Thoughts on Obama’s speech on the Middle East
A number of you have asked for me what I think about President Obama’s speech on the current state of the Middle East and particularly on the Israel/Palestine conflict. The following is my attempt to offer an initial response.
First, here the speech in its entirety for those (like myself) who were unable to see it live:
The discussion of Israel/Palestine begins at the 37:15 mark. Here is a transcript of it:
For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region. For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could be blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them. For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never living in a nation of their own. Moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost to the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security and prosperity and empowerment to ordinary people.For over two years, my administration has worked with the parties and the international community to end this conflict, building on decades of work by previous administrations. Yet expectations have gone unmet. Israeli settlement activity continues. Palestinians have walked away from talks. The world looks at a conflict that has grinded on and on and on, and sees nothing but stalemate. Indeed, there are those who argue that with all the change and uncertainty in the region, it is simply not possible to move forward now.I disagree. At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever. That’s certainly true for the two parties involved.For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it’s important that we tell the truth: The status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River. Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself. A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people -– not just one or two leaders — must believe peace is possible. The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.Now, ultimately, it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them — not by the United States; not by anybody else. But endless delay won’t make the problem go away. What America and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows — a lasting peace will involve 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.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.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. And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I’m aware that these steps alone will not resolve the conflict, because two wrenching and emotional issues will remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.Now, let me say this: Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table. In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel: How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? And in the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question. Meanwhile, the United States, our Quartet partners, and the Arab states will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse.I recognize how hard this will be. Suspicion and hostility has been passed on for generations, and at times it has hardened. But I’m convinced that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians would rather look to the future than be trapped in the past. We see that spirit in the Israeli father whose son was killed by Hamas, who helped start an organization that brought together Israelis and Palestinians who had lost loved ones. That father said, “I gradually realized that the only hope for progress was to recognize the face of the conflict.” We see it in the actions of a Palestinian who lost three daughters to Israeli shells in Gaza. “I have the right to feel angry,” he said. “So many people were expecting me to hate. My answer to them is I shall not hate. Let us hope,” he said, “for tomorrow.”That is the choice that must be made -– not simply in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but across the entire region -– a choice between hate and hope; between the shackles of the past and the promise of the future. It’s a choice that must be made by leaders and by the people, and it’s a choice that will define the future of a region that served as the cradle of civilization and a crucible of strife.
My initial reaction to this is…Amen!
People on opposing sides will not want to recognize the validity of the other side. This is the essence of tribalism and partisan politics.
But those who desire to live in the balance between extremes can appreciate the even-handedness of the President’s words above…regardless of whether or not they disagree with his politics on many other issues (which I absolutely do).
Some have said that America shouldn’t tell Israel what its borders should be (i.e. the 1967 borders). I believe such rhetoric is absolutely without merit. America told Iraq that its borders could not extend into Kuwait during Desert Storm…and many of these very same people rightly recognize the justice of that cause.
But more than that, it’s not “America telling Israel what its borders should be”…it’s America telling Israel to live up to the international rule of law and stop hindering peace by occupying land having been agreed to belong to Palestinians 40 years ago. Is Israel exempt from justice and upholding human rights? Sadly, many (particularly many misguided Evangelicals with various End Times scenarios which DEPEND upon any actions toward peace which hold Israel accountable being signs of the Antichrist!) would say “YES!”
But the President did not lay all the blame upon Israel. He called out Palestinian atrocities as well, such as the never-justifiable suicide bombings and the acceptance of such acts of hatred by groups like Hamas. He reiterated Israel’s right to exist as unquestionable (angering many on the anti-Israel side who accept the rhetoric of those wishing to “drive Israel into the sea” no doubt!) and even Israel’s right to defend itself.
What would’ve been nice to hear him say is that “defending” one’s nation must not serve as a cover for brutally one-sided military tactics and ethnic cleansing of land one desires to one day possess (For first hand accounts of such tactics and mindsets among some soldiers in the IDF, see the testimonies in the book “Breaking the Silence”, which is available free in e-book format online).
Likewise, I was glad to hear him acknowledge the difficulties of the situation and the decades of hatred, fear and injustice that BOTH sides find themselves enmeshed in.
Do I believe that such peace is likely to occur anytime soon?
Sadly, I do not.
Do I believe ULTIMATE and LASTING peace will only occur when our Messiah Yeshua/Jesus/Isa returns and ushers in the Final Judgment and New Creation?
Yes, I do.
Do I believe that either of these are reasons for us, particularly those of us who claim to follow Jesus, should throw our hands up in despair…or worse, blindly support a country that happens to have the same name as the People of God in the Bible because we believe we will “be blessed” or “God gave the land to the Jewish people” or any other such pseudo-theological slogans?
In the words of Paul, “MEI GENOITO!!” (“By no means!”, cf. Rom. 6).
Until our dying day…or His Return…we are to follow the teachings of Jesus, the True Israelite of all Israelites, and seek to be peacemakers (Matt.5) and pray for God’s will to be done “on earth as it is in Heaven.”
