I've never seen my university look so nice. (More images here)You’ve heard the speech and read the first comments (which I was unable to join, had a very busy week). So instead of making you sit through comments that someone is bound to have made before me, I’ll cut that, and try to cover the various reactions that the speech has received, because they’re just as interesting, but also very telling of us.
1. “The crowd may have been select, but they were cheering like a student audience”
Humorist Ahmed Bahgat very accurately wrote one day (in Tohotmos 400 b-sharta, if you’re a source-hunter) that “Egyptians will only listen to the first half of the sentence, like it, then immediately begin cheering, without bothering to listen to the second half, where the serious message will be - for the other audiences.”
So Obama’s “first half-a-sentence”?
Short of hugging everyone in the audience, asking them how their children are and calling them all ‘habibi’ and ‘ya basha’, he went to the second best:
The “Al-Salam-Aleikum-my-name-is-Hussein-and-I-can-quote-from-the-Quran” combo. And he even said “Peace be upon Them” after naming the Prophets, which the audience LOVED.
He’s one of us! Ya salaam!
So, yes - Actor Sherif Mounir reportedly shouted ‘Obama, I love you’.
Queen Rania digs.
Oh, and Sandmonkey was there, btw.
Bottom line is - Operation: Charm - a total success. He had us at Hello. (or, at Al-Salam-Aleikum).
2. “He is sucking up to us? Bastard! OR How cool!”
Yes, he is, and he is doing it marvelously well.
And we love - just love - for people to tell us they admire the wisdom of Islam and Muslims, find the Azan at 4:00 AM delightful, and admit that creating algebra in the tenth century was the direct reason we now have cars and Ipods.
See above comment for more.
3. “I hate that he quotes the Quran. Enough already!
I love it when he quotes the Quran! First because we
a. Love it when people admit that we’re wise and smarter; but also because
b. There are plenty of people out there convinced that the Quran gives you the recipe to make your very own nuclear weapons to kill infidels. So it's good that they hear that it isn't...
The following set of reactions are similar enough to be answered together:
4==>10. I didn’t like when he spoke of women’s rights/nuclear weapons without mentioning Israel/mentioning Israel/not mentioning terrorism/lecturing us on ‘violent extremism/ etc’: specific projects…
To know why he said certain things, we first need to answer: who was Obama addressing really?
Many levels of audience were being addressed.
His first audience was clearly Muslim populations. It was 13:00 (1 PM) in Cairo, 11:00 in Rabat (and GMT), 18:00 in Jakarta. On the other hand, it was 6:00 in Washington DC and 3:00 AM in Los Angeles - surely not the audience for the live speech.
The second audience would be the analysts, back home in the US, who would swallow the speech, pass it through their ideological lense, and spit it out in chewable little bites for the American audience.
Third and fourth audience would be the Israelis and the Europeans, but they were of less interest.
If we looked at ‘who was he talking to’ for each of these questions, we’d have the answer to most of these questions.
The speech addressed seven issues which we can roughly divide as follows:
“Violent extremism”: First and second audience (Muslim countries, home audience)
“The Israeli/Palestinian dispute”: first and third audience (Muslims, Israel). The bit about the Jewish suffering --> holocaust --> founding of Israel, which upset many,
“Nuclear weapons” (with a reference to Iran): all
“Democracy” first and fourth (Muslim countries, Europe)
“Religious freedom” Second - mainly for the christian pressure groups and others in the US. They can be very annoying sometimes.
“Rights of women” second and fourth, then first
“Economic development” first.
(Incidentally I have to interrupt myself and ask -- do you agree, or do you have a different take? Comment!)
Based on this, we need to know that plenty of what upset us - wasn’t there for us in the first place. The suffering of Jews was addressed to the home and the Israeli audience, not us.
Nevertheless, I appreciated his choice of wording - such as not using the word Islamic terrorism, which we usually take like a slap in the face.
11. “But he didn’t say that the settlements should be removed, just ‘stopped’, whatever that means” - and other comments on the Palestine component of the speech
Very true, and I agree: but to be honest I didn’t want emphasis on Palestine in this speech, and that small paragraph was all I could hear on news analysis shows for the two hours immediately after the show.
No. Muslim world and Arab world are different things, and I don’t want them to overlap.
So while I welcome his comments though deem them insufficient, I don’t think that’s the right arena.
12. “All talk, no action”
My favourite of all!!
What the f**k did you expect? Another ‘De Lesseps’ moment, where Obama would say the codeword ‘bananas’ and the Marines would raid the settlements, just in time for him to announce the success of the covert mission by the end of his speech?
The speech was the action itself. It’s a step in the right direction. Now, as my friend Mohamed says - the ball is in our court.
(For non-Egyptians, 'De Lesseps' was the codeword in 1956 speech by Gamal Abdel-Nasser for his forces to nationalise the Suez Canal, then under French and British control. Egyptians love the story so much there's a film about it).
13. “He can’t pronounce ‘Al-Azhar’ and ‘Hijab’, he should just refrain!”
Well, he couldn’t. So bloody what. He tried. Much respect.
14. And, to finish, my own comment:
The juxtaposition of “Hamas must accept past agreements...” and “the Israeli government...” is incorrect. The Israeli government is the equivalent of the Palestinian Government, which is abiding by past agreements. Asking Hamas to acknowledge Israel should take place the day we ask the Yesha council and other settlers organisations to acknowledge a Palestinian state.
More on that in a future post, perhaps.
Addendum - links:
Jon Stewart, always.
