The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

That there are bonds is well known, what these bonds are is less well understood. Americans are bonded to Israel not by history or culture, in which Arabs and Israelis are more similar than different, but by the control that Jewish Americans exercise over the State in America.

As for a tragic history, its relevance here is questionable. If to assuage the guilt of German Christians at their crimes against European Jews, Israel had been created in say Alsace-Lorraine, would there be a problem in Palestine today? If belief in the literal truth of scriptures is fundamentalism, a primary insurgent ideology to be exterminated with state violence as US Army Manuals, for example, teach, then how can Old Testament texts – the extant ones, held by many Biblical scholars to be corrupted beyond repair — be the basis to dispossess one set of people from their ancestral lands, homes, and property, and lives, not to mention their dignity, honour, and freedom?

As for Palestinian history, Mr. Obama should refresh his memory of US President Wilson’s address of July 4, 1918, and re-read what his fellow Chicagoan, Charles R. Crane, and his colleague from Michigan, Dr. Henry Churchill King, had observed and recommended (in the 1919 King-Crane Commission Report, with which America’s involvement in the Middle East started, of which the briefest of excerpt is as follows):

[BEGIN QUOTE] E. We recommend, in the fifth place, serious modification of the extreme Zionist program for Palestine of unlimited immigration of Jews, looking finally to making Palestine distinctly a Jewish State.

(1) The Commissioners began their study of Zionism with minds predisposed in its favor, but the actual facts in Palestine, coupled with the force of the general principles proclaimed by the Allies and accepted by the Syrians have driven them to the recommendation here made.

(2) The commission was abundantly supplied with literature on the Zionist program by the Zionist Commission to Palestine; heard in conferences much concerning the Zionist colonies and their claims; and personally saw something of what had been accomplished. They found much to approve in the aspirations and plans of the Zionists, and had warm appreciation for the devotion of many of the colonists and for their success, by modern methods, in overcoming natural obstacles.

(3) The Commission recognized also that definite encouragement had been given to the Zionists by the Allies in Mr. Balfour’s often quoted statement in its approval by other representatives of the Allies. If, however, the strict terms of the Balfour Statement are adhered to – favoring “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” “it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights existing in non-Jewish communities in Palestine”- it can hardly be doubted that the extreme Zionist Program must be greatly modified.

For “a national home for the Jewish people” is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State; nor can the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the “civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.

In his address of July 4, 1918, President Wilson laid down the following principle as one of the four great “ends for which the associated peoples of the world were fighting”; “The settlement of every question, whether of territory, of sovereignty, of economic arrangement, or of political relationship upon the basis of the free acceptance of that settlement by the people immediately concerned and not upon the basis of the material interest or advantage of any other nation or people which may desire a different settlement for the sake of its own exterior influence or mastery.” If that principle is to rule, and so the wishes of Palestine’s population are to be decisive as to what is to be done with Palestine, then it is to be remembered that the non-Jewish population of Palestine-nearly nine tenths of the whole-are emphatically against the entire Zionist program. The tables show that there was no one thing upon which the population of Palestine were more agreed than upon this. To subject a people so minded to unlimited Jewish immigration, and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principle just quoted, and of the people’s rights, though it kept within the forms of law. [END QUOTE]

Long before Israel had been created, the Arabs had always believed that they enjoyed as strong a relation with America as any other people. Mr. Obama’s reference to history is curious to say the least.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed — more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction — or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews — is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

Mr. Obama is raising afresh the suffering of European Jewry at the hands of German Christians. Since he cites history, he should remember that on 14 February 1945, when King Saud met with US President Roosevelt aboard the USS Quincy in Great Bitter Lake in the Suez Canal, Roosevelt, much like Obama, asked for the Arab King’s advice and suggestions on what could be done for European Jewry. King Saud had replied: “Give them and their descendants the choicest lands and homes of the Germans who had oppressed them.” When pressed further by Roosevelt, King Saud replied: “Make the enemy and the oppressor pay; that is how we Arabs wage war. Amends should be made by the criminal, not by the innocent bystander. What injury have Arabs done to the Jews of Europe? It is the ‘Christian’ Germans who stole their homes and lives. Let the Germans pay.” This has been the Muslim view, ever since. In the end, Roosevelt promised Ibn Saud that “the U. S. Government would make no change in its basic policy in Palestine without full and prior consultation with both Jews and Arabs.” In the event, US President Truman unilaterally reneged on Roosevelt’s promise to Ibn Saud with the explanation, “I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism; I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.” [Source pdf]

