U.S. President Barak Obama has indicated that he intends to be “honest” with Israel.
That would – if true – be a refreshing development in U.S. foreign policy; in fact it’s an essential precursor to an easing of tension in the Middle East.
On Wednesday Obama leaves on his first trip to the region and significantly – a visit to Israel is not on his agenda.
On Thursday he will make a key speech from Cairo.
The question of just how honest he will be is now the subject of hot debate.
Obama’s adventure in honesty began with a call to Israel to “freeze settlement expansion”.
Most objective observers have applauded that admonition, but have also said it doesn’t go nearly far enough. In any case, Israel is likely to thumb its nose at the suggestion.
So What Would be Enough?
The minimum that would be acceptable to the Muslim/Arab/Palestinian world would be this:
President Obama:
“It’s high time that we – The United States – were completely open and honest with our Israeli friends…both for their sake and for our own.
Over the past many decades, Israel has defied the international community in ways that have opened up a deep rift between it and a majority of nations. Before there can be peace for all in the Middle East that rift must be closed.
To close the rift, there must be a healing process and it must involve all the nations of the world, including Israel and the United States.
In order to begin that healing process, Israel must acknowledge that all of its settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, including The West Bank, constitute a violation of international law.
Once that acknowledgement is made, then – and only then – will it be possible to move forward with a viable peace process.
Thankyou.”
Jim
For goodness sakes.
Why FIVE successutive* posts on Obama preceded by one on gardening?
Big fat paradox when you’ve already convinced me OB is good, but a puppet nonetheless.
So why the high focus?
Are you so disdainful of our Canadian politics that you won’t even write/think about them?
Isn’t the NDP tsunami in NS not only a strong sign of revolution, but the shape of things to come?
And Lisa Raitt…yet another PC forceps-delivery cabinet minister who couldn’t resist the urge to show Canada she’s right up there with the other Harper wankers?
Frightening. I wouldn’t let her run the BlueBox program, never mind critical isotope supplies.
The smart money is on Canadian Liberal and US Dem hegemonies for the foreseeable future.
No thoughts on that?
The death-spiral of Harper and his cabal should also surely inspire some fun copy.
My buck sez the Harvard Hatter won’t stoop to leading a minority gov, he wants the Big Hat.
* yes I know. But it was one of my scholarly Glasgow uncles’ neologisms.
Anthony…
Good point and well-taken…I guess I had waited so long for the Obama Mideast trip I was enthralled…perhaps overly so.
Yes the NDP sweep in N.S. was heartening and I think it’s important to note that it was N.S. that elected an independent candidate in the last election with 69% of the popular vote.
This just shows how much I rely on you to remind me about the reality of Canadian politics.
As a matter of fact I have been thinking about “the blue-eyed mystery” and wondering just what it is that makes that guy tick.
Help.