I was looking forward to Mr.Obama's Middle East peace speech, and listened to it broadcast from Ramallah, West Bank, in the 21 evening, local time, with great enthusiasm. President Abbas spoke first, and then Mr.Obama. Only for ten minutes. If he had had anything new to say to the world, he would have surely wanted more time, but it was apparent from the start that the conference would be a short one.
He came from Jerusalem, spent just for four hours in the West Bank, and went back to Jerusalem, as if it was where he belonged to. He certainly had a two-hour talk with Abbas. But as usual he ignored Hammas leaders. Why not going to take legitimately elected leaders into confidence? How to proceed with a peace proposal of any kind then? As usual the answer was that they were terrorists. There were five rocket attacks on Israel the previous night. The Israeli children were in danger.
This writer is not at all in a position to approve of such attacks. I am simply saying that it is unfair in many ways. Obama should meet the 'terrorist' leaders and let them put forward their conditions and give his own to them and discuss them together. He only said instead that there should be direct negotiations. Between the stronger and the weaker? Negotiate the settlement issue? When the bulldozer is said to be working even while Obama is talking? The settlement issue is in everybody's mind, as is also the question of how is the US going to mediate? All that Obama said on the point was you cannot reach an agreement before you begin negotiations. This in fact means that he is withdrawing from the peace process. If not, what then? A joke?
Even in that ten short minutes Obama said, again and again, that he supports the 'two states' plan, with a viable Palestine on one hand. But he threatened to use a veto last year when Abbas wanted to propose a new and elevated status for Palestine at the UN. A clear double standard. I regret that Obama did not hear what the journalists wanted to say, by restricting the questions to just one or two.
One thing more is the nukes in the Middle East. Iran may be or may not be aiming at having nukes of their own. Ten years ago the US was trying their best to persuade the whole world, through the mouth of no other than the then Secretary of State, present at the Security Council, that Iraq had got their weapons of mass destruction and so should be attacked. The cost was great. But the world is not as uncertain on the Israeli nukes. What is the US going to do with them? Again a double standard?
He came from Jerusalem, spent just for four hours in the West Bank, and went back to Jerusalem, as if it was where he belonged to. He certainly had a two-hour talk with Abbas. But as usual he ignored Hammas leaders. Why not going to take legitimately elected leaders into confidence? How to proceed with a peace proposal of any kind then? As usual the answer was that they were terrorists. There were five rocket attacks on Israel the previous night. The Israeli children were in danger.
This writer is not at all in a position to approve of such attacks. I am simply saying that it is unfair in many ways. Obama should meet the 'terrorist' leaders and let them put forward their conditions and give his own to them and discuss them together. He only said instead that there should be direct negotiations. Between the stronger and the weaker? Negotiate the settlement issue? When the bulldozer is said to be working even while Obama is talking? The settlement issue is in everybody's mind, as is also the question of how is the US going to mediate? All that Obama said on the point was you cannot reach an agreement before you begin negotiations. This in fact means that he is withdrawing from the peace process. If not, what then? A joke?
Even in that ten short minutes Obama said, again and again, that he supports the 'two states' plan, with a viable Palestine on one hand. But he threatened to use a veto last year when Abbas wanted to propose a new and elevated status for Palestine at the UN. A clear double standard. I regret that Obama did not hear what the journalists wanted to say, by restricting the questions to just one or two.
One thing more is the nukes in the Middle East. Iran may be or may not be aiming at having nukes of their own. Ten years ago the US was trying their best to persuade the whole world, through the mouth of no other than the then Secretary of State, present at the Security Council, that Iraq had got their weapons of mass destruction and so should be attacked. The cost was great. But the world is not as uncertain on the Israeli nukes. What is the US going to do with them? Again a double standard?
No comments:
Post a Comment