Huff Post, Wajahat Ali - Meet the Muslims: Obama in Cairo
1. “The crowd may have been select, but they were cheering like a student audience”
Humorist Ahmed Bahgat very accurately wrote one day (in Tohotmos 400 b-sharta, if you’re a source-hunter) that “Egyptians will only listen to the first half of the sentence, like it, then immediately begin cheering, without bothering to listen to the second half, where the serious message will be - for the other audiences.”
So Obama’s “first half-a-sentence”?
Short of hugging everyone in the audience, asking them how their children are and calling them all ‘habibi’ and ‘ya basha’, he went to the second best:
The “Al-Salam-Aleikum-my-name-is-Hussein-and-I-can-quote-from-the-Quran” combo. And he even said “Peace be upon Them” after naming the Prophets, which the audience LOVED.
He’s one of us! Ya salaam!
So, yes - Actor Sherif Mounir reportedly shouted ‘Obama, I love you’.
Queen Rania digs.
Oh, and Sandmonkey was there, btw.
Bottom line is - Operation: Charm - a total success. He had us at Hello. (or, at Al-Salam-Aleikum).
2. “He is sucking up to us? Bastard! OR How cool!”
Yes, he is, and he is doing it marvelously well.
And we love - just love - for people to tell us they admire the wisdom of Islam and Muslims, find the Azan at 4:00 AM delightful, and admit that creating algebra in the tenth century was the direct reason we now have cars and Ipods.
See above comment for more.
3. “I hate that he quotes the Quran. Enough already!
I love it when he quotes the Quran! First because we
a. Love it when people admit that we’re wise and smarter; but also because
b. There are plenty of people out there convinced that the Quran gives you the recipe to make your very own nuclear weapons to kill infidels. So it's good that they hear that it isn't...
The following set of reactions are similar enough to be answered together:
4==>10. I didn’t like when he spoke of women’s rights/nuclear weapons without mentioning Israel/mentioning Israel/not mentioning terrorism/lecturing us on ‘violent extremism/ etc’: specific projects…
To know why he said certain things, we first need to answer: who was Obama addressing really?
Many levels of audience were being addressed.
His first audience was clearly Muslim populations. It was 13:00 (1 PM) in Cairo, 11:00 in Rabat (and GMT), 18:00 in Jakarta. On the other hand, it was 6:00 in Washington DC and 3:00 AM in Los Angeles - surely not the audience for the live speech.
The second audience would be the analysts, back home in the US, who would swallow the speech, pass it through their ideological lense, and spit it out in chewable little bites for the American audience.
Third and fourth audience would be the Israelis and the Europeans, but they were of less interest.
If we looked at ‘who was he talking to’ for each of these questions, we’d have the answer to most of these questions.
The speech addressed seven issues which we can roughly divide as follows:
“Violent extremism”: First and second audience (Muslim countries, home audience)
“The Israeli/Palestinian dispute”: first and third audience (Muslims, Israel). The bit about the Jewish suffering --> holocaust --> founding of Israel, which upset many,
“Nuclear weapons” (with a reference to Iran): all
“Democracy” first and fourth (Muslim countries, Europe)
“Religious freedom” Second - mainly for the christian pressure groups and others in the US. They can be very annoying sometimes.
“Rights of women” second and fourth, then first
“Economic development” first.
(Incidentally I have to interrupt myself and ask -- do you agree, or do you have a different take? Comment!)
Based on this, we need to know that plenty of what upset us - wasn’t there for us in the first place. The suffering of Jews was addressed to the home and the Israeli audience, not us.
Nevertheless, I appreciated his choice of wording - such as not using the word Islamic terrorism, which we usually take like a slap in the face.
11. “But he didn’t say that the settlements should be removed, just ‘stopped’, whatever that means” - and other comments on the Palestine component of the speech
Very true, and I agree: but to be honest I didn’t want emphasis on Palestine in this speech, and that small paragraph was all I could hear on news analysis shows for the two hours immediately after the show.
No. Muslim world and Arab world are different things, and I don’t want them to overlap.
So while I welcome his comments though deem them insufficient, I don’t think that’s the right arena.
12. “All talk, no action”
My favourite of all!!
What the f**k did you expect? Another ‘De Lesseps’ moment, where Obama would say the codeword ‘bananas’ and the Marines would raid the settlements, just in time for him to announce the success of the covert mission by the end of his speech?
The speech was the action itself. It’s a step in the right direction. Now, as my friend Mohamed says - the ball is in our court.
(For non-Egyptians, 'De Lesseps' was the codeword in 1956 speech by Gamal Abdel-Nasser for his forces to nationalise the Suez Canal, then under French and British control. Egyptians love the story so much there's a film about it).
13. “He can’t pronounce ‘Al-Azhar’ and ‘Hijab’, he should just refrain!”
Well, he couldn’t. So bloody what. He tried. Much respect.
14. And, to finish, my own comment:
The juxtaposition of “Hamas must accept past agreements...” and “the Israeli government...” is incorrect. The Israeli government is the equivalent of the Palestinian Government, which is abiding by past agreements. Asking Hamas to acknowledge Israel should take place the day we ask the Yesha council and other settlers organisations to acknowledge a Palestinian state.
More on that in a future post, perhaps.
Addendum - links:
Jon Stewart, always.
Huff Post, Wajahat Ali - Meet the Muslims: Obama in Cairo
33 comments:
you know, it's a bit hard to read your writing with all the italics, bolds, and arrows.
but, when i focused, good points. had not realized number 14.
I lov your #12. Now that you mention it, wouldn't it have been astounding if he had announced at the end that, by the way, while I've been here talking to you, my country has managed to neutralize Iran's nuclear threat to the region through mind-numbing entertainment gases, delivered in pellets excreted by specially trained, non-colonialist pigeons.
