The Royal Anti-Shia Alliance

An Expanded Gulf Cooperation Council

BY 

DANIEL R. DEPETRIS

In a surprise announcement by Gulf Arab leaders last week, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) welcomed proposals by Jordan and Morocco to enter into the alliance. The GCC, consisting of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, has been wracked by internal protest against monarchial rule since the Arab spring began in Tunisia last January.

The Al Khalifa Sunni ruling family of Bahrain is still experiencing its most extensive period of civil unrest since earlier in the decade when Shiites rose up against the monarchy for an extension of political rights.

Saudi Arabia, the most powerful state in the GCC, continues to dispatch police to its restive Eastern Province where the bulk of its oil reserves are located, in order to crackdown on Shī’ah protests there. UAE authorities have launched arrest raids against human rights defenders and civil society activists, most of whom come from the emirates’ wealthy clientele. Oman under Sultan Qaboos bin Said has been relatively peaceful  compared to demonstrations that have turned violent elsewhere yet residents in the quiet Gulf sultanate are taking to the streets. Oil rich Kuwait is dragging its feet on providing citizenship to thousands of people who, although not Kuwaiti in origin, have moved to the small Gulf state to improve their lives.

The monarchies of the Persian Gulf are thus nervous about the type of political developments occurring around them, and in some cases, within their own borders. Saudis and emirates, who are preferably on the side of regional stability, have already acted in concert with the GCC to quell Bahrain’s protest movement. The offering of a GCC bid to Jordan and Morocco could be another tact to add new members and defend the alliance.

Why Jordan and Morocco? Like the GCC overall, both are pro-Western regimes boasting strong intelligence and military relationships with the United States. Both are indeed monarchies, which would suit them well in a club that is composed exclusively of kings and sultans. Both also happen to be countries with large Sunni populations, which would undoubtedly help Saudi Arabia and its Gulf partners unite the region’s Sunni community against encroaching Iranian influence.

But if Jordan and Morocco are welcomed to join, why not Egypt, Iraq or Yemen? Geographically speaking, Iraq and Yemen would be far more preferable than Jordan, which is not even considered a Persian Gulf nation to begin with. Iraq also happens to sit atop the region’s second largest pool of oil, a product which would fill the pockets of the GCC with billions of dollars more in revenue.

While Yemen’s oil production is scheduled to dry out completely in the next decade, Yemenis still possess more oil than the Jordanians, who rely almost completely on foreign aid to sustain their infrastructure and fund their government.

Post-Mubarak Egypt, still in its infant stage of democracy and trying to reassert itself as an independent power, was notably absent as well, straining ties between Egypt and its traditional Gulf backers. Yemen, with all of its domestic problems and a nationwide protest movement of its own, remains the ugly sister on the outside looking in.

The Jordanian and Moroccan bids should therefore be seen as a political strategy rather than an example of economic unification. Surrounded by an ascending Shī’ah Government in Iraq and the loss of a strategic ally in Hosni Mubarak, Gulf royals are nervous.

How the United States and Europe fit into this equation is still to be determined. Indeed, it is important to remember that just because Jordan and Morocco are encouraged to apply doesn’t mean that both will find a new home in the GCC. Yet if their applications are accepted, the regional balance of power will be tilted more towards the Sunni states.

Still waiting for an Egyptian revolution

As The Western Media Turned their eyes away, a fundamentalist Islamic state began taking root

BY SHERIF EMIL, THE GAZETTE MAY 17, 2011

For 18 straight days last winter, the world’s eyes were fixed on Egypt. After decades of tragedy after tragedy emanating from the Middle East, and from Egypt itself, something positive was happening. Egyptians were unshackling themselves from a heavy burden of perpetual dictatorship, and fanning the winds of freedom. Optimism was everywhere. Young people were using social media and modern communications to nurture the revolt. Men and women were participating side by side. Christians and Muslims were protecting each other, just days after 24 Christians had been brutally murdered on New Year’s Eve at the hands of Muslim fanatics.

