refugees living elsewhere in the Middle East.
The agreement signed in Cairo a few weeks ago, Hamas has reaffirmed that both the right of return as East Jerusalem as capital of a future Palestinian state are key points of his political platform and now we must see what will be the common position of the new unity government national training between Gaza and the West Bank.
Obama on the issue has raised allegations about Israeli distrust of Hamas, but left open a crack, saying that it is up to Palestinians to prove that you can deal with this leadership. And if by PNA there was no official reaction yet to the presidential address, the debate is rather vehement in the Israeli press.
The daily newspaper Ha'aretz, for example, Gideon Levy, one of the toughest critics of the Israeli occupation in the West Bank, writes that Obama's speech "demolishes the hopes of a Palestinian state." Levy argues that openly criticizing the Palestinian UN action to recognize the new state, Obama has stated its position that the U.S.
and perhaps even take on the Europeans also criticized the newfound unity and postponing any discussion of Jerusalem and refugees, Obama "U.S. policy has not changed: the U.S. remain with Israel." Above all, according to Levy, the fact that Obama did not include the Palestinians in the long list of oppressed peoples in the Middle East, it means that even peaceful protests by the Palestinians are being treated differently from those in other Arab countries.
"Do not Turn it too - he warns Levy - We've heard these things sometimes, not only of American presidents, but also by Israeli prime ministers. What have we got? A new Jewish neighborhood in East Jerusalem. " The reference is to 1500 new homes for Jewish settlers that several ministers of the Israeli government will open next week in Ma'ale Hazeitim, a Jewish apartment complex in the heart of the Palestinian neighborhood of Ras al-Amud.
From the columns of the much more right-handed Jerusalem Post, Alan Dershowitz speaks openly instead of "error" of Obama. The error is that it evoked the "alleged right of so-called refugees" to return, Dershowitz writes: "Any peace agreement must provide for the waiver of this right which does not serve to unite the families but to make Israel a Palestinian state with an Arab majority.
" "The president missed an opportunity in his speech announced - writes Dershowitz, one of the most listened to commentators among the hawks - We are no longer close to the negotiations than we were before the speech." The best-selling Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot, the comments are divided.
Hanoch Daum alleges that the U.S. president to have equated the victims of Palestinian and Israeli ones, and Sever Plocker accuses him of having adopted "the essence of the Israeli-Zionist narrative." "Prime Minister Netanyahu and the others who have criticized Obama's words - writes Plocker - should read more carefully to his speech.
I doubt there will be a Palestinian politician willing to accept the words of Obama. " Netanyahu is expected to be Obama for 11.15 hours in Washington and later held a speech at the AIPAC conference, the main American Jewish lobby, very close to the positions of the Israeli government. From that and from that speech, the international observers are expected directions for the future of the negotiations and to understand whether, as Levy says, that Obama "is just another discourse or whether it is really the beginning of a new course, first between Israel and the United States and then among the Israeli government and Palestinian National Authority, for the moment silent.
According to reports published both by diplomatic Ha'aretz Yediot that, however, the tension between the White House and the Israeli government would be through the roof. Netanyahu has been deliberately kept in the dark passages of the presidential address that concern Israel and Palestine, and that, within hours of his visit to Washington, is seen as a clear snub.
Obama, according to Israeli reporters gathered by the confidences of the presidential entourage, would have no confidence in Netanyahu's ability to make the concessions necessary to reach a peace agreement. If this is so, the interview takes on new light yesterday by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak at the Los Angeles Times.
The former prime minister - who missed the goal to close the negotiations with Arafat - said that Israel must be ready to "bold concession" to restart the peace process. The risk, warns Zeev Sternhell in Ha'aretz, is that Netanyahu bring Israel to become a "pariah state", isolated from the rest of the international community and the object of lobbying by American and European public opinion, now fully convinced of the need for a Palestinian state.
Joseph Zarlingo Letter 22
No comments:
Post a Comment