commentComment (10) | emailEmail | printPrint | del.icio.usdel.icio.us | technoratiTechnorati | Share
Barack Obama | Thursday, 1 January 2009

The Middle East - In Their Own Words. Obama

World leaders have spoken out on the crisis in the Middle East. Here is what Barack Obama has to say.

In June then presidential candidate Barack Obama delivered a speech to the American Isreal Public Affairs Committee. In the speech, the full text can be read here, Mr. Obama laid out his view of the ongoing conflict centered around the Israeli-Palestinian question. He left no question where he stood on the issue and in a time when so many politicians believe all positions must be "nuanced", the now president-elect was clear. In light of the current escalation in violence in Israel, Mercatornet offers you the views of world leaders on this issue. Here is Barack Obama in his own words.

I first became familiar with the story of Israel when I was eleven years old. I learned of the long journey and steady determination of the Jewish people to preserve their identity through faith, family and culture. Year after year, century after century, Jews carried on their traditions, and their dream of a homeland, in the face of impossible odds.

The story made a powerful impression on me. I had grown up without a sense of roots. My father was black, he was from Kenya, and he left us when I was two. My mother was white, she was from Kansas, and I'd moved with her to Indonesia and then back to Hawaii. In many ways, I didn't know where I came from. So I was drawn to the belief that you could sustain a spiritual, emotional and cultural identity. And I deeply understood the Zionist idea – that there is always a homeland at the center of our story.

I also learned about the horror of the Holocaust, and the terrible urgency it brought to the journey home to Israel. For much of my childhood, I lived with my grandparents. My grandfather had served in World War II, and so had my great uncle. He was a Kansas boy, who probably never expected to see Europe – let alone the horrors that awaited him there. And for months after he came home from Germany, he remained in a state of shock, alone with the painful memories that wouldn't leave his head.

You see, my great uncle had been a part of the 89th Infantry Division – the first Americans to reach a Nazi concentration camp. They liberated Ohrdruf, part of Buchenwald, on an April day in 1945. The horrors of that camp go beyond our capacity to imagine. Tens of thousands died of hunger, torture, disease, or plain murder – part of the Nazi killing machine that killed 6 million people.

When the Americans marched in, they discovered huge piles of dead bodies and starving survivors. General Eisenhower ordered Germans from the nearby town to tour the camp, so they could see what was being done in their name. He ordered American troops to tour the camp, so they could see the evil they were fighting against. He invited Congressmen and journalists to bear witness. And he ordered that photographs and films be made. Explaining his actions, Eisenhower said that he wanted to produce, "first-hand evidence of these things, if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to propaganda."

I saw some of those very images at Yad Vashem, and they never leave you. And those images just hint at the stories that survivors of the Shoah carried with them. Like Eisenhower, each of us bears witness to anyone and everyone who would deny these unspeakable crimes, or ever speak of repeating them. We must mean what we say when we speak the words: "never again."

It was just a few years after the liberation of the camps that David Ben-Gurion declared the founding of the Jewish State of Israel. We know that the establishment of Israel was just and necessary, rooted in centuries of struggle, and decades of patient work. But 60 years later, we know that we cannot relent, we cannot yield, and as President I will never compromise when it comes to Israel's security.

Not when there are still voices that deny the Holocaust. Not when there are terrorist groups and political leaders committed to Israel's destruction. Not when there are maps across the Middle East that don't even acknowledge Israel's existence, and government-funded textbooks filled with hatred toward Jews. Not when there are rockets raining down on Sderot, and Israeli children have to take a deep breath and summon uncommon courage every time they board a bus or walk to school.

I have long understood Israel's quest for peace and need for security. But never more so than during my travels there two years ago. Flying in an IDF helicopter, I saw a narrow and beautiful strip of land nestled against the Mediterranean. On the ground, I met a family who saw their house destroyed by a Katyusha Rocket. I spoke to Israeli troops who faced daily threats as they maintained security near the blue line. I talked to people who wanted nothing more simple, or elusive, than a secure future for their children.

I have been proud to be a part of a strong, bi-partisan consensus that has stood by Israel in the face of all threats. That is a commitment that both John McCain and I share, because support for Israel in this country goes beyond party. But part of our commitment must be speaking up when Israel's security is at risk, and I don't think any of us can be satisfied that America's recent foreign policy has made Israel more secure.

Hamas now controls Gaza. Hizbollah has tightened its grip on southern Lebanon, and is flexing its muscles in Beirut. Because of the war in Iraq, Iran – which always posed a greater threat to Israel than Iraq – is emboldened, and poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States and Israel in the Middle East in a generation. Iraq is unstable, and al Qaeda has stepped up its recruitment. Israel's quest for peace with its neighbors has stalled, despite the heavy burdens borne by the Israeli people. And America is more isolated in the region, reducing our strength and jeopardizing Israel's safety.