A new Egypt was being born, and we were reminded of that hourly by the Western media. CNN’s Anderson Cooper took a personal interest in attacking thenpresident Hosni Mubarak after he narrowly escaped the wrath of pro-Mubarak mobs. For five straight days, he hosted a Johns Hopkins University political-science professor, Fouad Ajami, who pontificated about Egypt’s bright future and belittled the Islamist threat lurking in the wings. Almost every Western media outlet, from the BBC to the CBC, adopted the same line. The conventional wisdom was that the risk of Islamic extremism in Egypt was exaggerated by Mubarak, an instrument he was using to gain the West’s support and hold on to power. The cover of Maclean’s magazine after the revolution read: “How Egypt changed the world.” I was beginning to buy it myself.

On Feb. 11, the Mubarak regime fell. Like millions of Egyptians, I was elated and proud of my countrymen, although a deep worry about Egypt’s future dwelt in my heart. Western media reported on the celebrations, and then promptly left Egypt for neighbouring Libya. For the last three months, we have heard little about Egypt. You would think the story ended with democracy taking hold and the revolution’s youth realizing their progressive aspirations. But it didn’t.

The stories that followed the revolution have been as important as, if not more important than, the revolution itself, despite the flagrant lack of interest displayed by the Western media.

Days after the revolution, Muslim mobs, apparently angered by a romance between a Christian man and a Muslim woman, burned a church to the ground in the village of Sol as the army watched. Muslims in the village then turned against their Christian neighbours and destroyed their homes. For days, Christians were forbidden to return to their homes. When Christian youth staged a protest camp in front of the Egyptian TV building, the army violently ended their sit-in. Another peaceful demonstration by Copts ended with 13 Christians dead when thugs opened fire on them, while army officers sitting on their tanks watched from a short distance. When a Christian blogger dared to criticize the army, he was sentenced to three years in jail after a 20-minute military trial.

Within weeks of the revolution, the army set up a hasty referendum on a temporary constitutional decree that clearly and strongly favoured the Muslim Brotherhood. The referendum passed by 77 per cent after an intense campaign by Islamists that equated a Yes vote for the decree with religious duty. When Mohammed El-Baradei, Egypt’s hope for reform, tried to vote No, he was pelted by rocks, called an American agent, and chased away from the voting booth.

And then came the Salafists, Egyptian Muslims who espouse Saudi Wahhabi style Islam, the most fundamentalist and radical form. They seek to establish a pure Islamic state devoid of Christians, whom they refer to as “filth.” Nurtured by the Mubarak regime to counterbalance the Muslim Brotherhood, who had a strong popular base, they began to show their fangs after the revolution.

When the government appointed a Christian governor for one of the southern provinces, they violently protested and cut off the main north-south highway and railroad lines in the country for days. As the country was paralyzed, the ruling generals watched in silence. The temporary civilian government initially expressed rage, only for the acting prime minister to visit days later, suspend the Christian governor, and promise to meet all the Salafists’ demands.

In incident after incident, the demands of Salafists and other Islamic extremists were being generously accommodated. It became clear who was the de facto power in Egypt. It was Muslim fundamentalists, not the temporary civilian government or the armed forces.

And then 10 days ago, the Western media finally decided to return to Egypt. It took the burning of two more churches on May 7, the deaths of 13 more people, and the injury of more than 250 during another senseless Muslim attack on Christians to get the attention of the media once again.

The Egyptian spring was short-lived and had turned into a long, hard, cold winter. Mubarak had many times reminded Egyptians of their two sad choices – his dictatorship (and corruption), or Islamic extremists. On that, he was right. Egyptians had rejected him, and are now on the verge of willingly espousing the only alternative they know. Decades of state-sponsored and mosque-sponsored teaching of hate, discrimination and intolerance in Egypt had born results.

In a Pew Research poll of Egyptians’ attitudes toward government and religion, taken after the revolution, 62 per cent of Egyptians said that laws should strictly follow the teachings of the Quran, and one-third sympathized with Islamic fundamentalists. While 54 per cent want to annul the three-decade-old peace treaty with Israel, only 36 per cent believe that Christians and other religious minorities should be allowed to practise their faith freely.

