Список форумов пїЅпїЅпїЅпїЅпїЅпїЅпїЅ пїЅ пїЅпїЅ пїЅпїЅпїЅпїЅпїЅпїЅпїЅ пїЅ пїЅпїЅ

 
 FAQFAQ   ПоискПоиск   ПользователиПользователи   ГруппыГруппы   РегистрацияРегистрация 
 ПрофильПрофиль   Войти и проверить личные сообщенияВойти и проверить личные сообщения   ВходВход 

Start Home_in_France Learning_in_France Job_in_France Health_in_France Photogallery Links
Палестинское государство
На страницу Пред.  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  След.
 
Начать новую тему   Ответить на тему    Список форумов пїЅпїЅпїЅпїЅпїЅпїЅпїЅ пїЅ пїЅпїЅ -> ...в Израиле
Предыдущая тема :: Следующая тема  
Автор Сообщение
Thais



Зарегистрирован: 10.03.2005
Сообщения: 2238
Откуда: Kaliningrad-Petersburg-Paris

СообщениеДобавлено: Понедельник, 11 Октябрь 2010, 21:09:59    Заголовок сообщения: Ответить с цитатой

В высокой политике этот элегантный маневр называется "ваньку валять". Smile
_________________
Вот так это происходит. Вам хочется с кем-то подружиться. Разговаривать вам неохота, встречаться лень, звонить некогда, тусоваться надоело, ужинать тяжело, приходить со своей диетой - неэтично, спать и лежать с вами в широком смысле новые друзья отказываются, молчать с вами им не о чем. В общем, дружить надо было раньше. (М. Жванецкий)
Вернуться к началу
Посмотреть профиль Отправить личное сообщение
Zabougornov
Добрый Администратор (иногда)


Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005
Сообщения: 12000
Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич

СообщениеДобавлено: Понедельник, 11 Октябрь 2010, 21:35:23    Заголовок сообщения: Ответить с цитатой

Thais писал(а):
В высокой политике этот элегантный маневр называется "ваньку валять". Smile
Да.

Парадоксально, что с одной стороны это выглядит крайне неуклюже. Ведь все понимают какова повестка переговоров: создание палестинского государства и всё что из этого вытекает. Тоесть территориальное размежевание, проведение границ, трансфер людей, компенцации, международные гарантии и пр. Назовите себя хоть еврейской-сионистской демократической республикой - что это меняет?

А с другой стороны, когда на практике выяснилось что простое размежевание, выполненное частично, в одностороннем порядке и без всякого участия мирового сообщества, никакой проблемы не решает, наоборот, стало только хуже, в такой ситуации манёвры Израиля выглядят очень даже оправданно, логично и понятно.

Вывод: нужно массированное вмешательство мирового сообщества: Штаты, Европа, Китай, Россия
_________________
A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Вернуться к началу
Посмотреть профиль Отправить личное сообщение Посетить сайт автора
Thais



Зарегистрирован: 10.03.2005
Сообщения: 2238
Откуда: Kaliningrad-Petersburg-Paris

СообщениеДобавлено: Вторник, 12 Октябрь 2010, 07:31:21    Заголовок сообщения: Ответить с цитатой

Мировое сообщество сейчас сильно занято - бьется между собой за супермегабабки. Им не до поселенцев каких-то. Cool
_________________
Вот так это происходит. Вам хочется с кем-то подружиться. Разговаривать вам неохота, встречаться лень, звонить некогда, тусоваться надоело, ужинать тяжело, приходить со своей диетой - неэтично, спать и лежать с вами в широком смысле новые друзья отказываются, молчать с вами им не о чем. В общем, дружить надо было раньше. (М. Жванецкий)
Вернуться к началу
Посмотреть профиль Отправить личное сообщение
Zabougornov
Добрый Администратор (иногда)


Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005
Сообщения: 12000
Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич

СообщениеДобавлено: Вторник, 12 Октябрь 2010, 14:47:32    Заголовок сообщения: Ответить с цитатой

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-asking-palestinians-to-cede-right-of-return-1.318527
Netanyahu asking Palestinians to cede right of return
Netanyahu understands that a Palestinian leadership prepared to recognize Israel as a Jewish state is tantamount to an up-front concession on the Palestinian right of return.
By Akiva Eldar

Benjamin Netanyahu is not satisfied with forcing gentiles who wish to obtain Israeli citizenship to formally declare their recognition of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. Now he is demanding that the neighbors on the other side of the border also declare Israel to be a Jewish state (what about "democratic"? ).

They will grant recognition in perpetuity, while he will grant a temporary settlement freeze for two months. Maybe three. Judaism for sale.

And for those who think this is a condition for talks, think again. Bibi is innocently trying to rediscover the Israeli public's faith in the Palestinians, a faith that was lost following the violent events of the intifada. There once was a time when security was the famous catchword that was featured in Netanyahu's campaign commercials which vowed, "If they give [security], they'll receive."

When there are no terrorist attacks (though there are outposts ), our salesman in chief invented the gimmick that is the Jewish state. They say it sells well in the Mahane Yehuda market. Perhaps it sells better than the wares peddled by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.

Netanyahu told the Knesset on Monday that if the Palestinians accept his offer, he will ask the government to approve "an additional suspension of building." In contrast to the statements made by Lieberman during his meetings with European foreign ministers, Bibi is not naive. The prime minister knows that he has no reason to fear the reactions of the settlers and their patrons in the coalition.

When he demands that Abbas recognize Israel as a state of the Jewish people, he is offering assisted political suicide to the the Palestinian leader.

Netanyahu knows full well that any Palestinian leader who recognizes Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people also acknowledges that the Palestinians do not have any rightful place there. In other words, it is tantamount to an up-front concession on the right of return.

Netanyahu understands that this is an asset that is too precious and too complex for the Palestinians to just give up for cheap - namely, a temporary, partial freeze on construction in settlements (not including East Jerusalem ). In the best case scenario, they will relinquish the implementation of the right of return as part of a final status accord that will calm their nerves about the weighty issues of borders and Jerusalem.

This is what we are likely to hear from the prime minister after Abbas rejects his shady proposal: "When they refuse to make such a simple statement, the question arises - why? Do you want to flood the state of Israel with refugees so that it will be a state without a Jewish majority? Do you want to rip away parts of the Galilee and the Negev?"

These words are not the concoction of this writer's diabolical mind. Rather, this was a quote from a news conference held by Netanyahu in Sderot three weeks ago. This was a general rehearsal in preparation for the major diversionary ploy prepared by the premier in order to ease the coming crisis over the expiration of the freeze in settlement construction.

