This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
Commenting on his speech, New York Times writers Steven Myers and Mark Landler headlined, "Obama Sees '67 Borders as Starting Point for Peace Deal," saying:
Obama "declared that the prevailing borders before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war - adjusted to some degree to account for Israeli settlements in the West Bank - should be the basis of a deal."
In fact, that notion has been on the table for years, based on isolating Palestinians in cantonized bantustans situated on worthless scrubland with few or no resources - a proposal no legitimate leader would accept.
Notably, Haaretz reported that "Obama has granted Netanyahu a major diplomatic victory" by leaving undefined the size or locations of a Palestinian state. It also quoted Netanyahu saying:
"Israel appreciates President Obama's commitment to peace," adding that he expects Obama to refrain from demanding Israel withdraw to "indefensible (1967 borders) which will leave a large population of Israel in Judea and Samaria and outside Israel's borders."
Moreover, core Israel/Palestinian issues remain to be negotiated, no matter that Washington and Israel spurn diplomacy and concessions.
As a result, Palestine is still occupied. Gaza remains isolated under siege, its legitimate government vilified as a terrorist organization. Moreover, the peace process was stillborn from inception, what journalist Henry Siegman once called "the most spectacular deception in modern" times.
Obama's speech dripped with hypocrisy, another example of policy belying rhetoric, exposing America's longstanding alliance with Israel for regional dominance. Saying "(i)t will be the policy of the US to support reform throughout the region" is code language for business as usual.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