Egyptians understand democracy as the majority’s imposition of hegemony over the minority. They want to “democratically” institutionalize the discrimination and persecution of Christians that has existed unofficially in Egypt for hundreds of years.

The Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood and the tens of millions of their supporters are buoyed by those results. They smell an Islamic state in the making. Only one barrier stands in their way: 10 million indigenous Egyptian Christians who have preserved their faith intact despite 14 centuries of uninterrupted suffering. And so the Islamists are accelerating their attacks that led to last week’s bloodshed, and whose end no one dares to imagine.

And what happened to the progressive youth of the Egyptian revolution? What happened to those who braved water cannons, government thugs, thick tear gas, and live bullets? What happened to the tens of thousands who left their homes daily last winter, not knowing if they would come back?

They have been silenced by the one force that they cannot – dare not – confront: Islam.

And so I still wait for an Egyptian revolution. I wait for a revolution in thought, in ideas. I wait for a revolution that values tolerance, one that grants every Egyptian equal citizenship whether he or she be Muslim, Christian or atheist. I wait for a progressive Egypt that opens itself up to the 21st century, a country that revives its ancient civilization, a country that rejects ignorance and backwardness and prejudice and discrimination.

I wait for a revolution that revives Egypt’s economy and translates economic success into social justice. I wait for a revolution that leads to a civil, not a religious, state built on the rule of law and respect for human rights. I wait for the Egypt the revolution intended, not the one the revolution produced.

If we in the West believe this is an internal Egyptian matter that should not disturb us, we are naive. The common calling of revolutions spreading across the Middle East from Yemen to Egypt to Libya to Syria is “Allah Akbar” – an Islamic call to arms. Even in moderate Tunisia, Islamists have made huge gains since the revolution and are poised to win the next elections. The current Egyptian government has already made overtures toward Iran, and brought Hamas back into the Palestinian fold. A homogeneously fundamentalist Islamic Middle East is taking shape. And if we think we saw the worst of radical Islam on 9/11 or in Afghanistan, we are in for a nasty surprise.

Sherif Emil is a Montreal physician.

© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette

Transcript: Obama’s Middle East Speech

http://www.theroot.com/buzz/transcript-obamas-middle-east-speech

• By: Jenée Desmond-Harris
  
• 

President Barack Obama (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

Read the remarks of President Barack Obama on the Middle East and North Africa, delivered today at the State Department:

Remarks of President Barack Obama — as Prepared for Delivery

“A Moment of Opportunity”

U.S. Department of State

May 19, 2011

As Prepared for Delivery –

I want to thank Hillary Clinton, who has traveled so much these last six months that she is approaching a new landmark: 1 million frequent flyer miles. I count on Hillary every day, and I believe that she will go down as of the finest secretaries of state in our nation’s history.

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 Dec. 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. Cellphones and social networks allow young people to connect and organize 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 nonviolence, 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 safeguarding 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 peoples’ 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 long-standing 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 Qaddafi 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 Qaddafi. He does not have control over his country. The opposition has organized a legitimate and credible Interim Council. And when Qaddafi 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 Dara’a; 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 stand 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 brutalized 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 publically 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 multiethnic, multisectarian 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 cooperation 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 worldview. 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 channeled, 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 reins 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 modeled 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 400 million 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 U.S. 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 to 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 delegitimize 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 unshakable. 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 recognized 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, nonmilitarized 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 recognize 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 nonviolence 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.

Obama/Saudi Plan for the West Bank (“Judea and Samaria”)

Mid-East: Obama and Netanyahu to hold Washington talks

Barack Obama: “Let’s get started on a conversation about territory, and about security”

US President Barack Obama is to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington shortly amid sharp differences on the way forward for the Middle East peace process.

Mr Obama has said a future Palestinian state must be based on the borders that existed prior to the 1967 war.

He said “mutually agreed swaps” would help create “a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel”.

But Mr Netanyahu said the pre-1967 borders were “indefensible”.

An estimated 500,000 Israelis live in settlements built in the West Bank, which lies outside those borders.

The settlements are illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.

In a keynote speech on Thursday on the future of US policy in the Middle East, President Obama said: “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.”