Good stuff. But I don't understand Point 14. The Yesha counsil is not an organization that was voted into power. It is not a member of parliament (it is more like a lobbying group). It does not represent a majority (or even a significant minority) of Israelis.
Hamas, on the other hand, was voted by a majority of Palestinians into the Palestinian government. If it seeks to return to government it is only reasonable that it accepts past agreements. No?
"Egyptians will only listen to the first half of the sentence, like it, then immediately begin cheering, without bothering to listen to the second half, where the serious message will be -"
This is not typical of Egyptians, most European crowds seems to behave like this as well...I think most people are smart individually, together in a crowd, our intelligence shrinks....
Anonymous, the settlers have great power and influence in Israel. Also, those Israelis that voted for Likud, which now has the power,(and do not accept past agreements either) do not accept the idea of a Palestinian state.
Helen in London
I disagree with your point 14 for this reason: when the Israeli government has a dispute with settlers, rather than allow anarchy it steps in and takes action against its own people if necessary. Think about the evacuation of the settlers in Gaza-- I still know many Jewish citizens who are traumatized by what they say as the betrayal of their own government. But the Israeli government had made its decision to pull out of Gaza, so it took action to enforce this decision. I'm sure there are times when this reaction is delayed or perhaps doesn't go as far as Palestinians would like, but the fact is that our government exerts control over settlers and enforces their cooperation with the peace process when necessary.
I see no evidence, on the other hand, that the Palestinian government has taken action against radical elements in its population to force them to abide by peace agreements. Even the issue of Hamas being an elected government aside, it seems absurd to claim that Israel should march ahead with peace agreements because the PA is willing to negotiate when the PA is unwilling (and probably unable) to enforce these agreements. Hamas is in control, thus we lack a viable partner for peace and agreements have not been met.
I'm really not trying to be dogmatic about this... I'm actually trying to understand. I found this post really interesting-- I'd been wondering about the reaction of the Muslim world, and this is the best summary I've heard. Oh, also, could you explain to me why the part about the Holocaust angered people? I think the Holocaust is a weak justification for the state of Israel, and obviously Zionism goes back before that time. My great-great grandfather was in the first aliyah, for example. But why would a mention of the Holocaust *anger* the audience of this speech? I could see it as an important point if only so that someone with the stature and popularity of Obama speaks out against Holocaust denial.
I didn't see the speech, so I'm probably misunderstanding something about the context of this remark. Thanks for the post!
ouch, sorry that was so long. The shortened version:
*Because the PA lacks the authority to actually abide by peace agreements, I think point 14 is moot. Hamas must abide or peace negotiations are meaningless.
*Why did connecting the Holocaust to Israel make people angry? (I tried to read the post at the link but one big paragraph made me dizzy!)
There, that's better. :)
Forsoothsayer: I thought people came back only for the italics..
Alright, point taken, will tone it down in the future.
And - thanks!
Dotty: that would've been fun indeed. Because, frankly, in 54 minutes, you can probably bomb half a dozen reactors, tear down 16 Berlin walls, and reform a few countries, and have extra time to have a cup of tea.
Non-colonialist pigeons, on the other hand, are great. An Israeli development?
Anonymous: Thanks!
You are right, the Yesha council is a lobbying group; but many MKs are settlers themselves, and/or represent settler interests before those of the State. From Lieberman to Feiglin, to those 'Habayt HaYEhudi" and such...
And indeed, Hamas was voted in.
However:
the world didn't recognize the Hamas gov, who are now, well, an opposition force, with no legal status, yet are unavoidably mentioned - and rightfully so - when we talk about 'addressing all factions in Palestine".
Settlers organisations play the same role in Israel. Their interests differ often from those of the State, and they are not bound by any engagements, and routinely use violence to reach their goals.
To simplify, of the 4 main actors on the Isr-Pal conflict (Palestinian Gov-Hamas-Israeli Gov-Settlers) it seems that only 1 is committed to peace and previous agreements...
Helen
Maybe, maybe! But we are a rowdy crowd indeed. And proud of it. :)
Maya
Oh, it's never too long! Thanks for coming back. :)
I will add to my response to 'Anonymous'..
I vividly recall the Gaza pullout, and am well aware of the trauma that followed.
But we are talking about a tiny population - 8000 - compared to the half-million in the WB and EJ; and it's also arguable that the pullout was conducted to abide by any peace agreement (that's Sharon we're talking about!) it was primarily for internal reasons, not to make life easier for the Palestinians.
Same for all those micro- (some would say staged) clashes with settlers in tiny remote outposts, where the caravans are removed for a day and brought back when the cameras are gone. That doesn't happen in favour of peace agreements either...
The many clashes between Fatah and Hamas, while not about peace agreements either, do inform that Fatah has the capacity and willpower to take on Hamas when it deems necessary (well, so far for all the wrong reasons but the willingness is there).
And like you think that "Hamas is in control" -- I also believe that the settlers are in control in Israel..
What do you think?
Re: holocaust: people weren't upset, but not clapping either. Because the question that automatically comes to mind is:
"If Jews suffered from anti-semitism in Europe, culminating in the holocaust, why would the Palestinians suffer for it?"
That's the connection that we're not fond of - and anyone who thinks rationally like you did knows that the "Holocaust justifies Israel" is both a flimsy and historically inaccurate juxtaposition..
Mo-ha-med - by the way, what's with these hyphens in your name? - The non-colonialist pigeon is my personal version of the Zionist dream as it applies to the ones roosting on my balcony roof. I am considering applying for a grant from the Office of the Chief Scientist of Israel to make it happen, and the de-nuking of Iran might be my killer grant app argument.