It is far more elegant to sabotage the negotiations over a Palestinian plot to throw us into the sea. This item is much more sellable to the Jewish-American market. It is hard to believe a seasoned politician like U.S. President Barack Obama will fall into such a transparent trap and make common cause with Netanyahu in his attempt to down Abbas.

And what will happen after Abbas announces (as his aides were quick to do so yesterday ) unequivocally that determining the identity of a neighboring state is not his business, but rather solely that of the neighbor? Will Israel respond by freezing the negotiations for the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside a Jewish state? Every second-hand dealer knows that whoever raises the price of his goods too high shouldn't expect to make any hay.
_________________
A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Вернуться к началу
Посмотреть профиль Отправить личное сообщение Посетить сайт автора
Zabougornov
Добрый Администратор (иногда)


Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005
Сообщения: 12000
Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич

СообщениеДобавлено: Вторник, 12 Октябрь 2010, 14:51:13    Заголовок сообщения: Ответить с цитатой

Цитата:
When he demands that Abbas recognize Israel as a state of the Jewish people, he is offering assisted political suicide to the the Palestinian leader.


Цитата:
Netanyahu knows full well that any Palestinian leader who recognizes Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people also acknowledges that the Palestinians do not have any rightful place there.



Цитата:
And what will happen after Abbas announces (as his aides were quick to do so yesterday ) unequivocally that determining the identity of a neighboring state is not his business, but rather solely that of the neighbor? Will Israel respond by freezing the negotiations for the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside a Jewish state? Every second-hand dealer knows that whoever raises the price of his goods too high shouldn't expect to make any hay.


Согласен.
_________________
A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Вернуться к началу
Посмотреть профиль Отправить личное сообщение Посетить сайт автора
Zabougornov
Добрый Администратор (иногда)


Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005
Сообщения: 12000
Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич

СообщениеДобавлено: Пятница, 15 Октябрь 2010, 23:44:33    Заголовок сообщения: Ответить с цитатой

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/abbas-we-ll-never-sign-deal-demanding-recognition-of-israel-as-jewish-state-1.319329
Abbas: We'll never sign deal demanding recognition of Israel as Jewish state
'PA recognized Israel's existence in 1993, and now Israel needs to recognize the Palestinian state in line with the 1967 borders,' Abbas tells left-wing MKs in Ramallah.
By Jack Khoury Tags: Israel news Palestinians Mahmoud Abbas Middle East peace

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said Friday that under no circumstances would the PA sign an agreement with Israel which required the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state or a land swap.

"The PA recognized Israel's existence in 1993, and now Israel needs to recognize the Palestinian state in line with the 1967 borders," Abbas said during a meeting in Ramallah with Knesset members from the left-wing party Hadash.

Abbas clarified that the PA would exhibit flexibility regarding the nature of the negotiations, but added that they would not negotiate on issues the Palestinian people consider principal matters.

"If we showed flexibility on these issues the peace agreement would have been signed a long time ago," Abbas said.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered Monday to halt settlement construction if the Palestinians were to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, but the Palestinian leadership was prompt to reject the proposal.

"If the Palestinian leadership will say unequivocally to its people that it recognizes Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people, I will be ready to convene my government and request a further suspension," Netanyahu said while speaking at the opening of the third session of the 18th Knesset.

"Just as the Palestinians expect us to recognize their state, we expect reciprocal treatment," said Netanyahu.

"This is not a condition but a trust-building step, which would create wide-ranging trust among the Israeli people, who have lost trust in the Palestinian will for peace over the last 10 years."

Hadash Chairman Mohammed Barakeh, who participated in the meeting with Abbas, said that the timing of the meeting was not coincidental and was purposely set up in light of the recent discussions regarding Netanyahu's offer.

"We came to Abu Mazen [Abbas] and the Palestinian Authority officials in order to hear a clear and official stance regarding the stalled negotiations, and we made it clear that we [Israeli Arabs] would not be a herd of sheep during the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians," Barakeh said
_________________
A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Вернуться к началу
Посмотреть профиль Отправить личное сообщение Посетить сайт автора
Zabougornov
Добрый Администратор (иногда)


Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005
Сообщения: 12000
Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич

СообщениеДобавлено: Пятница, 15 Октябрь 2010, 23:52:25    Заголовок сообщения: Ответить с цитатой

Цитата:
"The PA recognized Israel's existence in 1993, and now Israel needs to recognize the Palestinian state in line with the 1967 borders," Abbas said during a meeting in Ramallah with Knesset members from the left-wing party Hadash.

Простая, ясная и справедливая позиция.

Простая, потому что говорит об одном единственном акте, признании ПА как государства, для это нужна просто политическая декларация.

Ясная, поскольку признание - это общепринятый термин, сам Израиль был признан государством со стороны других стран в 1948.

И справедливая, поскольку основана на приципе взаимности, как вы относитесь к нам - так и мы относимся к вам.

А вопрос о границах можно обсуждать, в границах 1967-го года, на основе границ 1967-го года и пр.
_________________
A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Вернуться к началу
Посмотреть профиль Отправить личное сообщение Посетить сайт автора
Zabougornov
Добрый Администратор (иногда)


Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005
Сообщения: 12000
Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич

СообщениеДобавлено: Среда, 20 Октябрь 2010, 10:17:14    Заголовок сообщения: Ответить с цитатой

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/does-israel-want-peace-or-to-play-the-blame-game-1.320141
Does Israel want peace or to play the blame game?
Is the government of Israel engaged in the negotiation process to reach peace, or is Israel engaged in this process to advance a public relations campaign and buy time to continue its colonial enterprise on our occupied territory?
By Nabil Sha'ath

Let us be clear: Palestinians long ago recognized Israel and its right to exist in peace and security. Twenty-two years ago, to be precise. The peace process that began 17 years ago has repeatedly reaffirmed Palestinian recognition of Israel and its right to exist over 78 percent of our historic homeland.

The internationally recognized obstacle to peace is the ongoing Israeli occupation. The problem is Israel's imposition of a "solution" that violates every single aspect of sovereignty while blaming us for not consenting to live in humiliation and subjugation.

Netanyahu's strategy is clear: He refuses to engage in serious negotiations with us on borders, security, Jerusalem and refugees, while he simultaneously peddles his own positions in public. During three months of proximity talks and our most recent direct meetings, we presented our positions for every permanent status issue, but we never received a single Israeli proposal. Now, all of what was negotiated over 22 years is being ignored as we hear Israel's new preconditions loud and clear through the world's media.