As such, I can find very little I disagree with in the President’s speech above.
I welcome any criticism, debate or disagreement on the subject however…that’s just what Disciple Dojo was founded to enable. Just keep it civil and avoid mean-spirited verbal attacks; they will not be tolerated by this sensei!
Blessings from the Dojo,
JM
ps: For more on the Biblical foundational issues underlying this entire discussion, I recommend listening to the lectures in my course “Apocalypse Now?? What the Bible Says About the End Times“.
I also address some of the underlying issues in the following video from a Q&A session I did at Good Shepherd UMC last year:
Categories: Biblical Theology, Blog, Eschatology, Political/Social issues, Theological issues
Andy, at first glance this almost makes for a good point…but it is not and here’s why.
Germany DID give back land that they took over under Axis victories (as did Japan). It is illegal under international law to permanently occupy land claimed through combat. For instance, UN Resolution 242, which was first adapted in 1967 after the 1967 war continues to be ignored by Israel’s current government:
• Full Israeli Withdraw from lands occupied in recent conlficts.
• Full recognition from Arab states of the right for Israel to exist.
• Resolution and/or compensation for Palestinians refugees affected by the displacement from war.
The resolution cites the 4th Geneva Convention, article 49. The responsibilities of an occupying power (Israel) have toward peoples living under occupation. The Geneva Convention prohibits the transfer of the occupying powers population into areas that it has occupied. (See more at http://www.withgodonourside.com/resolutions.htm and http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/home.htm)
Also, we aren’t talking about atrocities committed centuries ago which cannot be made up to the victims who are still alive. The Palestinians who were forced out of their homeland are still alive…and are often told by American supporters of Israel that they should just find a new home in neighboring Arab countries. Is this in ANY way fair or just?
The original plan for Israel was supposed to allow Jews from around the world to return to Israel as a Jewish State, but was not supposed to uproot or denigrate the then-current residents of the area. But because of tribalistic/nationalistic/pseudo-theological fervor, this never happened.
Finally, Native Americans were treated horribly by our ancestors. How does this in any way justify supporting the similar treatment of indigenous peoples in other parts of the world by countries who are our allies? And we wonder why so many Arab countries hate our policy of unconditional support for Israel at the expense of those they’ve sent down their own “trail of tears”?
I just can’t see why people are so reluctant to stand up to Israel and call it like it is when they behave badly…especially the Conservative Religious Right who have NO problem calling out our own culture for all its “immoral” and “godless” actions.
by jm on May 23, 2011 at 1:34 am
Not buying it, man. Stephen Sizer put it well over on his blog:
“What was ‘indefensible’ in 1967 is completely irrelevant in 2011. You do not need the Golan Heights to protect Galilee or the Jordan Valley to protect Jerusalem or Gaza to protect Ashkelon.
The distance from Amman to Jerusalem is 45 miles. The flying time for a Lockheed SR-71 or a MiG-25 Foxbat is less than 80 seconds. That is the kind of ‘warning’ either side has of an attack. Does that mean the Jordan river is an indefensible border as well? Then perhaps Israel should annexe Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt too, as many Christian Zionists insist.
The best defense is a good neighbour. Israel badly needs some, not more F-35s. Either we uphold the rule of international law or we incite terrorism, and if the latter, we will always be insecure.” Link: http://stephensizer.blogspot.com/2011/05/indefensible-baloney.html
No, Israel’s illegal settlements and apartheid conditions for Palestinians–justified by appealing to hypothetical threats based on a war 40+ years ago and rants by angry minorities living under occupation–do not in any way make them more secure. They make them a pariah state in the eyes of the world, and we wouldn’t tolerate it from ANY other country.
by jm on May 23, 2011 at 3:50 am
For more on the ongoing policies of Israel towards the territories they seized (and continue to settle) see the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories http://www.btselem.org/English/
For Jesus’ priorities for His followers when it comes to geopolitical policies that oppress and dehumanize, on all sides of the political divides, see https://jmsmith.org/store/revelation 😉
by jm on May 23, 2011 at 4:07 am
under international law Palestinians/ Palestine:
1. have the right to self determination as the indigenous people of Palestine -1945 Charter of the United Nations, where articles 1, 55, and 73
The right to self-determination is an essential — the most essential for many states — part of customary international law and has been declared one of the most basic principles of customary international law by the UN General Assembly’s Declaration on the Principles of International Law concerning the Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States.
2. 1945 UN Charter prohibits acquisition/ annexation of land by force -which would basically make all land Israel acquired in 1948 illegal and perhaps even an argument made the 1947 Partition Plan itself illegal
i could go on but not sure how bored people will get with international and human rights law.
Israel refuses to grant Palestinians this right under the guise of Israeli security concerns.
by Rana on May 23, 2011 at 5:36 am
“1945 UN Charter prohibits acquisition/ annexation of land by force -which would basically make all land Israel acquired in 1948 illegal and perhaps even an argument made the 1947 Partition Plan itself illegal”
At the very least this would make the land claimed in the ’67 victory illegal for Israel to occupy, would it not? Or does the argument that since the war was started by Israel’s neighbors it was not “taken” by force hold any weight in international law?