Thanks so much for thinking about what I wrote and responding!! I'm traumatized by once trying to get into a conversation about this kind of topic on Facebook and getting only TL;DR as a response. I'm bad at brevity. :)
Hmmmm. I agree that the pullout from Gaza was definitely for internal reasons and had the convenient side-effect of appearing to comply with the peace process... just as a Palestinian state will probably eventually be formed not for any high-minded reasons on the part of Israel but because of democratic necessity. And yes, we might face all-out civil war if Israel would try to withdraw from the West Bank... and definitely if we would withdraw from Jerusalem. (I'd probably take up arms against the Israeli government in that case. Seriously.) But at the same time, I do think the withdrawal from Gaza proved that the Israeli government is willing to take on settlers... and there was none of the all-out civil war or soldier rebellion that was predicted. I think it set the precedent that the Israeli government DOES have control over the settlements, even if politically it's far more convenient to just make symbolic gestures.
Has there ever been a situation in which the PA took a stand as radical as the Israeli government in pulling out of Gaza? I don't think infighting between Fatah and Hamas is the same... I'm trying to think of what I'd see as similar, but it would have to be something like Fatah rooting out and shutting down an arms smuggling route and punishing the offenders..
This is going to show my horrible grasp of history (or at least names), but... oh, thanks Wikipedia! ...this reminds me of when Hagana sank the Altalena ship during the war for independence in Israel. Irgun was refusing to lay down its arms and allow Hagana to become the official military for the Jewish government, and they wanted control of the arms they had imported on the Altalena... so Hagana actually sunk a ship full of arms for Jewish fighters. And ironically, that was probably the key battle in forming a strong Jewish state. Tthe Palestinians need to determine strong, effective internal government (with consequences for those illegally challenging this government) before they can actually become negotiating partners. It just feels incredibly frustrating for Israel to engage in these fake negotiations with groups that can't or won't actually enforce their side of the deal. I'd take Sharon's unilateral action any day, because I feel the only actions Israel can control or count upon are its own.
Anyway, thanks for responding! Ha, another long comment. :)
oh, and I mean "demographic necessity," but "democratic necessity" works too. :)
Hey :) Yes I agree, I've never seen our university look as good!
Much as I laughed at point 12, I disagree, I didn't expect actions, but I expected more vision regarding how these amazing targets and dreams will be achieved. It was way too vague and dreamy for my liking.
Nice post MO.
About the settler movement, I don't think their evacuation is such an un-passable barrier, for a simple reason - it isn’t necessary. I am betting any future arrangement will include their staying as Israeli citizens in the PA state - which of course will send most of them scrambling across the border. Mahmud Abbas already hinted in an interview the PA would accept this kind of solution. Of course the PA will have to make sure they are not massacred en masse, that could start a new war.
Remember that the settlers of the WB are very different from those that occupied Gaza - 80% of those 300,000 settlers (not half a mil!) are just people who were looking for better living standards and live in settlements right across the green line. The hard-core nut jobs are no more than 50,000 at most.
Also, I think their position will be greatly undermined with the first policeman / soldier they will murder live on TV, which I am afraid is bound to happen sooner or later. From there is will be a short path to becoming outcast by the Israeli mainstream.
G
Dotty --
The hyphens I added to differentiate myself from other 'Mohamed's on the blogosphere. Just too many of them out there. :)
When you get your grant- let me know if you need a research assistant. Plus, "neutralising a nuclear plant through pigeon shit" could secure a grant from ecological foundations, too.
Maya -
"I'm bad at brevity" - oh, that makes two of us.
Remember that many of the Gush-Katifers were relocated in other settlements in the West Bank; the disengagement was never a threat to the settler ideology itself.
Plus - it took a Sharon to do that, and even him had the government crumbling around him when he took on 8000 miserable soldiers. Furthermore, that Gaza remained a problem for Israel (anyone who thought otherwise was delusional, of course) has created long term popular objection to disengagements.
I know the story - there's a plaque commemorating the event on the beach in Tel Aviv, a little north of the US embassy. :)
I remember someone telling that the Palestinians will have their state when they have their Altalena. Well, may be. Though the sanitized Altalena story probably hides the power struggles of the time, and all the 'less altruistic' reasons for a fratricide.
And Fatah has indeed attempted to control the Gaza-Egypt border (if you recall, they had this ridiculously complex system of Palestinians and EU observers and CC cameras transmitting to the Israelis, etc...)
I see your point about negotiating partners. But your timeline is misleading. You cannot expect the PA, which normally runs on a platform of negotiating with the Israelis, to gain and maintain the support of the population if the Israelis aren't willing to negotiate. They simply have nothing to offer their population.
And they won't anytime soon - simply because, with the Biberman government rejecting the very core idea of a negoatiated peace, it looks like we'll wait for a long long time before the Palestinians have a negotiating partner on the Israeli side...
Inji: good point. The Economist actually attempted to answer your question - 3ashan khatrek enti bass - as for what BO needs to do now:
"Tell it straight".
Let me know what you think...
G
Thank you!
When I say half a mil, I include the settlements in East Jerusalem (including Maale Adumim, yes).
Indeed, most of them are just looking for cleaner air and bigger, cheaper houses; yet this doesn't make their conscious choice to move over the Green Line any less wrong..
My fear is mainly of those 50,000 nutjobs. First, 50,000 is a LOT of nutjobs. And second, there are probably a good few - that's all you need- among those who will be willing to go on a Maccabee-style (the old ones, not the football team :) revolt.
And when that happens, well, they may become "outcasts by the Israeli mainstream", as you say; or, in the scary version of events, they could galvanise their settler followership that looks up to them (and that's 450,000 people) followed by the rest of the population that will reverse the course of any such action - and maybe get a Feiglin in the prime minister's office.