Netanyahu's most recent proposal is a clear example of his strategy: a two-month partial settlement "moratorium" in exchange for an official Palestinian declaration that Israel is a Jewish state. In other words, he demands for the Palestinian leadership to undermine the rights of Palestinian refugees and the rights of the Palestinian citizens of Israel.

In two months, one might reasonably wager that he will ask us to recognize Jerusalem as the eternal and undivided capital of Israel in return for another dubious moratorium. Perhaps two months after that he will ask us to recognize the biblical rights of the Jewish people to "Judea and Samaria," as he prefers to refer to occupied Palestinian territory. Within six months, Israel might have everything it so greedily covets and the two-state solution will be history.

Instead of preparing the Israeli public for peace based on a two-state solution, Netanyahu has been preparing the world for a new blame game. Instead of preparing Israeli society to have an open and shared Jerusalem as the capital of two states, he insists that only Israel will have sovereignty over the whole city. Instead of discussing security arrangements for the Jordan Valley, including the presence of international forces, he insists on continued Israeli military presence. Instead of fully freezing Israel's illegal colonial settlement building on our land, he continues to support his "Zionist brothers and sisters" living in "Judea and Samaria."

Instead of respecting the negotiation process by fulfilling previous Israeli obligations, he attempts to shift the world's focus away from Israel's blatant transgressions of international law by insisting that the Palestinian leadership must recognize Israel as a Jewish state. This is an illogical and unreasonable Israeli precondition that was never mentioned by Israel before 2004, including at Wye River where Netanyahu led the Israeli delegation, and that has never been demanded by Israel from any other state, including other Arab states with which it concluded peace agreements.

Palestinian demands are clear: a two-state solution, Palestine and Israel separated by the 1967 border, with Jerusalem as an open and shared capital of two states and freedom of access to all its holy sites. We also demand that Israel acknowledges its responsibility for the creation and perpetuation of the Palestinian refugee issue, and work with us toward finding a just resolution to this issue. In exchange, we offer full recognition of the State of Israel by 57 Arab and Muslim countries, an offer made eight years ago through the Arab Peace Initiative.

If Israel's leadership is not content with Palestinian recognition of Israel over 78 percent of historic Palestine and diplomatic relations with 57 of its neighbors, then we must ask ourselves: Is the government of Israel engaged in the negotiation process to reach peace, or is Israel engaged in this process to advance a public relations campaign and buy time to continue its colonial enterprise on our occupied territory?



The writer, a former Palestinian foreign minister, is chief of international relations for Fatah and a member of the Palestinian negotiating team.
_________________
A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Вернуться к началу
Посмотреть профиль Отправить личное сообщение Посетить сайт автора
Zabougornov
Добрый Администратор (иногда)


Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005
Сообщения: 12000
Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич

СообщениеДобавлено: Среда, 20 Октябрь 2010, 10:21:16    Заголовок сообщения: Ответить с цитатой

Цитата:
During three months of proximity talks and our most recent direct meetings, we presented our positions for every permanent status issue, but we never received a single Israeli proposal.
Тоесть Израиль не за три месяца переговоров не предоставил ни одного пропозала, ни одного проэкта соглашения? Подозреваю даже что Израиль вообще не предоставил ни одного документа...

А интересно, дискуссии между сторонами были?
_________________
A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Вернуться к началу
Посмотреть профиль Отправить личное сообщение Посетить сайт автора
Zabougornov
Добрый Администратор (иногда)


Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005
Сообщения: 12000
Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич

СообщениеДобавлено: Воскресенье, 19 Декабрь 2010, 19:36:26    Заголовок сообщения: Ответить с цитатой

Интересный такой отчёт...
http://www.hrw.org/node/95061
_________________
A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Вернуться к началу
Посмотреть профиль Отправить личное сообщение Посетить сайт автора
Zabougornov
Добрый Администратор (иногда)


Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005
Сообщения: 12000
Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич

СообщениеДобавлено: Вторник, 29 Март 2011, 09:25:02    Заголовок сообщения: Ответить с цитатой

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-threatens-to-take-action-if-un-recognizes-palestinian-statehood-1.352423
Israel threatens to take action if UN recognizes Palestinian statehood
Foreign Ministry instructs envoys in 30 countries to send 'diplomatic protest' to host nations over plan for September vote in General Assembly.
By Barak Ravid

Israel informed the 15 members of the United Nations Security Council last week, as well as several other prominent European Union countries, that if the Palestinian Authority persists in its efforts to gain recognition in September as a state within the 1967 borders, Israel would respond with a series of unilateral steps of its own.

Senior Foreign Ministry officials said the ministry's director general, Rafael Barak, sent a classified cable last week to more than 30 Israeli embassies, directing them to lodge a diplomatic protest at the highest possible level in response to the Palestinian efforts to gain international recognition for statehood at the UN General Assembly session in September.

The Israeli diplomatic corps conveyed the message that support for international recognition, particularly by most of the members of the European Union, encouraged the Palestinians to forgo negotiations with Israel and to move more quickly toward recognition at the UN of Palestinian statehood. Israeli diplomats stressed that such a move violates the Oslo Accords and will not lead to a Palestinian state even if the General Assembly grants recognition, but could lead to violence on the ground.

European diplomats have confirmed to Haaretz that such a message was conveyed several days ago. One diplomat said his country did not receive a serious response when asked what unilateral steps Israel might take. Another diplomat, from a European country, said in light of the current deadlock in negotiations, international recognition of Palestinian statehood appeared unavoidable in September.

Foreign Ministry sources said no decision has been taken at this stage over a possible Israeli response to UN recognition of Palestinian statehood, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not held any major discussion of such a response on a formal level among his cabinet colleagues. Ideas have been floated on the right wing of the political spectrum in recent weeks, suggesting, for example, that Israel might apply Israeli law to the West Bank or annex major settlement blocs to Israel.

September is expected to be pivotal for several reasons. Last September, U.S. President Barack Obama told the General Assembly that he wished to see a Palestinian state become a member of the UN within a year. In addition, Israel and the Palestinians had agreed that the talks they undertook last September 2 in Washington would last for about a year. Thirdly, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's program of establishing institutions for a future Palestinian state is due to be wrapped up this coming September.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas met on Sunday in Ramallah with former Knesset member Yossi Beilin and told him that the Palestinian Authority would not engage in further negotiations with Israel after September. Senior Palestinian sources added, however, that if negotiations are resumed before September and make progress, the Palestinians would be prepared to defer efforts to gain UN recognition of statehood.