As for the Holocaust, accepting Mr. Obama’s invitation that “in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts” let us respond openly to what he insinuates here. The insinuation that Iranian President Ahmedinijad has said Israel must be wiped of the map or words to this effect, is completely false. What he said, in Persian, is: “Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad,” in which “Israel” is not even mentioned; instead the exact reference is to “the regime occupying Jerusalem” (in other words he called for a regime change in Jerusalem which is both comparable to similar demands from the United States, and much milder than the “Axis of Evil” language that Mr. Bush employed). In fact his position is spelt out in a Letter to US President Bush that merits reading and re-reading by Americans.

Finally, “vile stereotypes” are characteristic of Christian-Jewish encounters, and not Muslim-Jewish ones; if Mr. Obama wishes to make an accusation then he should speak more clearly.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they’ve endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations — large and small — that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own. (Applause.)

Unfortunately, this realisation of Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians is not followed up by any declaration of principles, much less concrete action. Why didn’t Mr. Obama declare America’s commitment to confine Israel to its pre-1967 borders on which with the exception of Israel everyone, including the united States, is agreed? A European Jewish organisation has gone further and called for the US to impose sanctions on Israel.

For decades then, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It’s easy to point fingers — for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel’s founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security. (Applause.)

We should recall that five days before the United States bombed Afghanistan, US President George Bush declared on 2 October 2001 that “The idea of a Palestinian state has always been part of a vision, so long as the right of Israel to exist is respected.” We now know that like many others to come this too was a white lie; Mr. Bush was working covertly with Israel to further its aims, and had no intention of fulfilling this promise. How can we be sure that similar covert understandings have not been given to the Israelis: after all, on the sidelines of the Netanyahu-Obama meeting, at a ’strategic dialog’ meeting in Washington, Israel was assured that the US will continue to support Israel’s missile defence research and development.

That is in Israel’s interest, Palestine’s interest, America’s interest, and the world’s interest. And that is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience and dedication that the task requires. (Applause.) The obligations — the obligations that the parties have agreed to under the road map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them — and all of us — to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America’s founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It’s a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That’s not how moral authority is claimed; that’s how it is surrendered.

You can say that again: Mr. Obama’s long silence on ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza is deafening. To the extent that American weapons are being used — see the tragic story of how American bombs killed the grandmother of an American citizen [here] — Mr. Obama should also say: It is a sign neither of courage nor power to supply rockets that are shot at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That’s not how moral authority is claimed; that’s how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel’s right to exist.

This is fair; but shouldn’t we also say: “Israel must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognise Palestinian’s right to exist” in all of their ancestral lands?

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (Applause.) This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop. (Applause.)

Again, not just stop, but to be rolled back to agreed boundaries.

And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel’s security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

Is “continuing humanitarian crisis,” the best that can be said? Who is causing this crisis? With weapons supplied by whom? How many innocent women and children have been killed? Above all, should it be stopped only because it “does not serve Israel’s security”? Is there no inherent value to be attached to Palestinian blood? Above all, are these pious sentiments to be backed by credible threats of arms embargo, sanctions, and military intervention to which Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan have been subjected. If the Americans can threaten Pakistan to bomb extremists in Swat unless they do it first, why not threaten Israel to bomb extremists in Gaza and the West Bank unless they do it first?

And finally, the Arab states must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state, to recognize Israel’s legitimacy, and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

This takes a lot of chutzpah! Israeli atrocities “should not be allowed to distract” those who are dying… etc. Why, then, does the death of 3,000 Americans 8 years ago continue to distract the Americans from other grave problems with which they are beset, while they seek terrible vengeance from those who had nothing whatsoever to do with these deaths? How can this double standard be justified after the promise made at the start of the speech?

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. (Applause.) We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have been shed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra — (applause) — as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer. (Applause.)