DOWNLOADS: (188)

PLAYS: (1345)

Embed

After right-wing distortions of the President's speech last week on the Middle East and his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu on Friday, he came back this morning to speak to AIPAC to clarify his remarks on returning to 1967 borders with mutually agreed swaps as the basis for negotiating a two-state solution.

Here's the excerpt:

But the march to isolate Israel internationally – and the impulse of the Palestinians to abandon negotiations – will continue to gain momentum in the absence of a credible peace process and alternative. For us to have leverage with the Palestinians, with the Arab States, and with the international community, the basis for negotiations has to hold out the prospect of success. So, in advance of a five day trip to Europe in which the Middle East will be a topic of acute interest, I chose to speak about what peace will require.

There was nothing particularly original in my proposal; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. Administrations. But since questions have been raised, let me repeat what I actually said on Thursday.

I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

That is what I said. Now, it was my reference to the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps that received the lion’s share of the attention. And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means.

By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

If there’s a controversy, then, it’s not based in substance. What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately. I have done so because we cannot afford to wait another decade, or another two decades, or another three decades, to achieve peace. The world is moving too fast. The extraordinary challenges facing Israel would only grow. Delay will undermine Israel’s security and the peace that the Israeli people deserve.

It was the strongest public statement I've heard on this question. Let's hope it puts pressure on the parties to step up and negotiate a peaceful settlement.

(Nicole:) Now note the fairly positive reception that Obama's speech drew. Leave it to RWNJs over at Gateway Pundit to start the intertoobz rumor that Obama was booed. Wait for it to be on Drudge in 5...4....3...2... and then carried on Politico, Fox News and CNN. Because that's how the echo machine works.

As Jake Tapper explained on ABC World News Thursday night, the Republican response to President Obama's statements regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process was "much ado about nothing." After all, U.S. policy under both Presidents Bush and Clinton was largely identical to Obama's assertion that "the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states." But you'd never know that if you watched CBS Evening News. Providing chum for the right-wing feeding frenzy over the President's Middle East speech, CBS White House correspondent Chip Reid conveniently omitted the second half of Obama's sentence.

Reporting a story titled "Obama's Israeli, Palestinian Surprise," CBS' Reid removed words from the President's mouth to alter the meaning of the consistent U.S. position on the peace process:

President Obama spent most of his speech talking about the Arab Spring uprisings, but he saved his biggest surprise for the Middle East peace process. [START OBAMA CLIP] "We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines." [END OBAMA CLIP] But by using the borders that existed in 1967 before the Six Day War as the starting point for negotiations, the President is taking the Palestinian side on a key issue.

Another story on the CBS News web site similarly claimed Obama's address "marked a shift in U.S. policy and represents a victory of sorts for Palestinian leaders ahead of delicate, upcoming negotiations with the Israelis."

Sadly for CBS, President Obama did no such thing. Instead, in his speech Obama offered an unremarkable summary of the path forward:

"So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state."

Unremarkable, that is, because policymakers from past administrations Democratic and Republican alike have been saying pretty much the same thing for years. As ThinkProgress noted, that was the same two-state formula during the Clinton administration. Then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, now Israel's Defense Minister, signed a document "understanding that the negotiations on the Permanent Status will lead to the implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338." Writing in The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg recounted Hilary Clinton's 2009 statement:

"We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements."

But you don't have to take a Democrat's word for it. As President George W. Bush explained on January 10, 2008 following meetings with Palestinian President Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Olmert:

"The point of departure for permanent status negotiations to realize this vision seems clear: There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. The agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. These negotiations must ensure that Israel has secure, recognized, and defensible borders. And they must ensure that the state of Palestine is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent...

Achieving an agreement will require painful political concessions by both sides. While territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous. I believe we need to look to the establishment of a Palestinian state and new international mechanisms, including compensation, to resolve the refugee issue."

If that sounds familiar, it should. President Bush said the same thing about the post-1949 armistice, pre-1967 lines three years earlier:

"Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today, it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations."

And it remains the position of the United States, as explained by President Obama today.

That it was Chip Reid who engaged in selective editing to help manufacture a partisan controversy comes as no surprise. In March 2009, Reid spoke of "Democrats raising their ugly heads." Days later, Reid protested when Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs mocked Dick Cheney ("Well, I guess Rush Limbaugh was busy, so they trotted out their next-most popular member of the Republican cabal"), asking if that "kind of sarcastic response... is that the sanctioned tone toward the former Vice President of the United States from this White House now?" Then as unrest simmered in Iran that June, Reid carried the Republicans' water into a briefing by President Obama himself:

CHIP REID: Thank you, Mr. President. Following up on Major's question, some Republicans on Capitol Hill -- John McCain and Lindsey Graham, for example -- have said that up to this point, your response on Iran has been timid and weak. Today, it sounded a lot stronger. It sounded like the kind of speech John McCain has been urging you to give, saying that those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history, referring to an iron fist in Iran -- "deplore," "appalled," "outraged." Were you influenced at all by John McCain and Lindsey Graham accusing you of being timid and weak?

THE PRESIDENT: What do you think? (Laughter.)