Abbas told Beilin that it would be possible to engage in three months of talks in an effort to achieve progress before September, but Netanyahu would have to suspend construction in the West Bank settlements during that period. The PA leader added that the Palestinians would not renew violence against Israel, but hinted at his possible resignation or the breakup of the PA, telling Beilin that there is no October 2011 on his schedule.

There are currently no contacts between representatives of Netanyahu and Abbas's advisers, and Netanyahu appears to have backtracked on his intention to deliver a major policy speech to jump-start the peace process.
_________________
A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Вернуться к началу
Посмотреть профиль Отправить личное сообщение Посетить сайт автора
Zabougornov
Добрый Администратор (иногда)


Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005
Сообщения: 12000
Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич

СообщениеДобавлено: Среда, 20 Апрель 2011, 07:47:27    Заголовок сообщения: Ответить с цитатой

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israeli-public-figures-to-sign-document-supporting-palestinian-state-1.356816
Israeli public figures to sign document supporting Palestinian state
Paper to be part of protest participated by 17 Israel Prize winners in front of Independence Hall on Tel Aviv's Rothschild Boulevard.
By Ilan Lior

Dozens of public figures will stage a protest on Thursday at 2 p.m. in front of Independence Hall on Tel Aviv's Rothschild Boulevard, where David Ben-Gurion declared Israel's statehood in May of 1948. Participants, including 17 Israel Prize winners, said they will express support for the declaration of a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders.

The protesters also plan to sign their own written declaration to this effect, and will invite members of the general public to join them in signing the document.

"The Jewish people arose in the Land of Israel, where its character was forged. The Palestinian people is rising in Palestine, where its character was forged," the document declares.

"We call on everyone who seeks peace and freedom for all peoples to support the declaration of Palestinian statehood, and to act in a way that encourages the citizens of the two states to maintain peaceful relations on the basis of the 1967 borders... The total end to the occupation is a fundamental precondition for the liberation of the two peoples," the statement continues.

Sponsors of the event insist it will not be a token protest, but rather part of a larger process that will lead to a legitimate alternative to Israel's current policies.

"Our initiative is not a naive one," said Sefi Rachlevsky, one of the initiators of the demonstration and a Haaretz columnist. "Instead of Israel being the first to extend its hand and support Palestinian independence, it is trying to warn against it. That is not only a moral disaster, but it's also liable to bring about a practical catastrophe in which Israel will isolate itself and turn into a kind of South Africa."

Zionist standpoint

"Israel is acting this way out of the delusion that it's possible to continue its colonialist behavior, which is built on anti-democratic racism that contradicts [Israel's own] declaration of independence," he added.

"I am speaking from a Zionist standpoint," Prof. Yehuda Bauer explained. "Zionism sets as its goal the preservation of a Jewish national home with a solid Jewish majority - this was the dream of people from the left, right and center of classical Zionism. But the continuation of the occupation guarantees the nullification of Zionism - that is, it rules out the possibility that the Jewish people will live in its land with a strong majority and international recognition. In my eyes, this makes [Israel's] government clearly anti-Zionist."

Bauer said that he sees the establishment of a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders as the "realization of genuine Jewish nationalism that exists in peace in the region, and within the international community."
_________________
A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Вернуться к началу
Посмотреть профиль Отправить личное сообщение Посетить сайт автора
Zabougornov
Добрый Администратор (иногда)


Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005
Сообщения: 12000
Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич

СообщениеДобавлено: Среда, 18 Май 2011, 10:29:15    Заголовок сообщения: Ответить с цитатой

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/opinion/17abbas.html?scp=2&sq=mahmoud%20abbas&st=cse
The Long Overdue Palestinian State
By MAHMOUD ABBAS

Ramallah, West Bank

SIXTY-THREE years ago, a 13-year-old Palestinian boy was forced to leave his home in the Galilean city of Safed and flee with his family to Syria. He took up shelter in a canvas tent provided to all the arriving refugees. Though he and his family wished for decades to return to their home and homeland, they were denied that most basic of human rights. That child’s story, like that of so many other Palestinians, is mine.

This month, however, as we commemorate another year of our expulsion — which we call the nakba, or catastrophe — the Palestinian people have cause for hope: this September, at the United Nations General Assembly, we will request international recognition of the State of Palestine on the 1967 border and that our state be admitted as a full member of the United Nations.

Many are questioning what value there is to such recognition while the Israeli occupation continues. Others have accused us of imperiling the peace process. We believe, however, that there is tremendous value for all Palestinians — those living in the homeland, in exile and under occupation.

It is important to note that the last time the question of Palestinian statehood took center stage at the General Assembly, the question posed to the international community was whether our homeland should be partitioned into two states. In November 1947, the General Assembly made its recommendation and answered in the affirmative. Shortly thereafter, Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened. War and further expulsions ensued. Indeed, it was the descendants of these expelled Palestinians who were shot and wounded by Israeli forces on Sunday as they tried to symbolically exercise their right to return to their families’ homes.

Minutes after the State of Israel was established on May 14, 1948, the United States granted it recognition. Our Palestinian state, however, remains a promise unfulfilled.

Palestine’s admission to the United Nations would pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one. It would also pave the way for us to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the International Court of Justice.

Our quest for recognition as a state should not be seen as a stunt; too many of our men and women have been lost for us to engage in such political theater. We go to the United Nations now to secure the right to live free in the remaining 22 percent of our historic homeland because we have been negotiating with the State of Israel for 20 years without coming any closer to realizing a state of our own. We cannot wait indefinitely while Israel continues to send more settlers to the occupied West Bank and denies Palestinians access to most of our land and holy places, particularly in Jerusalem. Neither political pressure nor promises of rewards by the United States have stopped Israel’s settlement program.

Negotiations remain our first option, but due to their failure we are now compelled to turn to the international community to assist us in preserving the opportunity for a peaceful and just end to the conflict. Palestinian national unity is a key step in this regard. Contrary to what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel asserts, and can be expected to repeat this week during his visit to Washington, the choice is not between Palestinian unity or peace with Israel; it is between a two-state solution or settlement-colonies.

Despite Israel’s attempt to deny us our long-awaited membership in the community of nations, we have met all prerequisites to statehood listed in the Montevideo Convention, the 1933 treaty that sets out the rights and duties of states. The permanent population of our land is the Palestinian people, whose right to self-determination has been repeatedly recognized by the United Nations, and by the International Court of Justice in 2004. Our territory is recognized as the lands framed by the 1967 border, though it is occupied by Israel.

