Obama, Ross, Mitchell and Palestine

[ad hoc]

Way back when, during the election campaign, I expressed a great deal of scepticism on Obama's putative Middle East policy, but on his eventual election I was pleasantly surprised when he installed George Mitchell, a man who I felt would at least (a) care about peace; and (b) be relatively even handed.

Now however, he has resigned, reportedly in disgust at being elbowed out by uber-hardline pro-occupationist Dennis Ross, who it is said doesn't believe in any form of peace, and rather would work on "conflict management". The Palestinians really now need to focus on taking the USA out of the equation, since it's clear that even with a president who can sound convincing when talking of peace, they're still fucked.

I despair sometimes.

[Borracho]

Obama, Ross, Mitchell and Palestine

Ross is at least technically correct in the sense that there is no "peace process", only an ongoing and never-ending land grab and water theft.

[ad hoc]

Obama, Ross, Mitchell and Palestine

Others deeply disilllusioned with Obama include:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_obama_deception_why_cornel_west_went_ballistic _20110516/

[ad hoc]

Obama, Ross, Mitchell and Palestine

Fisk: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-presidents-fine-words-may-not-address-the-middle-easts-real-needs-2286077.html

[ad hoc]

Obama, Ross, Mitchell and Palestine

That speech (at least in the terms of its bit on Israel /Palestine) was a fucking disgrace. Basically blaming the victims. With the sop of "Israel must take some steps too". Fucking appalling, shameful pro-occupationist bollocks

[wingco]

Obama, Ross, Mitchell and Palestine

What of today's developments? 1967 borders?

[ad hoc]

Obama, Ross, Mitchell and Palestine

As I said in the other thread surely basing negotiations round the 1967 borders is the bare minimum. The rest of it was all "The Israelis need to make concessions too" and such like blaming of the victims.

Robert Fisk can talk for me here: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-lots-of-rhetoric-ndash-but-very-little-help-2286711.html

[ad hoc]

Obama, Ross, Mitchell and Palestine

Good Guardian editorial too (and I usually find the Guardian editorials to be fairly rubbish) http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/20/middle-east-barack-obama-uncertain-path

[Bored Of Education]

Obama, Ross, Mitchell and Palestine

Well done, ad hoc, for your analysis on this and linking to the rest. Radio 4 has been very light on analysis of that speech

[linus]

Obama, Ross, Mitchell and Palestine

I understand and share the reservations here, but there is a definite positive element here in Obama using the 1967 as the reference point for a Palestinian state. This is a fairly historic departure from the increasingly (or totally) neo-con tack in US policy from the last decade or two.

There has probably been a power struggle within his administration, and Obama seems to be coming down on Susan Rice's side and steering clear from the all-out AIPAC path of his predecessors. I didn't think Obama would take that tack before his second mandate but I'm guessing that he's using some of the political capital he's gained from killing OBL.

The Washington Post has a very good historical perspective on this here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/understanding-obamas-shift-on-israel-and-the-1967-lines/2011/05/19/AFPRaT7G_blog.html?wpisrc="xs_sl_0001"

[G-Man]

Obama, Ross, Mitchell and Palestine

Obama is difficult to read sometimes. I have a hunch that he is laying the groundwork for some proper negotiations after 2012. I suspect that he has prodded Netanyahu hard. That would explain Netanyahu's petulant comments in the joint press conference. If so, then he's playing hardball with Israel privately while publicly seeming to go easy on Israel. It would be a good strategy.

The 1967 borders seem to be a non-negotiable for Obama, which, as linus points out, is a departure. Likewise, I expect he'll demand that the right to return issue will have to be buried.

Anyway, while I share ad hoc's disgust at the lack of even-handedness and the distortion of the issues in public statements, I don't think that Obama's actions should be judged on their face value.

[G-Man]

Obama, Ross, Mitchell and Palestine

When I said the 1967 are non-negotiable for Obama, I meant that they are so as a departure point. Some land swaps will be necessary, as Obama said. Whether that will play out equitably, who knows.

It's obvious that Israel has no interest in peace and a settlement*. Obama, it seems to me, is seeing a settlement as his legacy, should he win a second term. It'll be a fascinating battle of wills between Obama and whichever evil fuck runs Israel in 3-4 years time.

BTW, I hear that just as ad hoc wasn't charmed by Obama's spech, so was the Israel lobby unimpressed. So Obama had to calm those fuckers down a bit at their big do on the weekend.

* Perhaps not the most appropriate word to use in hat context, eh?

[Anton Gramscescu]

Obama, Ross, Mitchell and Palestine

I am completely at sea about this. The 1967 borders have been the basis for every attempt at peace since Camp David. They were the basis for the negotiations in 2000, and they were the basis for whatever abortion of a peace process the Bush administration had. So why is everyone over here treating it like some big new development?

[ad hoc]

Obama, Ross, Mitchell and Palestine

Because even in the midst of a speech which blamed Palestinians for all the problems, which made it clear that Obama supported Netanyahu's plea for it to be formally a "Jewish State", and which did nothing to really criticise continued settlement building, the 1967 borders piece was the only bit which was vaguely honest and "peace-broker-ish", so Israel has seized upon that, because that's what they do. That's their media strategy - to push for the most impossible solutions and ridicule anything vaguely even handed. They need to be the fucking victims.

There'll never be a negotiated peace with Israel, until someone puts real pressure on them. That someone will never be the USA, that much is clear, so it looks like it will only happen if the waves of non-violent protestors marching and gathering a la Tahrir continue. And even then Israel will think nothing of them massacring them in their thousands and then the US President will urge "restraint from both sides"