The question is how to move forward. There are those who would continue and intensify this failed status quo, ignoring eight years of accumulated evidence that our foreign policy is dangerously flawed. And then there are those who would lay all of the problems of the Middle East at the doorstep of Israel and its supporters, as if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the root of all trouble in the region. These voices blame the Middle East's only democracy for the region's extremism. They offer the false promise that abandoning a stalwart ally is somehow the path to strength. It is not, it never has been, and it never will be.

Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel's security.

That starts with ensuring Israel's qualitative military advantage. I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat – from Gaza to Tehran. Defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a model of success, and must be deepened. As President, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade – investments to Israel's security that will not be tied to any other nation. First, we must approve the foreign aid request for 2009. Going forward, we can enhance our cooperation on missile defense. We should export military equipment to our ally Israel under the same guidelines as NATO. And I will always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself in the United Nations and around the world.

Across the political spectrum, Israelis understand that real security can only come through lasting peace. And that is why we – as friends of Israel – must resolve to do all we can to help Israel and its neighbors to achieve it. Because a secure, lasting peace is in Israel's national interest. It is in America's national interest. And it is in the interest of the Palestinian people and the Arab world. As President, I will work to help Israel achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security. And I won't wait until the waning days of my presidency. I will take an active role, and make a personal commitment to do all I can to advance the cause of peace from the start of my Administration.

The long road to peace requires Palestinian partners committed to making the journey. We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements. There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations. That is why I opposed holding elections in 2006 with Hamas on the ballot. The Israelis and the Palestinian Authority warned us at the time against holding these elections. But this Administration pressed ahead, and the result is a Gaza controlled by Hamas, with rockets raining down on Israel.

The Palestinian people must understand that progress will not come through the false prophets of extremism or the corrupt use of foreign aid. The United States and the international community must stand by Palestinians who are committed to cracking down on terror and carrying the burden of peacemaking. I will strongly urge Arab governments to take steps to normalize relations with Israel, and to fulfill their responsibility to pressure extremists and provide real support for President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad. Egypt must cut off the smuggling of weapons into Gaza. Israel can also advance the cause of peace by taking appropriate steps – consistent with its security – to ease the freedom of movement for Palestinians, improve economic conditions in the West Bank, and to refrain from building new settlements – as it agreed to with the Bush Administration at Annapolis.

Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper – but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

I have no illusions that this will be easy. It will require difficult decisions on both sides. But Israel is strong enough to achieve peace, if it has partners who are committed to the goal. Most Israelis and Palestinians want peace, and we must strengthen their hand. The United States must be a strong and consistent partner in this process – not to force concessions, but to help committed partners avoid stalemate and the kind of vacuums that are filled by violence. That's what I commit to do as President of the United States.

Barack Obama, excerpted from a speech delivered June 4, 2008 in Washington, D.C.

commentComment (10) | emailEmail | printPrint | del.icio.usdel.icio.us | technoratiTechnorati | Share
Comments to The Middle East - In Their Own Words. Obama have been closed. Thanks to everyone who contributed to the discussion.
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Edward said... United States | Mon, 12 Jan 2009 at 12:20 am

All that Israel has ever wanted is peace; to be allowed to live in peace in their little country. Palestinians have again and again been offered peace in a state of their own, alongside Israel. They have again and again turned it down and instead continued their terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. Difficult to understand as it is, Palestinians would rather kill Jews than have their own state.

It is also difficult to understand how a mother could hope and encourage their own children to murder others in suicide attacks, but that is what many Palestinian mothers have stated they want for their children. The Palestinian culture of hatred and self-destructive glorification of mass murder is what stands in the way of peace in the Middle East.


Lisa said... Canada | Mon, 5 Jan 2009 at 2:01 pm

‘Change we can believe in’!


Ainun Ayub said... United Kingdom | Sat, 3 Jan 2009 at 9:51 pm

Negotiation between any two parties requires each side being willing to give up something - it is hard to see what two sides killing each other, who hate each other as much as the Israelis and the Palestinians do will be willing to give up to achieve lasting peace. Many have tried to be the referee between them, and failed.

History is a convenient veil to hide behind decisions today that affect the lives of so many - if I were to argue with my sister today over who should have my late mother’s beautiful dress, we could argue about who should have it for years, or we could share it, or we could give it away, or we could rip it to shreds so the other should not have it, or one of us could kill the other (and if not caught and sent to jail) to have it. Put the conflict in any other context and the rational decision seems straightforward: share. Other warring tribes have done it.

Obama’s role as a third party referee depends on whether he can persuade the various factions in Israel and Palestine to lay down their hate for long enough to see the logic of a mutually beneficial solution.