We have the capacity to enter into relations with other states and have embassies and missions in more than 100 countries. The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the European Union have indicated that our institutions are developed to the level where we are now prepared for statehood. Only the occupation of our land hinders us from reaching our full national potential; it does not impede United Nations recognition.

The State of Palestine intends to be a peace-loving nation, committed to human rights, democracy, the rule of law and the principles of the United Nations Charter. Once admitted to the United Nations, our state stands ready to negotiate all core issues of the conflict with Israel. A key focus of negotiations will be reaching a just solution for Palestinian refugees based on Resolution 194, which the General Assembly passed in 1948.

Palestine would be negotiating from the position of one United Nations member whose territory is militarily occupied by another, however, and not as a vanquished people ready to accept whatever terms are put in front of us.

We call on all friendly, peace-loving nations to join us in realizing our national aspirations by recognizing the State of Palestine on the 1967 border and by supporting its admission to the United Nations. Only if the international community keeps the promise it made to us six decades ago, and ensures that a just resolution for Palestinian refugees is put into effect, can there be a future of hope and dignity for our people.
_________________
A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Вернуться к началу
Посмотреть профиль Отправить личное сообщение Посетить сайт автора
Zabougornov
Добрый Администратор (иногда)


Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005
Сообщения: 12000
Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич

СообщениеДобавлено: Среда, 18 Май 2011, 11:00:46    Заголовок сообщения: Ответить с цитатой

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israel-turned-the-nakba-into-a-63-year-process-1.362433
Israel turned the Nakba into a 63-year process
Israel crowns itself as the winner in the global competition of victimhood; yet it manufactures methods of oppression and dispossession.
By Amira Hass

How natural it is for Israeli spokesmen to assert that the Nakba Day marches from Syria and Lebanon were the product of incitement and foreign calculations. The state, which bases its existence on 2,000 years of longing for and belonging to this country, shows contempt toward palpable displays of belonging to and longing for the same country of those who we expelled 63 years ago - and of their descendants.

The memorial day for the Holocaust, and the memorial day for the Nakba, are behind us. So the time has come to write about them both. "Holocaust" and "Nakba" are mistaken definitions, because they do not distinguish between natural disasters and man-made catastrophes. But the definitions gained currency. So too did negative attitudes, such as the denial of the historical occurrence and its political implications. For example, that Jewish survivors became refugees in their own lands of birth, or that Palestinians in the diaspora and those who remained in the country share a close bond.

Another example would be the refusal to acknowledge the suffering endured by the other. Here it will be said "the Arabs started the war", and there it will be said "the Jews caused the Nakba - the expulsion of the Palestinian people from its homeland, whereas the Palestinians bear no responsibility for the Holocaust - the genocide of the Jewish people."

In a private, personal sense, the Holocaust did not become the "past;" for those who survived it, it continues until they die. Something of this ever-painful continuousness is dictating - to a greater or lesser degree - our own lives, as the offspring of the survivors.

In contrast, with regard to the Jewish collective that came into existence after 1945, the Holocaust has a beginning and an end. The Allies' victory before Germany had time to extinguish additional Jewish communities, the establishment of the State of Israel, Germany's acknowledgment of the murder industry it established - all such events marked the end of this chapter of history.

The same for individual Palestinians, their beloved one who were murdered by Jews or killed in battles, the painful uprooting from homes - never turned into sheer memory. But 1948 is just a first chapter in a series that hasn't ended yet. For those who haven't experienced expulsion and bereavement - Israel provided ample opportunities to share such fate.

How much skill has Israel displayed in the wrong-doing to refugees in Gaza? How many times a week do the "present absentees," refugees who live within the borders of the state, pass by lands which were given to Jews at the behest of the legislators' cunning? What are the statistics of chronic poverty and structural discrimination faced by the "Arab sector" in Israel, and by Palestinian Jerusalemites, if not a nakba by other means?

And what is the sickening similarity between the pressuring of Bedouin away from Negev lands today and the removal of 1948 refugee Bedouin in the Jordan Valley? How is it that after 1967 tens of thousands lost their right to live in the West Bank (including Jerusalem ) and the Gaza Strip? Israel did not overcome its instinct to expel, and is today focusing on the Palestinian citizens of Israel.

Every Jew in the world, whether a citizen of the U.S. or Morocco, has rights in this one country, from the river to the sea, that we denied to those who live in it today, and those who were born in it and grow old as refugees in Lebanon or Syria. And the Oslo process? Israel devised it as a stratagem to impose the solution of reservations.

Israel makes capital out of the six million to justify policies of destruction and expulsion not just in the past, but in the present and future. As the state which claims to be the heir of the Holocaust martyrs, Israel crowns itself as the winner in the global, historical competition of victimhood. Yet it manufactures methods of oppression and dispossession of the individual and the collective, methods which turn the Nakba into a continuing, 63-year process.
_________________
A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Вернуться к началу
Посмотреть профиль Отправить личное сообщение Посетить сайт автора
Zabougornov
Добрый Администратор (иногда)


Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005
Сообщения: 12000
Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич

СообщениеДобавлено: Пятница, 20 Май 2011, 15:15:57    Заголовок сообщения: Ответить с цитатой

http://www.haaretz.com/news/mideast-in-turmoil/full-transcript-of-obama-s-middle-east-speech-1.363035
Full transcript of Obama's Middle East speech
Below is the text of the speech on the Middle East and North Africa that U.S. President Barack Obama delivered at the State Department in Washington on May 19, 2011.
By Haaretz Service

The text of the speech:

"The State Department is a fitting venue to mark a new chapter in American diplomacy. For six months, we have witnessed an extraordinary change take place in the Middle East and North Africa. Square by square; town by town; country by country; the people have risen up to demand their basic human rights.

Two leaders have stepped aside. More may follow. And though these countries may be a great distance from our shores, we know that our own future is bound to this region by the forces of economics and security; history and faith.

Today, I would like to talk about this change - the forces that are driving it, and how we can respond in a way that advances our values and strengthens our security. Already, we have done much to shift our foreign policy following a decade defined by two costly conflicts. After years of war in Iraq, we have removed 100,000 American troops and ended our combat mission there. In Afghanistan, we have broken the Taliban's momentum, and this July we will begin to bring our troops home and continue transition to Afghan lead. And after years of war against al-Qaida and its affiliates, we have dealt al-Qaida a huge blow by killing its leader - Osama Bin Laden.

Bin Laden was no martyr. He was a mass murderer who offered a message of hate - an insistence that Muslims had to take up arms against the West, and that violence against men, women and children was the only path to change. He rejected democracy and individual rights for Muslims in favor of violent extremism; his agenda focused on what he could destroy - not what he could build.