In a statement, Mr Netanyahu’s office said he appreciated Mr Obama’s “commitment to peace” but that for peace to endure, “the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state”.

The statement called on Mr Obama to reaffirm commitments made to Israel by the US in 2004.

“Among other things, those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centres in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines,” it said.

“Those commitments also ensure Israel’s well-being as a Jewish state by making clear that Palestinian refugees will settle in a future Palestinian state rather than in Israel.”

One Israeli official travelling to Washington on the plane with Mr Netanyahu said: “There is a feeling that Washington does not understand the reality, doesn’t understand what we face.”

But Arab League chief, Amr Moussa, on Friday called on President Obama to remain committed to a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders.

“There must be balance in talk about security of all parties, and not just focusing on the security of Israel without regard for the security of others,” he said.

‘Arab Spring’

The BBC’s Wyre Davies in Jerusalem says that while Mr Netanyahu will be warmly welcomed in the US, he is coming under increasing international pressure to ease his objections to a Palestinian state following the unity deal signed between rival Palestinian groups Hamas and Fatah earlier this month.

If the unity project holds, says our correspondent, Mr Netanyahu could find himself foundering while other countries embrace fresh Palestinian initiatives.

• Obstacles to peace: Borders and settlements
• Mid-East media lukewarm on Obama speech

Israel’s claim to being the only democratic state in the region has also been undermined by the dramatic developments of the “Arab Spring” anti-government uprisings, our correspondent adds.

The push for democracy began with the overthrowing of Tunisian President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali in January. Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak was later toppled in Egypt, with demonstrators in Libya currently working to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi.

Similar uprisings are also taking hold in Bahrain, Yemen and Syria.

The Palestinian leadership is split between the Palestinian Authority, which is dominated by the Fatah political faction and governs the West Bank, and the Islamist movement Hamas, which runs the Gaza Strip.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is due to meet colleagues to decide on the next move, with senior officials saying they have been ordered not to speak to reporters beforehand.

A senior member of Hamas, Foreign Minister Mohamed Awad, told the BBC that tangible steps were needed from the US president, not mere slogans.

“Obama didn’t say anything about the suffering of the Palestinian people, who are suffering for more than 63 years,” he said.

“He didn’t say that the peace process had already reached a dead end… He tried to please everyone but he didn’t try to please the Palestinian people.”

US Republicans charge Obama betrayed Israel

WASHINGTON: Top Republican contenders for the White House in 2012 accused President Barack Obama on Thursday of betraying staunch US ally Israel in his new long-shot push for Middle East peace.

“President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus,” thundered former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, generally viewed as the frontrunner in the race for the party’s presidential nomination.

“He has disrespected Israel and undermined its ability to negotiate peace. He has also violated a first principle of American foreign policy, which is to stand firm by our friends,” Romney said in a statement.

Obama declared earlier in a sweeping speech on the Middle East that that the borders of Israel and a future Palestinian state must be based on 1967 lines, igniting an immediate clash with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Netanyahu has vigorously opposed a formula that would see Israel withdraw to the geographical lines in place before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, and immediately rejected Obama’s formula.

The Israeli premier was to get a high-profile chance to offer his rebuttal when he addresses a rare joint session of the US Congress on Tuesday at Republican House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation.

Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, another likely 2012 contender, said in a statement that Obama’s proposal was “a mistaken and very dangerous demand.”

“At this time of upheaval in the Middle East, it’s never been more important for America to stand strong for Israel and for a united Jerusalem.”

Pawlenty, like many other Republicans, fretted about a reconciliation agreement between Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas’s Fatah faction and the Islamist movement Hamas, branded by Washington a terrorist group.

“To send a signal to the Palestinians that America will increase its demands on our ally Israel, on the heels of the Palestinian Authority’s agreement with the Hamas terrorist organization, is a disaster waiting to happen,” said Pawlenty.

Some other potential candidates, including former Utah governor Jon Huntsman — fresh off two years serving as Obama’s ambassador to China — had no immediate reaction.

But former US House speaker Newt Gingrich blasted what he called the “most dangerous speech given by an American president in terms of Israel’s survival.”