To me this is a VERY important question that must be answered definitively for any type of peace resolution to move forward.
by jm on May 23, 2011 at 8:09 pm
Thanks for sharing the video Andy. I’d like to hear what other readers think?
I personally think makes a number of fallacious comments, such as focusing on geographical size as a determination of vulnerability. Acres don’t fight wars, military forces do. And Israel’s military DWARFS anything that could come against them from surrounding countries these days.
I also think it is disingenuous to talk about “tons” of arms coming into Gaza and not mention the exponentially greater “tons” of high-tech military aid Israel receives every year from us. It’s like Seal Team 6 cornering a few guys with flintlock muskets and then telling everyone how dire the situation is. Not a perfect analogy, I’m sure, but that’s how it strikes me at the moment.
In short, the video depicts Israel as the vulnerable helpless victim. I just can’t see how this is the case in 2011. PERHAPS 60 years ago…but not today.
BTW, Andy, I don’t think it’s en vogue to oppose Israeli occupation…at least not among Christians or non-Liberals (if the comments and “de-friendings” I get on Facebook when I post stuff on this issue challenging Israel to live up to International Law are any indication!). 🙂
by jm on May 23, 2011 at 5:52 pm
jm, sorry to hear about the defriendings. standing for Palestinian Universal Rights won’t make you $$$/rich and it won’t make you popular among Christian friends this i know from experience.
by Rana on May 23, 2011 at 6:22 pm
I think it’s the violence-seeking knuckleheads on both sides are what really make it hard to be a balanced voice in this. Hamas’ foolish remarks about Bin Laden made it near-impossible for most Israel supporters who are more moderate to give any consideration to Palestinian leadership now. It only fired up the anti-Palestinian base among the hardliners. 🙁
by jm on May 23, 2011 at 7:24 pm
I feel you on that critique, Andy. I am not an expert and don’t ever want to come across as if I’m claiming to be one. That’s why I try to direct people to other resources such as voices saying what I’m trying to say from Jewish voices WITHIN Israel as well as Palestinians. It’s also why I INVITE strong critique or disagreement and subject my own words to the scrutiny with which I approach those who disagree.
This is the essence of meaningful discussion and the process by which iron indeeds sharpen iron. I may VERY WELL be wrong on the military/political logistics of the situation. But rather than just being told that I am and that I’m not an expert, I want to be SHOWN HOW what I’m saying is wrong. Otherwise the cycle of ignorance (including the ignorance I hold to unknowingly as well!) just continues and people take a “smarter-people-have-tried-and-failed-so-why-should-I-try” approach. I’m not saying this is the approach you’re taking, Andy (the fact that you’re discussing this shows otherwise), but it’s one that is very common among most Christians I have any contact with on a regular basis.
I think “the crazies are always in power” in part because those of us in the middle DON’T engage in these type of hard, honest, and uncomfortable discussions more often.
That being said, if I do err on the side of speaking out too strongly in favor of Palestinian rights (particularly the Palestinian Christians caught in the middle of all this), then though it’s not my intention, I guess it’s something I can live with until God convicts me otherwise, because so few mainstream Christians are doing so.
BTW, THIS type of discussion is exactly what “Disciple Dojo” was envisioned to encourage! So keep it up!! 🙂
by jm on May 23, 2011 at 8:19 pm
http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/news/31044-why-stand-with-israel-today
I love you Jack, but you are wrong on a number of things in this article.
Hayford: “State what should be obvious: that to vacate those areas before peace measures are ensured would be to expose Israel to the same bombardment and incursive activity that preceded the areas involved being occupied. The occupied areas are defense measures; they injure or threaten no one.”
Not with a multi-billion dollar US-supplied military that it has now, Jack.
And the occupied territories injure and threaten everyone who lives within them on a daily basis.
by jm on May 24, 2011 at 5:58 pm
BTW, I just came across this point-by-point engagement with the 3D animation video that was linked above showing why Israel must maintain its current occupation of Palestinian territory:
http://972mag.com/the-zombie-threat-of-1967-borders/
Thanks to Porter Speakman for sharing it. EVERYONE needs to see his DVD “With God on Our Side” before drawing their conclusions on this issue, I would argue!
Also, take a look at this video trailer to see what more is at stake beyond politics… http://www.pcpj.org/index.php/get-involved-mainmenu-2/158-public-action/540-palestinian-pentecostals-documentary
by jm on May 24, 2011 at 9:52 pm
Also, here’s a SCATHING review of Netanyahu’s speech to Congress by the Israeli paper Ha’aretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-s-speech-to-congress-speech-shows-america-will-buy-anything-1.363897
Anyone feel free to post counterpoints or critique of it.
by jm on May 25, 2011 at 2:10 am
THE GENERAL’S SON
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4ZfnpN4Dfc&feature=youtu.be
Walls to peace
http://www.livinglutheran.com/videos/wailing-walls.html
by Salam Khoury on May 27, 2011 at 7:32 pm