Bin Laden and his murderous vision won some adherents. But even before his death, al-Qaida was losing its struggle for relevance, as the overwhelming majority of people saw that the slaughter of innocents did not answer their cries for a better life. By the time we found Bin Laden, al-Qaida's agenda had come to be seen by the vast majority of the region as a dead end, and the people of the Middle East and North Africa had taken their future into their own hands.

That story of self-determination began six months ago in Tunisia. On December 17, a young vendor named Mohammed Bouazizi was devastated when a police officer confiscated his cart. This was not unique. It is the same kind of humiliation that takes place every day in many parts of the world - the relentless tyranny of governments that deny their citizens dignity. Only this time, something different happened. After local officials refused to hear his complaint, this young man who had never been particularly active in politics went to the headquarters of the provincial government, doused himself in fuel, and lit himself on fire.

Sometimes, in the course of history, the actions of ordinary citizens spark movements for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has built up for years. In America, think of the defiance of those patriots in Boston who refused to pay taxes to a king, or the dignity of Rosa Parks as she sat courageously in her seat. So it was in Tunisia, as that vendor's act of desperation tapped into the frustration felt throughout the country.

Hundreds of protesters took to the streets, then thousands. And in the face of batons and sometimes bullets, they refused to go home - day after day, week after week, until a dictator of more than two decades finally left power.

The story of this revolution, and the ones that followed, should not have come as a surprise. The nations of the Middle East and North Africa won their independence long ago, but in too many places their people did not. In too many countries, power has been concentrated in the hands of the few. In too many countries, a citizen like that young vendor had nowhere to turn - no honest judiciary to hear his case; no independent media to give him voice; no credible political party to represent his views; no free and fair election where he could choose his leader.

This lack of self-determination - the chance to make of your life what you will - has applied to the region's economy as well. Yes, some nations are blessed with wealth in oil and gas, and that has led to pockets of prosperity. But in a global economy based on knowledge and innovation, no development strategy can be based solely upon what comes out of the ground. Nor can people reach their potential when you cannot start a business without paying a bribe.

In the face of these challenges, too many leaders in the region tried to direct their people's grievances elsewhere. The West was blamed as the source of all ills, a half-century after the end of colonialism. Antagonism toward Israel became the only acceptable outlet for political expression. Divisions of tribe, ethnicity and religious sect were manipulated as a means of holding on to power, or taking it away from somebody else.

But the events of the past six months show us that strategies of repression and diversion won't work anymore. Satellite television and the internet provide a window into the wider world - a world of astonishing progress in places like India, Indonesia and Brazil. Cell phones and social networks allow young people to connect and organise like never before. A new generation has emerged. And their voices tell us that change cannot be denied.

In Cairo, we heard the voice of the young mother who said: 'It's like I can finally breathe fresh air for the first time.' In Sanaa, we heard the students who chanted: 'The night must come to an end.' In Benghazi, we heard the engineer who said: 'Our words are free now. It's a feeling you can't explain.' In Damascus, we heard the young man who said: 'After the first yelling, the first shout, you feel dignity.'

Those shouts of human dignity are being heard across the region. And through the moral force of non-violence, the people of the region have achieved more change in six months than terrorists have accomplished in decades.

Of course, change of this magnitude does not come easily. In our day and age - a time of 24-hour news cycles and constant communication - people expect the transformation of the region to be resolved in a matter of weeks. But it will be years before this story reaches its end. Along the way, there will be good days, and bad days. In some places, change will be swift; in others, gradual. And as we have seen, calls for change may give way to fierce contests for power.

The question before us is what role America will play as this story unfolds. For decades, the United States has pursued a set of core interests in the region: countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the free flow of commerce, and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up for Israel's security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace.

We will continue to do these things, with the firm belief that America's interests are not hostile to people's hopes; they are essential to them. We believe that no-one benefits from a nuclear arms race in the region, or al-Qaida's brutal attacks. People everywhere would see their economies crippled by a cut-off in energy supplies. As we did in the Gulf War, we will not tolerate aggression across borders, and we will keep our commitments to friends and partners.

Yet we must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind. Moreover, failure to speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people will only feed the suspicion that has festered for years that the United States pursues our own interests at their expense. Given that this mistrust runs both ways - as Americans have been seared by hostage-taking, violent rhetoric, and terrorist attacks that have killed thousands of our citizens - a failure to change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the United States and Muslim communities.

That's why, two years ago in Cairo, I began to broaden our engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. I believed then - and I believe now - that we have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the self-determination of individuals. The status quo is not sustainable.

Societies held together by fear and repression may offer the illusion of stability for a time, but they are built upon fault lines that will eventually tear asunder.

So we face an historic opportunity. We have embraced the chance to show that America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw power of the dictator. There must be no doubt that the United States of America welcomes change that advances self-determination and opportunity. Yes, there will be perils that accompany this moment of promise. But after decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should be.

As we do, we must proceed with a sense of humility. It is not America that put people into the streets of Tunis and Cairo - it was the people themselves who launched these movements, and must determine their outcome. Not every country will follow our particular form of representative democracy, and there will be times when our short term interests do not align perfectly with our long term vision of the region. But we can - and will - speak out for a set of core principles - principles that have guided our response to the events over the past six months:

The United States opposes the use of violence and repression against the people of the region. We support a set of universal rights. Those rights include free speech; the freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of religion; equality for men and women under the rule of law; and the right to choose your own leaders - whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus; Sanaa or Tehran.

And finally, we support political and economic reform in the Middle East and North Africa that can meet the legitimate aspirations of ordinary people throughout the region.

Our support for these principles is not a secondary interest - today I am making it clear that it is a top priority that must be translated into concrete actions, and supported by all of the diplomatic, economic and strategic tools at our disposal.

Let me be specific. First, it will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy.

That effort begins in Egypt and Tunisia, where the stakes are high - as Tunisia was at the vanguard of this democratic wave, and Egypt is both a longstanding partner and the Arab world's largest nation. Both nations can set a strong example through free and fair elections; a vibrant civil society; accountable and effective democratic institutions; and responsible regional leadership. But our support must also extend to nations where transitions have yet to take place.

Unfortunately, in too many countries, calls for change have been answered by violence. The most extreme example is Libya, where Muammar Gadhafi launched a war against his people, promising to hunt them down like rats. As I said, when the United States joined an international coalition to intervene, we cannot prevent every injustice perpetrated by a regime against its people, and we have learned from our experience in Iraq just how costly and difficult it is to impose regime change by force - no matter how well-intended it may be.