And Republican Representative Michele Bachmann, who is close to the archconservative “Tea Party” movement and has been mentioned as a possible 2012 candidate, charged that Obama “has betrayed our friend and ally Israel.”

“President Obama: No friend of Israel and no friend of Middle East peace,” she said on her Facebook page.

“I believe Obama’s call for 1967 borders will cause chaos, division, and greater aggression in the Middle East and put Israel at further risk,” she said.

The US/Saudi/Israeli Counter-Revolution

What Obama could not possibly say

By Pepe Escobar

To follow Pepe’s articles on the Great Arab Revolt, please clickhere.

Facts on the ground will decide whether the United States really “values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw power of the dictator”.

So let’s start with a fact. For US President Barack Obama, Saudi Arabia is not in the Middle East. Maybe the House of Saud has relocated the deserts and the oil to Oceania without telling anyone. In his major speech on Thursday from where the opening quote comes, and where, according to the Reuters gospel, he would “lay out a new US strategy toward a skeptical Arab world”, the skeptical Arabs, and the whole world for that matter, never heard these fateful two words, “Saudi” and “Arabia”. Even India, Indonesia and Brazil were mentioned.

That goes a long way to explain how the US, once again according to the Reuters gospel, plans to “shape the outcome of popular uprisings”; by not even naming the Middle Eastern power behind the ongoing counter-revolution against the great 2011 Arab revolt.

Obama tried to shape what Clintonites define as “ambitious realism”. It was more like ambitious fiction. By insisting on America’s set of “principles” and not so subtly trying once again to monopolize the moral high ground – issuing dispensations on regime change from Muammar Gaddafi (already gone) to Syria’s Bashar al-Assad (reform or go), Obama tried to rewrite history by inscribing Washington at the heart of the Arab-wide push for democracy. It may fool Americans. It didn’t fool the Arab street.

It took three long months for Obama to finally deal with the al-Khalifa dynasty in Bahrain – without ever mentioning their masters Saudi Arabia. He let the Bahraini rulers off the hook with a State Department-issued velvet glove, at the same time deviating into a Riyadh/Tel Aviv-approved script blaming the evil of all evils Iran; “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.”

It’s much more Orwellian than mere “brute force”; it’s the University of Bahrain, for instance, forcing students to sign a pledge of allegiance to the government, promising not to defy the monarchy; otherwise they’ll be expelled.

So to make a story short, here’s a concise New Middle East Obama policy. We support “our” bastards (dictators) who are sophisticated enough to beat, arrest and kill their own people in the low hundreds (Bahrain). We get slightly annoyed by “our” war on terror collaborators who crudely beat, arrest and kill their own people also in the low hundreds (Yemen). We’re strongly inclined to ditch our support for unreliable, Iran-aligned dictators who beat, arrest and kill their own people in the high hundreds (Syria).

We unleash war – via the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as a weaponized arm of the United Nations – over unreliable oil-wealthy dictators who beat, arrest and kill their own people in alleged thousands (Libya). And we remain absolute mute about “our” monarchical bastards who pre-empt the possibility of democratic protests (Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia) or invade their neighbors to smash ongoing peaceful protests (Saudi Arabia).

‘Final solution’ or bust 
On the absolutely central issue for the Arab word, Obama seemed to demonstrate sound judgment by supporting a two-state solution for Israel/Palestine, based on the 1967 borders, “with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine”. There’s the initial rub to end all rubs; no Israeli government will ever accept this – provided, as Obama hinted, it decides what percentage it wants to keep from those stolen lands.

Israel never defined its own borders. Since – and even before – 1948 Zionists dream of an Eretz Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates rivers. As the Euphrates was, and now more than ever is not in the market, Zionists settled for the whole, former Palestine mandate. That’s the (invisible) meaning of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisting Palestinians must recognize Israel as “the Jewish state”.

If they did, 1.5 million Palestinians – already infra-citizens in Israel – would be instantly denationalized and expelled en masse to the Palestinian Bantustan configured as the “final solution” to the Zionist “demographic problem”.

