Other

Courtesy of the Daily Beast & Getty Images

Much has been said over the course of this week about President Obama’s recent speech on the affairs and future of the Middle East.  As with any such presentation, many in the world of political media have gone to great length arguing the minutia of the speech’s content and reading into conspicuous absences among those subjects not touched on.  Despite the noteworthy weight of the President’s words on the future of the region and the commitments the US intends to make toward aiding economic and governmental development, one subject has stood out among the rest.

The President’s stance in the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict, and the reaction to Obama’s words on the two-state solution and the 1967 borders received a great deal of attention.  I’d blown off most of this commentary as more of the same typical attempts to paint a dramatic political narrative of events and Presidential policy regardless of the surrounding facts.  Often it’s very easy for me to ignore the narrative, as ultimately I suspect that in the larger picture neither my opinion nor the opinions of others interested in international affairs is of much relevance in the tide of media sensationalism.

Thus I had little to say on the subject until one of my friends asked my opinion on some of his recent musings.  Mr. Breach and I seldom agree on much in the field of international relations and conflict, yet I have always appreciated his ability to base his arguments in reason rather than rhetoric, so I was terribly pleased with his assessment of our history regarding the two-state solution.  However widespread it may be, the idea that our support of the two-state solution is something intensely radical and new is essentially nonsense.

Overall at least in reference to the Israel-Palestine conflict, President Obama’s speech struck me as basically more of the same.  Unquestionable support of our Israeli allies along with firm urging that the conflict has gone on long enough and some manner of accord is necessary has been the US message on this problem for ages.  It didn’t seem as if anything of note was said regarding the conflict save for continuation of a decades old unofficial policy.

Ultimately there remains a much better question than the laughable inquiry of whether or not President Obama is turning his back on Israel.  What might be a much more useful query for both the populace and the political media is whether or not these problems can be resolved through public discourse and political speeches alone? The intensity of the social cleavages and tensions in the Israel-Palestine conflict leads me to believe that ultimately the attitudes of the people will have to be changed, we can only hope that some resolution between the region’s politicians will serve as a critical first step in that process.

Other

I understand the problem: Israeli and Palestinian leaders cannot end the conflict between each other without having a civil war within their respective communities. Netanyahu would have to take on the settlers and Abbas would have to take on Hamas and the Fatah radicals. Both men have silent majorities that would back them if they did, but neither man feels so uncomfortable with his present situation to risk that civil war inside to make peace outside…

The most valuable thing that President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could do now is just get out of the picture – so both leaders and both peoples have an unimpeded view of their horrible future together in one state, if they can’t separate…

America must get out of the way so Israelis and Palestinians can see clearly, without any obstructions, what reckless choices their leaders are making. Make no mistake, I am for the most active U.S. mediation effort possible to promote peace, but the initiative has to come from them.

Man’s got a point.

Other

Eden Aberjil doesn’t understand what all the fuss is about. The former soldier sees nothing wrong with posting photos on her Facebook profile showing her posing, grinning and amused, alongside blindfolded Palestinian detainees. “The pictures reflect the military experience,” she told Army Radio this week of her online photo album, entitled “The army: the best time of my life.”…

Aberjil’s “experience” is reflective of a culture that has taken root over the course of decades of occupation, one which perceives Palestinian prisoners as subhuman…

The humiliation of Palestinian detainees must not be remembered as the “best time” of any soldier’s army experience.

It’s a sad comment on Israeli society that the newspaper needed make this point.

Other

Other

Other

Other

Other

Obama is not convinced that Netanyahu is serious in his declared intentions regarding the process, and the Israeli premier is not confident that the current American administration is committed to maintaining the same relations with Israel as those held by its predecessors.

Of course, these are two sides of the same coin. If Netanyahu’s government was more serious about negotiating a two-state solution, the Obama administration wouldn’t be so annoyed with it. The reverse argument – that Obama is inherently anti-Israel – doesn’t hold.

Other

Other