Mo;
Call me an optimist, but these doomsday scenarios are very much science fiction. There are several reasons for this.
The settlers, especially the hard-core, are suckling on the state tits far more that Hamas is dependant on PA. Many settlers live at the Israeli taxpayer's expense (Village Rabbi, Local security Officer, and other 'local' state jobs). Their out casting marks their financial ruin, and this has been very well documented with the Gaza settlers, many of which are now jobless and have no idea how to manage themselves economically.
The 450,000 people who moved to WB because the apartments are cheaper may identify with the struggle of the settler movement, but not with the hardcore settlers themselves. They will take their (very generous) compensation money and walk away.
Israeli politicians fear the hardcore settlers not because of what happened to Sharon, but because what happened to Rabin.
The real obstacle to an agreement will remain the right of return. No Israeli government will *ever* agree to that, no matter what the international price is or even if Meretz wins 61 seats in the Knesset. On all the rest Obama will be able to drag Bibi, screaming and cursing, into concessions.
Will the PA sign a deal which gives them practically all of WB & Gaza + full and real statehood + economic assistance, but without right of return?
I don't know...
G
"Will the PA sign a deal which gives them practically all of WB & Gaza + full and real statehood + economic assistance, but without right of return? "
I would guess that many of the PA leaders are ok with that, but would they dare to say it outloud?
Helen
Gosh, G, you are turning into an optimist on me, aren't you!! :)
Well I hope they are science fiction. Because those settlers scare me, literally. And it seems to me that the support they enjoy within the Israeli population is very substantial. Because, if we have 1/2 million settlers out of a total Israeli population of 7 million, we're talking about over 7% of the population -- probably everyone in Israel has a cousin or a college buddy who lives in a settlement..
The right of return will probably the easiest thing to solve- because we already know the outcome: a symbolic couple thousand people allowed back to Jaffa or Lod, an admission of wrong (not of guilt, probably) on the part of the prime minister, and that's it. It's actually the simplest bit because it's outlandish.
(sidenote: i think all Palestinian refugees have the right to go home. After all, the Jews invented the whole 'right of return' concept...)
Even Jerusalem - Israel is unlikely to forfeit the old city, the rest of EJ they want nothing to do with (and have done nothing to in the past 40 yrs either.. have you seen the roads there??).
Helen
You are right, of course. Though it has been said out loud - remember the Geneva initiative?
Enjoy your blog. Always thoughtful, articulate & civilized.
IMHO, the Palestian problem is mainly a distraction from the real challenges in the region: good governance, human rights, economic opportunity, etc. If the Palestinian problem was solved tomorrow, I have no doubt that the next problem would be unfair Israeli economic hegemony, water, nuclear parity, etc.
The Palestinian problem is a red herring, although there's no doubt it's very real and (in my opinion) mostly self-inflicted. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be solved, but let's be honest here --it was a problem way before 1967, when Egypt and Jordan were poor and often brutal caretaker of Gaza and the territories.
I know Egypt's been taking a larger and more constructive role in the last year or so when it comes to Gaza mediation, but they need to step it up. The country needs to consider opening its borders, generating jobs, providing education and training to Gazans etc....make them more self sufficient. But Egypt has seen firsthand how difficult a challenge that is. Gazans prefer to be professional victims. Jews have thrived for millenia because they did nurse feelings of revenge -- only dreams of returning to Jerusalem.
Israel has been burned by withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza, and by the failed Oslo Accords. They would be willing to trade land for peace, as it did successfully with Egypt, if it had guarantees of peace.
I like Obama, and I think he is well meaning, unlike Jimmy Carter, but he's being a little too naive and simplistic. And I fear that he will wind up in the same place as Bill Clinton, when he helped broker an offer of 95%+ of the West Bank, and was astonished to encounter a so-called Palestinian "leader" who played the part of professional victim.
Goggle settlements and you get an estimate of about 300,000 settlers in the WB and Jerusalem. Remember that this isn't all "East Jerusalem" which I think of as Wadi Joz and Arab as Sawahra, etc....it means ANYTHING over the Green Line so includes previously occupied Jewish land (the Old City), Givat Ze'ev (on land belonging to a former moshav and is really NW of Jerusalem---wayyyy NW) Har Homa (owned by Jews and Arabs alike before 1948) and the suburbs like Gilo and French Hill which were military positions, and the hills of what is now Ramot and Pisgat Zeev. The vast majority of the "settlers" in this 300,000 figure live in these areas. If the proportions of the populations are the same as in 2006, that means something like 60% of the "settlers" are living in areas that the PA has already said are negotiable--like Har Homa and Gilo.
I gather the two sticking points on a peace agreement are the Old City under total Palestinian control and the Palestinian Right of Return. If the PA won't back down on those, all the good will in the world won't solve this. The rest is all do-able.
Ari
First, thank you very much.
While I agree with a large part of your argument, I have to disagree with certain points.
First, Gazans prefer to be professional victims. Quite an overstatement, don't you think? First you may want to differentiate between Gazans and their leadership, because, if you knew what the situation in Gaza is like as we speak, you'd realise that no one would 'choose' that. And even if you had said 'Hamas plays the professional victim' it would still be arguable.
Re: withdrawals: what did you expect, really? You evacuate a small part of the Palestinian territory; you maintain the rest (the WB) under occupation - it would be silly to expect the first part to sit still? If you tie up both my hands and then free on, don't expect me to automatically try to reach out to free the other one too.
As for Oslo - trust me, no one's been more burned by it than the Palestinians. To now be in a position where they have to argue their counterpart to acknowledge clause 1 of the agreement - not even negotiating content! - is a pretty lousy place to be.
On Egypt's role: yes, they need to open the border. I totally agree.