Obama’s set of conditions for the Palestinians sounded like a press release from Tel Aviv; against the reunion between Hamas and Fatah, against the planned Palestinian bid for statehood during the UN General Assembly in September. Nothing on sprawling, already existing settlements in the West Bank, just a call for Israel to cease “settlement activity” (what’s that? A cousin of “kinetic military activity”?) No wonder Israeli media is spinning all this as a Netanyahu victory.

And when Obama stressed that “endless delay” won’t “make the problem go away” he totally missed the point; it’s by employing “endless delay” tactics that every Israeli government has kept settlement-building on overdrive and totally encircled East Jerusalem, while relentlessly applying a “divide and rule” strategy (pitting Fatah against Hamas) to crush Palestinian morale.

No flowery rhetoric can conceal that this is all about – what else – “protecting” Israel (mentioned 28 times in the speech). Further factual confirmation this weekend, when Obama addresses the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee bash, and next Monday, when Netanyahu addresses that Tel Aviv talk shop known as the US Congress.

For the moment, the Arab street says he totally blew it. And a furious Israel said no, no, no to any concession.

Blame the Shi’ite crescent
How could Obama’s dodgy rhetoric possibly jeopardize the oil-for-security US/Saudi pact with the devil? (Which side the devil is on is open to debate). Especially when the House of Saud – and US weapons manufacturers – are smacking their lips about a monster $60 billion deal involving dozens of F-15 jet fighters which will prevail against “existential threat” Iran (oops, wasn’t that an Israeli excuse? Well, they’re one and the same anyway).

How could Obama’s leadership possibly admit live, to the whole world, that a US-Saudi-Israeli counter-revolution has been on since late February to smash the great 2011 Arab revolt – as Asia Times Online has been reporting?

How could Obama possibly admit that the weapon of choice of the counter-revolution is the anti-Shi’ite card – against Persian Shi’ites in Iran as well as Arab Shi’ites in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon, Oman and Syria; and that makes it, in a tragic but predictable sense, an al-Qaeda strategy at heart?

How could Obama possibly admit that Abdullah II, the Playstation King of Jordan, invented the idea of the “Shi’ite crescent” way back in 2004, and now it’s been dusted off, hopefully with more success?

How could Obama possibly admit that Washington’s demented obsession with Iran – with Tel Aviv adding fuel to the fire non-stop – is now being graphically exposed as an US/Saudi/Israeli sectarian prejudice against Shi’ism? (Quite a feat for Shi’ites to be simultaneously discriminated against by a Christian/Jewish/Wahhabi Muslim “coalition of the willing”).

How could Obama possibly admit, as professor of Arab politics at Columbia Joseph Massad has been one of a few to point out, that “the US-supported repression in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen, Jordan, Morocco, Algeria, and in the United Arab Emirates goes hand in hand with the Euro-American-Qatari intervention in Libya to safeguard the oil wells for Western companies once a new government is in place”?

And how could Obama possibly admit that the defining struggle of these times is the great 2011 Arab revolt against the US/Saudi/Israeli counter-revolution?

The chattering classes in Washington dubbed Obama’s speech “Cairo II”, a reset of his original 2009 Cairo speech “selling” democracy to the Arab world. They’ve bought it – wholesale.

Cairo itself has much more to say about it than Obama’s rhetorical change we can believe in. Watch out if Cairo and the rest of Egypt elect a truly sovereign, truly independent government. Only then the real Arab revolution will start. We’re all Egyptians now.

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).

He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.

Where is the ‘reset’?

Valentin Zorin

Collage: The “Voice of Russia”

What the world has come to understand by ‘reset’ is the political course aimed at putting US-Russian relations on a new track, as coined by President Obama as he waived George W. Bush’s much beloved project of deploying American missiles in close proximity to Russia’s borders on the territory of Poland and the Czech Republic. That was a serious move, paving the way for settling a number of other, equally important issues, in relations between Russia and the United States.

The signing of the START 3 Treaty marked a major step in this direction. Good will and political honesty are needed if this reset is going to be more than a catchy phrase and become a full-blown political program.