The problem is political power is split on both sides - neither Fatah nor Hamas have sufficient clout within Palestine to negotiate on behalf of both Gaza and the West Bank, as (please forgive any oversimplification) Fatah has the West Bank electoral mandate and Hamas, the Gazans’ support. The Israeli doves and hawks are playing games with each other to win votes in their upcoming election. In this sense, democratic elections are being used as an excuse for militant behaviour.

Obama seems to see that, and if he can focus their attention on the benefits of peace, present hope in its strongest and most powerful form, help rally the people of both Palestine and Israel who are fed up of this conflict to force their politicians to agree and stick to a plan, maybe things will change.


Stan Krasnoff said... Australia | Sat, 3 Jan 2009 at 7:17 pm

Obama’s statement that protection of the Israeli state must be sacrosanct and that Palestine should be a contiguous and cohesive state in harmony with Israel, is dead right; but how to achieve that, given that moderate Muslims are reticent about condemning Muslim extremism? Huntington seems to believe this is unattainable. Samuel Huntington, a Harvard historian, believes that ‘the next pattern of conflict in the new world will not be primarily ideological or economic…but cultural’. Conflicts would occur ‘between groups of different civilizations’ (Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations, 1993) and the fault lines between civilizations ‘will be the battle lines of the future’. Since 9/11 Huntington’s theme has been focused on Islam-Christian conflict. With the nuclear non-proliferation treaty shredded, how does America view its responses? Officially the US acknowledges that multilateralism is a core principal in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. However the Bush administration asserted that preserving national security is essential and ‘mutual advantage’ is a key factor for any arms-control treaty which must enhance the security of all states—a form of ‘selective non-proliferation’? How does Obama view this? I wrote a book http://www.strategicbookpublishing.com/AClaytonsDefense.html which in part deals with this.


Ashwin said... New Zealand | Sat, 3 Jan 2009 at 6:02 pm

YBM,

You’ve assumed that I’d like to see Israel destroyed, which is not true in the least. And Palestine has existed long before there were countries, so that argument is moot.

The whole point is that until the problem is looked at through the eye of a neutral moderator, lasting peace and justice can never be established. Israel might be a flourishing democracy, but that’s hardly an achievement when you are backed to the hilt and funded silly by the most powerful country on earth. Not to mention the friends you make when USA’s you’re best buddy.

If only Islam in general, and Palestinians in particular had the acceptance, backing and understanding Israel enjoys. All because of some territorial claims based mostly on The Bible, which with all due respect is a religious text, not a statement of fact. 

I’d give anything to hear Obama say ‘loss of civilian lives’ is unaccepatble, as opposed to ‘the security of Israel’ or any other country for that matter. 

I know Islam has more than its fair share of extremists, but that’s only because they’ve been pushed into a corner for far too long. It’s human nature to retaliate.

Give the Hamas a seat at the table, offer them a fair share of their own land and then you can hold them accountable for their actions. Not when they’ve been decimated by the borrowed military might of Israel.


Yaacov ben Moshe said... -- | Sat, 3 Jan 2009 at 11:47 am

Ashwin,
While you are fretting that Mr Obama will not be as ready as you would like to abandon Israel to those who want to destroy her, consider that:

1.The Palestine of which you speak is not and never was a country.

2. If the so-called Palestinians put down their arms today, there would be peace. If the Israelis put down their arms today there would be genocide.

Palestinian safety is better guarded by Israel, a country where Arabs vote, serve in the government and enjoy the guarantees of personal safety provided by one of the most liberal western democracies on earth, than by any of the totalitarian, fascist and Islamist regimes run by their own people.

It is a fact that the vast majority of Arabs in Israel prefer the “hell” of Israel to the “paradise” of Hamas and the PA.

You would do better to worry about the Arabs who live under the repressive regimes of the Arab world.
YBM


Ashwin said... New Zealand | Fri, 2 Jan 2009 at 5:24 pm

Much as I admire him, I disagree with Obama completely on this issue. A conflict cannot be solved by a third party if it has already taken a side. “Israel’s safety is non-negotiable” can be easily translated to ‘Palestine’s safety is not a consideration, at least not a priority.’

For all this talk of change, his policy towards the Israel-Palestine conflict is not all that different, just more articulate. My deepest worry is that the U.S. has got itself a savvy, educated, altogether more presentable replacement for the incumbent president.


Sylvia Leftin said... Mongolia | Fri, 2 Jan 2009 at 11:57 am

May it be so!


Brian said... Fri, 2 Jan 2009 at 10:18 am

David, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum would like to disagree with you. It was the 89th Infantry that liberated the work camp described by Obama.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10006140

Wikipedia agrees with Obama as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohrdruf_forced_labor_camp


David said... United States | Fri, 2 Jan 2009 at 4:24 am

Unfortunately for Obama’s speech writer it was the Russians that liberated this concentration camp, not the Americans.


Page 1 of 1 :