But given that Israel controls most of Gaza's borders, its airspace, its maritime borders and more importantly its territorial link with the West Bank, you have plenty to do.
Finally, regarding Camp David: the "he had a great offer but walked away" thing is one of the stories that Israelis repeat to themselves ad nauseam until they believe it. You need to look at PLENTY of other things in this agreement before you make your judgement. What the agreement offered for Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, territorial continuity and where the settler roads would be...
And if you are going to look into Camp David II - read anyone but Dennis Ross. Even the accounts from the Israeli negotiators are more balanced than his...
Aliyah: hello dear. :)
I think that if you're making the argument that lands owned by Jews before 1948 (and (re-?)captured in 1967) are Israeli, then you need to also be open to the corrolary - that land WEST of the Green Line that was owned by Palestinians is Palestinian.
Personally, I take the international law def of illegal settlements: civilian population moved into occupied areas, which would includ everything east of the Green Line. So, yes, people living in Pisgat Zeev are unequivocally settlers.
As for "60% of the "settlers" are living in areas that the PA has already said are negotiable--like Har Homa and Gilo"
Well, negotiable. Not forfeited. Big difference, which I surely don't blame you for - the Israelis always take whatever the Palestinians say is negotiable, whatever is their bottom line - and use that as a starting point for new negotiations to get the Palestinians to surrender even more.
The Isrealis are very good at that - it's admirable, really - and the Palestinians have failed to learn.
"If the PA won't back down on those"...
For the sake of the discussion: and why wouldn't Israel back down on them? Or one of them? Or some of them?
Mo;
While I don't contest your arguments I find it peculiar you seem constantly surprised at the Israeli non-symmetric approach to negotiations, or even expect such symmetry. I mean, both sides hold claim to the territory (each of course believing their claim is the more valid), so I will call them symmetric. But the Israeli side has an important addition to their claim - they actually hold the territory. This unavoidably puts the PA in a weaker negotiation position, which the Israelis, quite naturally, expect to capitalize on (to an extent).
If you really want the parties to enter negotiations on equal terms, based on their respective claims alone, then you must currently reject an agreement. Let us continue to play our blood game some decades more. Maybe the PA's position will improve (as Hamas believes), maybe not. I honestly don't know.
But currently, just like in any negotiations ending a conflict, the bargaining position of both sides is determined mostly by their strategic achievements and less by their moral claims.
G
"Well, negotiable. Not forfeited. Big difference, which I surely don't blame you for -"
No, I understand the difference--I was actually referring to Abbas's statement that the PA is open to negotiation on Har Homa and Gilo.
"the Israelis always take whatever the Palestinians say is negotiable, whatever is their bottom line - and use that as a starting point for new negotiations to get the Palestinians to surrender even more."
You know why I'm laughing (with you, not at you :-))? Because THIS is exactly what the Israelis say about the Palestinians. Our perception is that whenever we give in on something suddenly there is a new issue which has to be surrendered for the sake of peace. Perhaps neither side is wrong about this: I had a boss who used to say "Perception is reality" and if both sides think they're being cheated by the other, well, that's not going to help things.
"For the sake of the discussion: and why wouldn't Israel back down on them? Or one of them? Or some of them?"
(1) The Right of Return would render this an Arab rather than Jewish state and the UN and international community promised TWO states, one Jewish and one Arab; it's unfair since we already absorbed 800,000 or so Jewish refugees from Arab countries and they Arab states who initiated hostilities haven't done squat for the Palestinian refugees except confine them to ghettoes and train them to be cannon fodder.
(2) Jersualem is our Mecca. Under Arab and Christian control both recently and historically we were denied access both for prayer and for living here. Would you understand if I made an analogy: would any believing Moslem agree to surrendering Mecca to some "international" control?
G
Oh, not surprised really. Irritated is more like it..
And I expect no 'moral' position on the part of Israel. I'm not being mean - if I were Israel, had full control over pretty much everything and an interest in the status quo -- I surely wouldn't want an agreement either..
A bunch of very smart people spend their time trying to quantify the utility that parties to a peace agreement can expect to get, and their interest in keeping or shirking on an agreement. The conclusion they usually get, in assymetric negotiations where concessions are sequential, that the only way to get the stronger party to go forth with their part of the agreement is external pressure or incitement (money, basically).
Aliyah
I don't know. 60 years back, Palestinians were claiming their entire land back. Then in was 30% of that. then it's control over the 12 meter square we call area A. And last time I was there, I was negotiating access to my apartment in Ramallah, the entrance of which - not Ramallah: my apartment - was blocked by the IDF.
If someone is getting fucked in the 'non-negotiations', it's not Israel.
As for the rest-
It wasn't the UN. It was the rich countries club called the League of Nations that approved a british mandate drafted by Britain.
And, more importantly - the international community was in no position to forgo (sp?) a people's land for the sake of another people, justified as may be their claims for nationhood.
And no comment on the cannon fodder thing.
'Jerusalem is our Mecca'. I'm well aware of that. You are also aware that Jerusalem was our Mecca before Mecca was our Mecca.
(does that make sense? :)
Surrendering Mecca: well, as far I recall Muslims didn't occupy Mecca...
Okay, here's another hypothetical claim. What religious group has no control over their holy sites.. hmm.. let's see.. Tibet... Oh, no, Here's one better:
What would you do if Bahai'is decided to militarily invade Israel because it contains their holy sites? Would be you be understanding to their cause?
Mo;
I can’t understand your response to Aliah6.
I mean, since when are the PA settling for 30% of Palestine? Last I heard, they still want it all (or willing to accept 30% + right of return to the rest, which is the same thing).