But in Libya, we saw the prospect of imminent massacre, had a mandate for action, and heard the Libyan people's call for help. Had we not acted along with our Nato allies and regional coalition partners, thousands would have been killed. The message would have been clear: keep power by killing as many people as it takes. Now, time is working against Gadhafi. He does not have control over his country. The opposition has organised a legitimate and credible interim council. And when Gadhafi inevitably leaves or is forced from power, decades of provocation will come to an end, and the transition to a democratic Libya can proceed.

While Libya has faced violence on the greatest scale, it is not the only place where leaders have turned to repression to remain in power. Most recently, the Syrian regime has chosen the path of murder and the mass arrests of its citizens. The United States has condemned these actions, and working with the international community we have stepped up our sanctions on the Syrian regime - including sanctions announced yesterday on President Assad and those around him.

The Syrian people have shown their courage in demanding a transition to democracy. President Assad now has a choice: he can lead that transition, or get out of the way. The Syrian government must stop shooting demonstrators and allow peaceful protests; release political prisoners and stop unjust arrests; allow human rights monitors to have access to cities like Daraa; and start a serious dialogue to advance a democratic transition. Otherwise, President Assad and his regime will continue to be challenged from within and isolated abroad.

Thus far, Syria has followed its Iranian ally, seeking assistance from Tehran in the tactics of suppression. This speaks to the hypocrisy of the Iranian regime, which says it stands for the rights of protesters abroad, yet suppresses its people at home. Let us remember that the first peaceful protests were in the streets of Tehran, where the government brutalised women and men, and threw innocent people into jail. We still hear the chants echo from the rooftops of Tehran. The image of a young woman dying in the streets is still seared in our memory. And we will continue to insist that the Iranian people deserve their universal rights, and a government that does not smother their aspirations.

Our opposition to Iran's intolerance - as well as its illicit nuclear program, and its sponsorship of terror - is well known. But if America is to be credible, we must acknowledge that our friends in the region have not all reacted to the demands for change consistent with the principles that I have outlined today. That is true in Yemen, where President Saleh needs to follow through on his commitment to transfer power. And that is true, today, in Bahrain.

Bahrain is a long-standing partner, and we are committed to its security. We recognize that Iran has tried to take advantage of the turmoil there, and that the Bahraini government has a legitimate interest in the rule of law. Nevertheless, we have insisted publicly and privately that mass arrests and brute force are at odds with the universal rights of Bahrain's citizens, and will not make legitimate calls for reform go away. The only way forward is for the government and opposition to engage in a dialogue, and you can't have a real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail.

The government must create the conditions for dialogue, and the opposition must participate to forge a just future for all Bahrainis.

Indeed, one of the broader lessons to be drawn from this period is that sectarian divides need not lead to conflict. In Iraq, we see the promise of a multi-ethnic, multi-sectarian democracy. There, the Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence for a democratic process, even as they have taken full responsibility for their own security. Like all new democracies, they will face setbacks. But Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region if it continues its peaceful progress. As they do, we will be proud to stand with them as a steadfast partner.

So in the months ahead, America must use all our influence to encourage reform in the region. Even as we acknowledge that each country is different, we will need to speak honestly about the principles that we believe in, with friend and foe alike. Our message is simple: if you take the risks that reform entails, you will have the full support of the United States. We must also build on our efforts to broaden our engagement beyond elites, so that we reach the people who will shape the future - particularly young people.

We will continue to make good on the commitments that I made in Cairo - to build networks of entrepreneurs, and expand exchanges in education; to foster co-operation in science and technology, and combat disease. Across the region, we intend to provide assistance to civil society, including those that may not be officially sanctioned, and who speak uncomfortable truths. And we will use the technology to connect with - and listen to - the voices of the people.

In fact, real reform will not come at the ballot box alone. Through our efforts we must support those basic rights to speak your mind and access information. We will support open access to the internet, and the right of journalists to be heard - whether it's a big news organization or a blogger. In the 21st Century, information is power; the truth cannot be hidden; and the legitimacy of governments will ultimately depend on active and informed citizens.

Such open discourse is important even if what is said does not square with our world view. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard, even if we disagree with them. We look forward to working with all who embrace genuine and inclusive democracy. What we will oppose is an attempt by any group to restrict the rights of others, and to hold power through coercion - not consent. Because democracy depends not only on elections, but also strong and accountable institutions, and respect for the rights of minorities.

Such tolerance is particularly important when it comes to religion. In Tahrir Square, we heard Egyptians from all walks of life chant 'Muslims, Christians, we are one.' America will work to see that this spirit prevails - that all faiths are respected, and that bridges are built among them. In a region that was the birthplace of three world religions, intolerance can lead only to suffering and stagnation. And for this season of change to succeed, Coptic Christians must have the right to worship freely in Cairo, just as Shia must never have their mosques destroyed in Bahrain.

What is true for religious minorities is also true when it comes to the rights of women. History shows that countries are more prosperous and peaceful when women are empowered. That is why we will continue to insist that universal rights apply to women as well as men - by focusing assistance on child and maternal health; by helping women to teach, or start a business; by standing up for the right of women to have their voices heard, and to run for office. For the region will never reach its potential when more than half its population is prevented from achieving their potential.

Even as we promote political reform and human rights in the region, our efforts cannot stop there. So the second way that we must support positive change in the region is through our efforts to advance economic development for nations that transition to democracy.

After all, politics alone has not put protesters into the streets. The tipping point for so many people is the more constant concern of putting food on the table and providing for a family. Too many in the region wake up with few expectations other than making it through the day, and perhaps the hope that their luck will change. Throughout the region, many young people have a solid education, but closed economies leave them unable to find a job. Entrepreneurs are brimming with ideas, but corruption leaves them unable to profit from them.

The greatest untapped resource in the Middle East and North Africa is the talent of its people. In the recent protests, we see that talent on display, as people harness technology to move the world. It's no coincidence that one of the leaders of Tahrir Square was an executive for Google. That energy now needs to be channelled, in country after country, so that economic growth can solidify the accomplishments of the street. Just as democratic revolutions can be triggered by a lack of individual opportunity, successful democratic transitions depend upon an expansion of growth and broad-based prosperity.

Drawing from what we've learned around the world, we think it's important to focus on trade, not just aid; and investment, not just assistance. The goal must be a model in which protectionism gives way to openness; the reigns of commerce pass from the few to the many, and the economy generates jobs for the young. America's support for democracy will therefore be based on ensuring financial stability; promoting reform; and integrating competitive markets with each other and the global economy - starting with Tunisia and Egypt.