At the end of the day, the American posture towards the borders of a future Palestinian state is unchanged. Sadly, the same is true of Chip Reid's posture towards President Obama.

(This piece also appears at Perrspectives.)

Gosh, if you want to deflect a conversation away from the real issues into invention and stirred-up righteousness, I guess one way to do it is for a career hardhead like 89-year old Helen Thomas to say something incendiary, regret it, apologize for it, and have her colleagues throw her right under that bus waiting outside the White House press room.

Let's start with what she said:

OFF-CAMERA: "Any comments on Israel?"

HELEN THOMAS: "Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine.
Remember, these people are occupied and it's their land. It's not Germany, not Poland."

OFF-CAMERA: "so where should they go?"

HELEN THOMAS: "Home. Poland. Germany. America. And everywhere else."

As Squareboy on Daily Kos said, it's hurtful to hear that. She should apologize.

And she did. Here is her full apology:

"I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. They do not reflect my heartfelt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon," she wrote.

ADL rejects her apology because it does not "go far enough". Craig Crawford and her agent dump her. Lanny Davis, always right in front whenever possible, condemns her. Ari Fleischer cries "Off with her head! (And her job)." Rick Lazlo piles on. Joe Klein wants her sent to the back of the bus room. Sarah Palin tattoos her as racist. A local high school replaces her as their graduation speaker. Red State froths. NewsMax has a field day. Winger blogs everywhere are blessed with outrage and attendant traffic. The din is so loud everyone misses her apology. The right continues to bearhug anti-semitic Pat Buchanan, who is routinely applauded for his support of right-wing causes. He doesn't have to apologize.

Meanwhile, Hearst has not made a decision on whether she will keep her place as part of the White House press corps.

I am not going to defend what she said. I understand that it is hurtful and offensive to many. However...

She apologized, folks. This pile-on looks to me to be opportunistic and driven by RedStaters and Freepers out there who have a long-standing hate on for Helen.

I just did a little search here on Crooks and Liars. I found references made by Fox News personalities to her as the "wicked witch" (no apology). Tony Snow paints her as a representative of Hezbollah. No apology. Ann Coulter called her an "old Arab" and scrubbed her website of all reference when it was caught. No apology.

Helen Thomas is the one who asked the tough questions of the Bush Administration about why we're in Iraq, why torture was sanctioned by Bush appointees, why it was okay for President Bush to dismiss the bloodshed in Iraq as a comma, and the White House's support for Tom Delay when he was charged with money laundering.

So ask yourself. Is this about an insult to Israel or an opportunity for wingnuts to USE an insult to Israel as a way to squelch Thomas' first amendment rights?

When you consider that question, also remember this was said in the context of an informal interview. She didn't say it in the press room; she answered a question as a citizen with an opinion. Her opinion may not be acceptable, but does she not have the right to one?

UPDATE: And the inevitable happens: Helen Thomas announces she is retiring, effective immediately.

Sally Field's 1985 Oscar acceptance speech

Wouldn't it have been great to live in a country that celebrates the achievements of its members? One where we could all tear up at realizing that the world likes us, right now, it likes us again?

Alas, 'tis not to be. We're too busy tearing people down--Obama doesn't deserve the NPP, there are still people dying in Afghanistan (never mind that there are still people dying in Israel and Palestine, some 15 years after Arafat, Peres and Rabin jointly won; or that people were still dying in Vietnam when Kissinger won 1973; or that South Africa still had 10 more years of apartheid after Tutu won in 1984.) I'm not sure why our collective memories are so short that we have forgotten (or maybe the media just doesn't want us to remember) that the Nobel Peace Prize is rarely awarded for results, but to congratulate a person who has suggested a new path towards world peace and strengthen international diplomacy.

Those paths don't always come to fruition--see Arafat, et al., above...or Wilson's award for creating the League of Nations, but it is the intent, the choice not to do business the same old way that gets credit with the Nobel committee.

Obama's Nobel is sure to be a major topic on all the shows. As is foreign policy, which makes sense, given the reasoning behind Obama's award. We also have a brand new Sunday show debuting on CNN: Amanpour, with Christiane Amanpour (2:00 pm Eastern/11:00 am Pacific). She's landed some seriously big names for her first program: Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates. McCain Mini-Me Lindsey Graham is on Meet the Press, along with Gen. Barry McCaffrey. Gosh, I wonder what they're going to advocate. DiFi and Saxby Chambliss are on This Week, to discuss Afghanistan and how extremely disconcerting it is to have a POTUS who actually thinks first and decides later. Don't miss the round table, which will feature Arianna Huffington and Nicole Wallace. I guess TW's Exec. Producer listened to me about getting on a liberal blogger. And finally, I don't want anyone to worry that they're going to miss John McCain on a Sunday show. Mr. Also-Ran is on State of the Union, alongside Debbie Stabenow and Bob Casey.

ABC's "This Week" - Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.; Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass.; retired Army Gen. Jack Keane.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Jack Reed, D-R.I.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Lindsay Graham, R-S.C.; retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey; retired Gen. Richard Myers, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: Clarence Page, Gloria Borger, Andrea Mitchell and David Ignatius. Topics: Has Obama stalled in his ability to achieve major accomplishments this year? What does the David Letterman case say about what is scandalous nowadays? Meter Question: Is concern that President Obama has stalled more perception than reality? YES: 8 NO: 4.