As for the Bahaaim, funny you picked them as an example. I mean, they seem to be quite comfortable with Israel, they have full control over their Holy sites in Israel and I haven’t heard any complaints...actually, just like the Muslim Wakef has had a non-contested control over the Muslim Holy sites in Jerusalem.
And YES, I know that access to El-Aktza is restricted for both Jerusalem PA and PA in west bank, but that is a result of the conflict and not the reason for it (restrictions were first imposed after the first & second Intifada riots at the temple).
Oh, and one last thing:
Perhaps Jerusalem was your Mecca before Mecca was your Mecca,
But Jerusalem was OUR Mecca a millennia before Mecca was your Mecca, or before Islam was born at all. In these parts, no one beats us at the "who was 1st” game..
G
"Since when are the PA settling.."
Since they got themselves trapped into the ridiculous trap that Israel dragged them into, which we call the Oslo agreements - you know, the handshakes and all? - and for the past 16 years they've been actively gunning down anyone who objects to it, while Israel has done positively nothing in exchange.
Bahai'is: I just wanted an example of a religious group that has no control over its sites - and you didn't answer my question. My question was, if Bahaiis were to occupy Israel on the basis that they wanted to secure access to their holy sites, would you be sympathetic to their cause because it's on supposed religious grounds?
BESIDES, we both know that Israel wasn't about securing "access for prayer and living" to Jerusalem. The original zionists were secular: they were seeking a nation - a national home, to be more precise - not to secure religious rights. Retroactively changing history is just cheating.
As for "Jerusalem was our Mecca before.." Oh, I'm well aware. I'll have you notice that I haven't challenged in any way the importance of Zion to Jews, nor the longevity of this importance. I think Aliyah06's game was to compare relative importance of religious site; you're taking us into the 'we were here first' game? Dude, come on.
I once had a conversation with this guy - a pretty long one, actually, that carried on from the conference where we met onto email for a little longer - and at one point I asked him "is this whole 'we were here first' tale seriously still a valid argument that Israelis use to defend their arguments??'. He said that in a serious discussion, it wasn't.
And I agree.
Besides, plenty of people have spent plenty of time wrecking the whole 'we were here first' thing - either discussing the 'first' (to summarize, 'Canaanites were there first') and the 'we' (current-day Palestinians are more apparently likely to be descendants of Jews who lived there than are most of the Jewish diasporas...) and I'm tired of having discussions that end with 'but anyway, we were here first so it's ours' because it's such a turnoff!
Ugh. Nasty morning. Will stop talking here.
m.
No, no, I'm not doing doing the Who-Was-Here-First thing; my point was that the Arabs (collectively meaning the Jordanians, as part of the Arab League, and now the Palestinians) want to take away a city in which we've lived for thousands of years (barring Christian periods, when we were banned), and were the majority population--and from 1948-1967, they trashed it and denied us the ability to live there or pray there....so why would I give it back?
Don't overlook the fact that the Jews settled for 20% of historic Palestine in 1947---the rest was already in Arab hands as "Palestine In Transjordan" and the half of what remained was to be a Palestinian state......
You are correct--it was the LON and not UN: "It wasn't the UN. It was the rich countries club called the League of Nations that approved a british mandate drafted by Britain. And, more importantly - the international community was in no position to forego a people's land for the sake of another people, justified as may be their claims for nationhood."
Your last phrase here makes an assumption that too many people mistakenly make--that there was "another people" here in the sense of an existing nation. There wasn't. This was a subdivision of the Ottoman Turks, and full of Greeks, Armenians, Jews (Zionist and anti-Zionist), Druze, Circassians, Bahai, Beduin, Arab Christians and Arab Moslems....there was no Palestinian nation as such but rather a collective of confessional communities and tribal and ethnic associations. The Yishuv was the foundation for the later Jewish state. Jews had lived here before the First Aliyah of the 19th century; Arab Moslems and Christians freely crossed what are today the borders between Israel and Lebanon and Syria and Damascus. Jews were the majority population of Jerusalem. There were no internal borders and people lived where they wanted and were permitted within the empire.
The reconciliation between Palestine and Israel would move along much better if these historical facts were acknowledged instead of a tendentious "You stole our land" narrative. Sorry--it wasn't YOUR land. It was Turkish land until the British won, and then it was under international mandate. The Palestinians had (and have) the same right to self-determination as the Jews, and the decision to partition the land along demographic lines was a fair one in the view of competing interests.
But the Palestinians and other Arab nations are right about one thing (and its something we would agree with) -- the British lied like champs with their promises to ALL of us that we would be granted independence if we helped defeat the Ottomans. Instead, France and Britain played their colonial power struggles out in our back yards. And we're still picking up the pieces.
"we both know that Israel wasn't about securing "access for prayer and living" to Jerusalem. The original zionists were secular: they were seeking a nation - a national home, to be more precise - not to secure religious rights. Retroactively changing history is just cheating."
Unfair. Even secular Jews have a love and respect for tradition and history. Besides, the original Zionists may have been secular but the plurality of the country is religious to some extent or another---the ultra-religious and the totally secular are both fringe groups. Most people fall in the "traditional" category. But ALL the residents of Jerusalem's Old City were religious--and even a secular Zionist would fight for their right to live and pray there.
I'm rambling..gotta stop...its very late and its been a long work week. I'll probably read this tomorrow and go "oops." G'nite!
Mo;
Sorry about your nasty morning. I have them too but don't have the luxury of blaming Israel for it..:)
Anyways so you are tiered of the “we were 1st” game? Sorry but I think it’s a very important part of the much needed dialogue between the parties. PA people both online and offline, are *very* hung about whether Israelis recognize their claim or see ‘their side’, if only for symbolic reasons. It goes the other way around, too. True co-existence is not about agreeing to shake an Israeli reporter’s hand or not jump out the window when he enters the room (like in your Normalization post). It’s all about these narratives and how can we recognize each other’s claim without feeling it negates our own.