However, a few days ago Washington and Bucharest announced plans to deploy a new missile base in Deveselu, in the south of Romania. This decision is at odds with the entire logic of the Russian-American missile defense dialogue which has been going on for months. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin expressed his disappointment in connection with the plans, saying that Russia had voiced its position concerning missile defense bases in Europe on many occasions and it seemed that Moscow had managed to come to accord with Washington that there would be no anti-missile facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic. And right out of the blue, Putin said, comes the news that the missiles will be deployed in other countries of Eastern Europe. Given the circumstances a good question to ask is: Where is the ‘reset’?

This is an unreasonable position for Washington and would be dangerous for Russian-US relations and for the US as such.

A total of 230 large military bases are currently stationed in 70 countries, not to mention 5,500 smaller permanent deployment bases for the US military, all beyond the borders of the US. These bases are home to more than 250,000 army soldiers. The Pentagon keeps silent on what it costs to maintain the bases. Along with poisoning international relations, new bases in Eastern Europe would create new problems and mildly speaking, would do nothing to reduce an astronomical 14-trillion dollar state debt which is threatening to draw the US economy into an abyss.

The ‘reset’ in bilateral relations which calls for abandoning claims for global supremacy is not a whim of the presidential team that came to power in the US three years ago but a political reality. Any deviation from these policies is unwise and fraught with danger.

Obama Peacemaker or Zionist?–the Moment of Truth Has Arrived

Israeli prime minister disappointed by Obama: official

WASHINGTON

(Reuters) – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was disappointed by U.S. President Barack Obama’s comments on Israeli-Palestinian peace in his speech on the Middle East, a senior Israeli official said on Friday.

“There is a feeling that Washington does not understand the reality, doesn’t understand what we face,” the official said on board a plane taking Netanyahu to Washington for talks later in the day with Obama.

“The prime minister’s tough response expresses the disappointment with the absence of central issues that Israel demanded, chiefly the refugee (issue),” he added.

(Reporting by Jeffrey Heller, editing by Crispian Balmer)

US Diplomats Escape Death After Bomb Hits Their Vehicle In Peshawar

US diplomats escape death after bomb attack in Peshawar

Omer Farooq Khan, TNN

Powerful blast in Peshawar kills one and injures 10.

ISLAMABAD: US diplomats escaped death when a roadside bomb hit their vehicle in Pakistan’s north western city of Peshawar on Friday, killing a passerby and wounding two American nationals and nine locals.

The bomb went off as two armoured US vehicles were traveling in a convoy towards the consulate on the University Road in the city.

Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) has claimed responsibility for the attack. The TTP spokesman Ihsanullah Ihsan said that it was a planted bomb and the target was the US. “Our first target is Pakistan, then US and NATO countries. We have sent people to every corner of the country to avenge bin Laden’s killing,” the spokesman said.

Alberto Rodriguez, the US embassy spokesperson in Islamabad said the diplomats were travelling in armoured cars.”The attack was deliberately targeted against consulate vehicles,” he said.

“It was a bomb blast. It may have been a suicide attack. We are still investigating.”

The US maintains a significant presence in Peshawar, a city close to the Afghan border. In August 2008, Lynne Tracy, a US diplomat at the consulate survived an attack on her armoured vehicle. Last year in April, militants attacked the US consulate, killing eight people. None of the dead were US citizens, but several were security guards working for the consulate.

Pakistan has seen an upsurge in violence since the US raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad. This is, however, the first attack against westerners in the country after bin Laden’s killing.

Al-Qaida and its Pakistani Taliban allies have threatened to avenge the May 2 killing of Osama bin Laden by US commandos. On Wednesday, swarms of militants attacked a police checkpoint just outside the city, killing two officers and 15 attackers died in a fire fight that lasted hours through the night.

Last Friday, a double suicide bombing killed more than 100 people in Shabqadar town, 35 km north of Peshawar. Seventy eight of the dead were cadets of Frontier Constabulary, a police force mostly deployed in the semi-autonomous tribal regions.

Pakistan has made clear its displeasure that US did not warn it in advance about the offensive against bin Laden’s, and has insisted that it had no idea of the terror mastermind hiding in Abbottabad.