First, we have asked the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to present a plan at next week's G-8 summit for what needs to be done to stabilize and modernize the economies of Tunisia and Egypt. Together, we must help them recover from the disruption of their democratic upheaval, and support the governments that will be elected later this year. And we are urging other countries to help Egypt and Tunisia meet its near-term financial needs.

Second, we do not want a democratic Egypt to be saddled by the debts of its past. So we will relieve a democratic Egypt of up to $1 billion in debt, and work with our Egyptian partners to invest these resources to foster growth and entrepreneurship. We will help Egypt regain access to markets by guaranteeing $1 billion in borrowing that is needed to finance infrastructure and job creation. And we will help newly democratic governments recover assets that were stolen.

Third, we are working with Congress to create Enterprise Funds to invest in Tunisia and Egypt. These will be modelled on funds that supported the transitions in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. OPIC will soon launch a $2 billion facility to support private investment across the region. And we will work with allies to refocus the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development so that it provides the same support for democratic transitions and economic modernization in the Middle East and North Africa as it has in Europe.

Fourth, the United States will launch a comprehensive trade and investment partnership initiative in the Middle East and North Africa. If you take out oil exports, this region of over 400m people exports roughly the same amount as Switzerland. So we will work with the EU to facilitate more trade within the region, build on existing agreements to promote integration with US and European markets, and open the door for those countries who adopt high standards of reform and trade liberalization to construct a regional trade arrangement. Just as EU membership served as an incentive for reform in Europe, so should the vision of a modern and prosperous economy create a powerful force for reform in the Middle East and North Africa.

Prosperity also requires tearing down walls that stand in the way of progress - the corruption of elites who steal from their people; the red tape that stops an idea from becoming a business; the patronage that distributes wealth based on tribe or sect. We will help governments meet international obligations, and invest efforts anti-corruption; by working with parliamentarians who are developing reforms, and activists who use technology to hold government accountable.

Let me conclude by talking about another cornerstone of our approach to the region, and that relates to the pursuit of peace.

For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region. For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could get blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them. For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never living in a nation of their own. Moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security, prosperity, and empowerment to ordinary people.

My administration has worked with the parties and the international community for over two years to end this conflict, yet expectations have gone unmet. Israeli settlement activity continues. Palestinians have walked away from talks. The world looks at a conflict that has grinded on for decades, and sees a stalemate. Indeed, there are those who argue that with all the change and uncertainty in the region, it is simply not possible to move forward.

I disagree. At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever.

For the Palestinians, efforts to de-legitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.

As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel's security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it is important that we tell the truth: the status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.

The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River. Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself. A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people - not just a few leaders - must believe peace is possible. The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.

Ultimately, it is up to Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them, nor can endless delay make the problem go away. But what America and the international community can do is state frankly what everyone knows: a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognised borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself - by itself - against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I know that these steps alone will not resolve this conflict. Two wrenching and emotional issues remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians.

Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table. In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel - how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognise your right to exist. In the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question. Meanwhile, the United States, our Quartet partners, and the Arab states will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse.

I recognize how hard this will be. Suspicion and hostility has been passed on for generations, and at times it has hardened. But I'm convinced that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians would rather look to the future than be trapped in the past. We see that spirit in the Israeli father whose son was killed by Hamas, who helped start an organization that brought together Israelis and Palestinians who had lost loved ones. He said, 'I gradually realized that the only hope for progress was to recognize the face of the conflict.' And we see it in the actions of a Palestinian who lost three daughters to Israeli shells in Gaza. 'I have the right to feel angry,' he said. 'So many people were expecting me to hate. My answer to them is I shall not hate... Let us hope,' he said, 'for tomorrow'.

That is the choice that must be made - not simply in this conflict, but across the entire region - a choice between hate and hope; between the shackles of the past, and the promise of the future. It's a choice that must be made by leaders and by people, and it's a choice that will define the future of a region that served as the cradle of civilization and a crucible of strife.

For all the challenges that lie ahead, we see many reasons to be hopeful. In Egypt, we see it in the efforts of young people who led protests. In Syria, we see it in the courage of those who brave bullets while chanting, 'peaceful,' 'peaceful.' In Benghazi, a city threatened with destruction, we see it in the courthouse square where people gather to celebrate the freedoms that they had never known. Across the region, those rights that we take for granted are being claimed with joy by those who are prying lose the grip of an iron fist.

For the American people, the scenes of upheaval in the region may be unsettling, but the forces driving it are not unfamiliar. Our own nation was founded through a rebellion against an empire. Our people fought a painful civil war that extended freedom and dignity to those who were enslaved.

And I would not be standing here today unless past generations turned to the moral force of non-violence as a way to perfect our union - organizing, marching, and protesting peacefully together to make real those words that declared our nation: 'We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.'

Those words must guide our response to the change that is transforming the Middle East and North Africa - words which tell us that repression will fail, that tyrants will fall, and that every man and woman is endowed with certain inalienable rights. It will not be easy. There is no straight line to progress, and hardship always accompanies a season of hope. But the United States of America was founded on the belief that people should govern themselves.

Now, we cannot hesitate to stand squarely on the side of those who are reaching for their rights, knowing that their success will bring about a world that is more peaceful, more stable, and more just."

_________________
A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Вернуться к началу
Посмотреть профиль Отправить личное сообщение Посетить сайт автора
Показать сообщения:   
Начать новую тему   Ответить на тему    Список форумов пїЅпїЅпїЅпїЅпїЅпїЅпїЅ пїЅ пїЅпїЅ -> ...в Израиле Часовой пояс: GMT + 1
На страницу Пред.  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  След.
Страница 4 из 7

 
Перейти:  
Вы не можете начинать темы
Вы не можете отвечать на сообщения
Вы не можете редактировать свои сообщения
Вы не можете удалять свои сообщения
Вы не можете голосовать в опросах

Our friends Maxime-and-Co Двуязычный сайт для двуязычных семей Arbinada  Всё о русскоязычной Европе  Ницца для вас
У Додо. Сайт о Франции, музыке, искусстве  Вся русская Канада на Spravka.ca  Triimph Сайт бесплатного русского телевидения и радио, политическая аналитика multilingual online transliteration

 

??????? ???????? ??????? Русская Реклама Top List Находится в каталоге Апорт Russian America Top. Рейтинг ресурсов Русской Америки.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group