Summary
United States president (2009-2017) whose Israel–Palestine diplomacy Falk, in Palestine: The Legitimacy of Hope, presents as the exemplary case of the American “dishonest broker”: a May 2011 AIPAC speech Falk calls a partisan betrayal, a 2009 Cairo speech Falk calls cautious but then abandoned, and a March 2013 Jerusalem speech to Israeli youth he finds deeply flawed in three respects.
Details
- Falk treats Obama’s May 19, 2011 State Department speech as the canonical statement of “the American conception” of the two-state solution — 1967 borders with minor adjustments, acceptance of Israel’s refusal of the right of return and incorporation of the main settlements — set against the Barghouti–Avnery conception of genuine sovereignty and equality (Palestine: The Legitimacy of Hope, PDF p.56-57).
- “Obama’s AIPAC Speech: A Further Betrayal of the Palestinian People”, May 24, 2011: on May 22, 2011, three days after the State Department speech, Obama spoke to AIPAC in “shockingly partisan speech to an extremist lobbying group that has the entire U.S. Congress in an unprecedented headlock”; Falk assumes its obligatory character given the 2012 election and dependence on Jewish electoral and funding support. The New York Times headline “Obama Challenges Israel to Make Hard Choices for Peace” compounded the outrage: withdrawal to the 1967 borders with agreed land swaps “restatement of the generalized international consensus that U.S. leaders have often articulated in a variety of authoritative settings”, especially as interpreted by George Mitchell to include Israel’s security requirements — settlement blocs, Netanyahu’s strategic depth, Jordan Valley appropriation, Israeli troops in a demilitarised state. Never set against this is the aftermath of 1948, which deprived Palestinians of about half the territory Resolution 181 gave them; Palestinian willingness since 1988 to live within the 1967 borders meant a state on 22 percent of the British mandate — “This was indeed a hard choice!” — and swaps encroach further on that 22 percent. The speech’s significance is its “scandalously obsequious, pleading tone”, opening with “What a remarkable, remarkable crowd”, sympathy for Israeli victims “without even a scintilla of empathy for the far, far greater suffering daily endured by the entire Palestinian people”, and pride in military assistance quoted in full — cooperation “to unprecedented levels”, most advanced technologies, foreign military financing “to record levels” despite tough fiscal times, plus Iron Dome support. Obama brushed aside the occupation’s unlawfulness and Gaza, dismissed the Goldstone Report by name as if its assessment challenged Israel’s right of self-defense (its analysis does the opposite), said nothing of the flotilla or of lethal force against 2011 Nakba “right of return” demonstrations, and mimicked Netanyahu in insisting “the recent agreement between Fatah and Hamas poses an enormous obstacle to peace” — an agreement Falk says should have been welcomed as indispensable (PDF p.176-180).
- “What Was Wrong with Obama’s Jerusalem Speech”, March 24, 2013: masterfully crafted, ingratiating, enthusiastically received in Israel and by Jews around the world; it may clear the air in Washington and help his second term. Redeeming features: it acknowledged “Palestinian people’s right of self-determination, their right to justice must also be recognized”, and its strongest assertion, “Put yourself in their shoes. Look at the world through their eyes.” (PDF p.199)
- The Jerusalem speech was deeply flawed in three respects. First, speaking only to Israeli youth with no parallel Ramallah talk brazenly confirmed the “dishonest broker” role; reinforced by laying a wreath at Theodor Herzl’s grave but refusing at Yasser Arafat’s tomb, and by speaking of Sderot’s children — “the same age as my own daughters, who went to bed at night fearful that a rocket would land in their bedroom simply because of who they are and where they live” — without mentioning Gaza’s trauma-laden children. Second, invoking the two-state consensus without mentioning developments making it delusionary lends credence to it, coupled with the injunction “Now’s the time for the Arab world to take steps towards normalizing relations with Israel” — days after Netanyahu formed “the most right-wing, pro-settler government in the history of Israel”; the PLO’s 1988 acceptance of the 1967 borders was “an extraordinary territorial concession that has never been reciprocated” (22 percent of historic Palestine, less than half of Resolution 181’s proposal), and expecting less now “seems unreasonable and probably unsustainable”. Third, endorsing “two states for two peoples” consigns Israel’s Palestinian minority to permanent second-class citizenship, and, per David Bromwich, endorses a tribalist view of statehood inconsistent with a globalizing world; Obama’s words, “Israel is rooted not just in history and tradition, but also in a simple and profound idea: the idea that people deserve to be free in a land of their own” — a “false symmetry” with Palestinians, who have no comparable guiding ideology and seek rights under international law in their habitual residence (PDF p.199-202).
- Two conclusions: until the rhetoric of Palestinian eyes is matched by specifics, a misleading impression is created that both sides equally hold the keys to peace; and it is “a cruel distraction” to urge resuming negotiations when Israel lacks the political will for a state within the 1967 borders, with the West Bank altered by settlement expansion, settler-only roads and the separation wall, and Jerusalem being secured against becoming a Palestinian capital. Worse than the speech was the visit itself; Obama made no mention of the recent hunger strikes or Palestinians’ shift away from violence: “On what planet has Mr. Obama been living?” (PDF p.202-203)
- The “An American Awakening?” post, October 5, 2011, treats Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech as “a very cautious approach” containing only the “most modest request” of a settlement suspension, followed by backpedaling “with accelerating speed” when Israeli leaders and their American backers indicated “no go”, isolating the United States on the global stage (PDF p.188-189).
- Falk also notes Obama’s falling back from Cairo, the leaked Palestine Papers, Congress outdoing him in partisan support, and the threatened veto of the statehood bid (PDF p.188-189); his appointment of Martin Indyk, “AIPAC-anointed” in the later Fragmentation post’s wording, as special envoy (PDF p.60-63, p.222); and in the Northern Ireland post that the United States’ contrasting postures in Northern Ireland and Israel–Palestine are explained first by domestic politics, especially AIPAC’s lobbying leverage (PDF p.205).
- In the ceasefire post, November 24, 2012, Falk holds Obama highly unlikely to shift from unconditional enabler to a pragmatic balanced approach (PDF p.86); and he records the 2004 Sharon–Bush letters as the formal U.S. acceptance of “facts on the ground” as a new baseline for “land for peace” (PDF p.242).
Related pages
Palestine: The Legitimacy of Hope, Two-state solution, Martin Indyk, Goldstone report, Gaza, Benjamin Netanyahu, Mahmoud Abbas