US officials have recently visited Pakistan to try and mend ties, and assure Pakistan’s continued cooperation in the war against terror.

Israel rejects total pullback to 1967 borders

By Jeffrey Heller

TEL AVIV | Thu May 19, 2011 5:28pm EDT

(Reuters) – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu headed for talks in Washington on Friday saying that U.S. President Barack Obama’s vision of a Palestinian state on the borders of 1967 could leave Israel “indefensible.”

“The viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of Israel’s existence,” he said in a statement before flying to the United States for scheduled talks with Obama.

Responding to a major Obama speech on Thursday outlining Middle East strategy, Netanyahu said he expected Washington to let Israel keep major settlement blocs beyond the 1967 lines in the occupied West Bank, under any peace deal with Palestinians.

Israeli officials seemed taken aback by the language in Obama’s speech. Asked if Netnayahu had been forewarned by Washington, one said: “No comment.” But some Israeli reporters accompanying the prime minister predicted a stormy meeting.

Setting out the principles of a Middle East peace accord, Obama reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to Israel’s security.

He called for a deal resulting in two states, Israel and Palestine, sharing the border that existed before Israel captured the West Bank in the 1967 Middle East war.

It would include “mutually agreed land swaps,” he said. In a pointed reply, Netanyahu said he expected “to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004″ — an allusion to a letter by then-President George W. Bush suggesting the Jewish state may keep big settlement blocs as part of any peace pact.

“Those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines,” Netanyahu added. Such a border, Netanyahu said, would be “indefensible.”

ABBAS “APPRECIATES” OBAMA EFFORTS

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas welcomed Obama’s efforts to renew the talks with Israel that collapsed last year, and had made plans to convene an “emergency” session of Palestinian and Arab officials to weigh further steps, a senior aide said.

Saeb Erekat, a former chief peace negotiator, said: “Abbas expresses his appreciation of the continuous efforts exerted by President Obama with the objective of resuming the permanent status talks in the hope of reaching a final status agreement.”

Obama’s blunt language about the need to find an end to Israel’s occupation of Arab land looked certain to be the crunch issue in his talks with Netanyahu.

“The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation,” Obama said.

His emphasis on 1967 borders went further than Obama has before in offering principles for resolving the stalemate between Israel and the Palestinians. But he stopped short of presenting a formal U.S. peace plan.

Obama’s criticism of continued Israeli “settlement activity” sent a message to Netanyahu on the eve of their talks that Washington expects the Jewish state to make concessions.

A senior member of Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud party, Danny Danon, accused Obama of seeking to destroy Israel by adopting the vision of the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

“Netanyahu only has one option: to tell Obama to forget about it,” Danon said, according to Israeli media.

However, Obama’s suggestion that negotiations should focus initially on territory and security, leaving the difficult issues of Jerusalem and the return of Palestinian refugees to a later date, appeared to chime with Netanyahu’s own position.

Likewise, Obama’s firm rejection of Palestinian moves to seek recognition of their statehood at the United Nations delighted Israeli officials. Abbas made no comment.

The Palestinians plan to pursue their statehood quest in September at the annual meeting of the U.N. General Assembly.

Peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, brokered by Washington, collapsed last year when Netanyahu refused to extend a moratorium on Jewish settlement-building in the West Bank and Abbas refused to carry on negotiations.

In Gaza, the Islamist Palestinian movement Hamas said Obama had no business criticizing the recent reconciliation pact between Hamas and Abbas’s secular Fatah movement, intended to end a damaging four-year split and produce a unity government.

“The peoples of the region are not in need of Obama’s lectures,” spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said. “Obama reaffirmed his absolute support for the policies of the (Israeli) occupation and his rejection of any criticism of the Occupation.”

“We affirm that Palestinian reconciliation is a Palestinian affair and that the (peace) negotiations have proven to be pointless,” he said. “Hamas will never recognize the Israeli occupation under any circumstances.”

(Additional reporting by Allyn Fisher-Ilan, Ori Lewis and Nidal al-Mughrabi; writing by Douglas Hamilton; editing by Mark Heinrich)