CNN's "State of the Union" - Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., and Bob Casey, D-Pa.; Anita Dunn, White House communications director; Dr. Anne Schuchat, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - 8 years of war in Afghanistan - what are President Obama's options? Fareed speaks with an expert panel and the Pakistani ambassador to the U-S. Plus, does the diamond business deserve its dirty reputation?

CNN's "Amanpour" - "Power & Persuasion" U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates join Christiane Amanpour for an exclusive roundtable discussion, looking at global challenges.

"Fox News Sunday" - Wynn Resorts Ltd. CEO Steve Wynn; Govs. Jennifer Granholm, D-Mich., and Mitch Daniels, R-Ind.

So, what's catching your eye this morning?

Naomi Klein in Bil'in, June 26, 2009

I have a feeling that this will not be covered in the mainstream media at all.

The Faster Times:

(Naomi) Klein is the author of the highly acclaimed, best-selling books No Logo and The Shock Doctrine, both staples of many Western liberal/leftist book collections. She was invited to speak by the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions Campaign National Committee (BNC) because Klein is one of a growing number of high profile Western authors, artists and cultural figures who have signed on to a 2005 Palestinian civil society call to boycott, divest and sanction (BDS) Israel until it complies with international law.

Over three hundred people crammed the small venue which was followed by a lively question and answer session. Although technically in the region on a book tour for the Hebrew release of Shock Doctrine, Klein focused her remarks on critiques of boycotting Israel as a tactic, and the motivation of Western states to torpedo the recently held Durban Review Conference held in Geneva this past April. She ended by making an emotional appeal to those “who are on the fence [about the call for boycott] to please join,” acknowledging that her delayed endorsement of the boycott campaign in 2008, three years after the call was initially made, “was nothing but cowardice.”

It's not without controversy, but I do applaud Klein for speaking out. I don't think Klein is anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic at all--although if this gets covered in the US at all, it will be on Fox and that's exactly how they'll characterize her. However, in order for there to be any true negotiation for peace in the region, there MUST be a little more honesty and a little less knee-jerking on the subject. Klein explains where she's coming from:

I wanted to start by letting you in on a little secret. There is a debate among Jews. I used to say “the Jewish community” but then I got excommunicated. So there is a debate among Jews - I’m a Jew by the way - about whether the lesson of the Holocaust should be “never again to anyone”, or “never again to us.” That’s what it pretty much boils down to. And there are a lot of people who believe that the lessons of the Holocaust was “never again to us, never again to the Jews.” Because we suffered this tremendous crime against humanity, we have the right to do whatever it takes to keep ourselves safe. In fact we even think we get a kind of get one genocide free card out of this. [...]

There is another strain in the Jewish tradition that says that the lessons of the Holocaust is “never again to anyone”, and that it is precisely because of what we experienced as Jews that we must denounce racism, denounce systems of segregation wherever they crop up, even and especially when they crop up amongst our own. I am proud to put myself - and I thank my parents for this - in that second tradition. That’s why I’m proud to join in here tonight.

DOWNLOAD (315)

PLAY (834)

I've always had a tremendous amount of respect and admiration for Zbigniew Brzezinski. And after this epic smackdown of the eminently ignorant and simple-minded Joe Scarborough, I know that affection was well-placed.

Scarborough: "You cannot blame what's going on in Israel on the Bush administration."

Brzezinski: "You know, you have such a stunningly superficial knowledge of what went on that it's almost embarrassing to listen to you."

Ouch. Make sure to watch the entire clip because the intellectual beat down continues to the very end.

Inside Iraq: Laura Rozen of War and Piece recommended this post. Also, this one, this one, and this one.

The Opinion Mill: Creationist termites in the groves of academe

MediaBloodhound: Our broken press corps continues, more than any other factor in our political system with the possible exception of money, to determine who is nominated, who is elected and what we think of them.

Bring it On! What would a practical prison system look like?

The Osterley Times: Condi flies to Israel next week and is determined to prove that the US is making progress in solving the Israel/Palestine crisis.  Trouble is, Olmert has taken so many issues off the table, there ain't much left to discuss.

Norbizness: A few examples of why I am uncivil and unfit for popular consumption 

by Dore Gold
THE PROSPECTS FOR NEGOTIATIONS IN THE POST-ARAFAT ERA

Some highlights:

Abu Mazen succeeded Arafat as chairman of the Palestine Liberation
Organization and is the Fatah faction's candidate to become the next
Palestinian Authority chairman. Abu Mazen has become known for his
conclusion that the Palestinian reliance on violence as a political tool was
a tactical mistake. However, on issues of policy he is extremely close to
Arafat.

In 2001, Abu Mazen admitted, "Had the Camp David summit been convened again,
we would have taken the same position" on the permanent status issues

What emerges from the foregoing analysis is that a
full-blown, final status peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians is
probably more remote today than five years ago.