G
When it comes to Palestine, Let's wait for Bibi's speech. It would give us a better idea on the effect of Obama's speech.
Concerning the speech...
1- I don't understand how would someone talk about spreading democracy in a dictatorship.
2-What about Afghanistan... Doesn't Obama have the intention to send more troops down there?
3-How do we imagine the perfect relationship between the muslim world and America... For me, I would be more than happy seeing America pulling out from Iraq/Afghanistan, stop supporting any israeli gov which doesn't have any true peace agenda on the table and including Jordan/Palestine/Israel (I truly don't know which citizenship I would end up forced to have) in the Visa Waiver Program
Aliyah06 - no no, you aren't, G was.
I love the "Jews settled for 20% of historic Palestine"...
Akin to the famous "we only killed X people in the last raid" - pardon the attitude here but Jeez, what are you expecting, a thank you note?
The unconcealed threat that this formulation entails - that "we could have done more and we can do more and we very well might" I vehemently reject.
Of course there was a Palestinian nation! That its self consciousness started shaping in the 20th century - actually after the Mandate, and indeed as a reaction to it - doesn't make it any less of a nation. We're talking early 20th century - most of the world wasn't split in nation-states.
Its national movements and institutions (Arab council and what have you) were decimated by the occupying power, with the Yishuv's interests in mind.
As for 'Turkish land until the British won then it was under international mandate' - oh wow! Yeah, go tell the Algerians that because they were occupied by France then they were living on 'French land'...
Sorry, occupation does not mean ownership (oh how appropriate this is for today's context).
In 1917, The Brits offered the Jewish nation someone else's country, and they delivered beautifully, killing the Palestinian independence movement while facilitating the creation of the Yishuv institutions and movement of persons into Israel. I'm always genuinely surprised when I read modern-day Israelis picturing the Brits as the enemy, when their interests only differed from the yishuv's around WW2...
But I do agree:
"The reconciliation between Palestine and Israel would move along much better if these historical facts were acknowledged".. then I will add, "instead of a tendentious "there was nothing there to begin with" narrative".
G -
Oh, you should try blaming Israel. It's fun. :)
I dislike the 'we were here first' discussion, and there are several reasons. First there's the set of 'scientific' reasons why it doesn't hold, and which i find interesting (but aren't my top reasons), which include
a) it's constantly challenged: the idea of an ethnically pure Jewish people since 6000 years is nice but is quite unlikely in practice. and
b) Furthermore, as I wrote earlier, there are studies suggesting that current-day Palestinians are quite likely to be the blood descendants of ancient Israelis... Which would be very funny if proven to be true. :)
I'm more bothered by the illogical aspect of the claim. Who was where 6000 years ago sounds like a silly argument to me.
By the same logic, we should give Alexandria to Greece, Portugal and Spain to the Muslim empire (it doesn't exist anymore? Irrelevant!), Latin America to Spain (well, the autochtones (sp?) weren't a nation back then!) etc etc.
And in strict legalistic terms, there is no proof of ownership (proof of presence, undoubtedly; I'm talking about 'ownership' in the meaning that was developed in the past two centuries). (yes, it's ridiculous and meaningless: exactly. So is the absence of proof of ownership by Palestinian farmers over their land..)
But beyond all that, and I ask you to pardon my language, but the "I peed here first so this is my territory and anyone over the course of history who lives here has no rights whatsoever can be removed at will" is the essence of an anti-humanistic view of the rest of world.
That's roughly my beef with the concept of "we were here 1st". :)
Khaled:
Whatever nationality you end up having, you still won't be in the visa waiver programme, I'm afraid. :)
And throughout the campaign, Obama was criticizing sending troops to Iraq which weakened the armies in Afgh - so i'm guessing that demobilising troops from Iraq and into Afgh is an option..
Mo-
You assume that the Jewish "I peed here 3,000 years ago" claim (I like the imagery :)!) automatically negates the PA's right for their land, while I don't see it that way. People who have lived in a place for generations have a valid claim, no mater who the previous owners were.
However, in my opinion, the relevance of the Jewish 'historical claim" is because:
1. It explains why Jews should be here and not in Uganda.
2. Asking the PA's to recognize our claim (without negating their own) and us doing vice-versa is crucial if we are ever to reach a 'real' peace - not just a state on non-war which is the best our leaders can offer at them moment.
G
G,
Well aren't we all trying to pee on something? :)
if you don't negate the Palestinians (why the PA?) 's right for their land, then we're halfway there already.
I'll be very honest: I don't believe a 3000 years old historical claim should have any relevance whatsoever on what happens today.
However, I happen to be a big believer in the right of land (as opposed to the right of blood), and I believe that creating a life - or being born, all the more - in Israel gives Israelis the right to be there.
And, regardless of what juristic tradition you're fan of, isn't the important thing to recognise the 'right to exist', as Israelis say, of the other?
The Palestinians have accepted the right of the Israelis to be there, regardless of the legal justification.
In 1993 it seemed the Israelis were reciprocating; turns out we were wrong.
beh; It's not that simple, and you know it. Anyways, I just type 'PA' because I am too lazy to type 'Pa-les-tin-i-ans' each time. Learn from us Jews, one syllable is more than enough for us. See how modest we are? Always settling for the bare minimum, I tell ya. But our cousins? Noooo, they just have to have the whole 5-sylable deal. Just goes to prove my point, any point.
G
Damn you, Mr. I'm falling about laughing...
Well, we're trying! Ay-rabs, two syllables!
Post a Comment