[Gamal Hamal told IMRA late Monday 23.5.2011 that the English version of his
remarks, as reported by Asharq Al-Awsat, has an error in the quote that
"Actually and practically, what Obama has said about the 1967 being the
basis of the negotiations is completely different from the Arab and
Palestinian stance."

What he actually said was that President Obama has adopted the Arab position
on 242 by apparently embracing the French version of 242 [AL: the English
version is the official binding version of 242] that includes the word "the"
in "the territories" - thus requiring complete withdrawal in contrast to the
English 242 that does not include the word "the" and thus a withdrawal of
some kind is required but not a complete withdrawal.

"This new thesis, which President Obama presented in his Thursday's speech,
supports the Arab viewpoint, and is a basic hindrance for the Israeli side,
which links the size of Israel before 1967 to the ability to defend it, as
the Israelis say that if Israel is of small area, it will be difficult to
defend it."

Ex-presidential aide critical of Obama's speech
22/05/2011 By Hiba Al-Qudsi
http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=1&id=25273

Washington, Asharq Al-Awsat- Gamal Helal, former adviser to US presidents
for Middle East affairs, has pointed out that president Obama's statement
concerning the pre-1967 borders being the basis of negotiations is not in
practice a surprise to the Palestinian side.

This is because since the start of the peace process, the Arab stance toward
negotiations - including the Egyptian-Israeli and the Jordanian-Israeli
negotiations - always started and ended on the consideration that the 1967
borders are the basis of negotiations. However, the surprise is that Obama
has considered this principle from now on to be the basis of US policy in
the issue of the Middle East peace process.

In an exclusive interview with Asharq Al-Awsat Helal said that President
Barack Obama's statement is the first time that the United States adopts an
interpretation of the UN Resolution 242, which is considered the
"cornerstone" in the Arab-Israeli negotiations. This resolution was issued
in English and French; the English text stipulates the return of
"territories" occupied in 1967, while the French text stipulates the return
of "the territories" occupied in 1967. The Arab side always demanded the
return of all the Arab territories occupied in 1967, as it happened in the
cases of Egypt and Jordan, while the Israeli side says that it is prepared
to return occupied territories, but not "all the territories." Helal adds:
"Actually and practically, what Obama has said about the 1967 being the
basis of the negotiations is completely different from the Arab and
Palestinian stance, which says that the 1967 borders is what should be the
conclusion of the negotiations."

The former adviser to US presidents, who participated in all the peace talks
since 1993, explains: "The US stance in all the past years has been to agree
to the solutions agreed by the sides through the negotiations without the
United States stipulating anything so that this stipulation would not be an
obstacle at the negotiations."

He added that: "This new thesis, which President Obama presented in his
Thursday's speech, supports the Arab viewpoint, and is a basic hindrance for
the Israeli side, which links the size of Israel before 1967 to the ability
to defend it, as the Israelis say that if Israel is of small area, it will
be difficult to defend it."

Helal doubts the possibility of resuming the peace talks between the Israeli
and Palestinian sides at the current time. He says: "I believe that the
circumstances are suitable for conducting any negotiations, because the
climate in the Arab region does not allow this. The absence of governments
in Arab side that are prepared to put their weight behind the peace process
makes it more difficult to find regional support for the peace efforts. The
climate in the Arab countries in general is hostile to the United States and
Israel. I believe that the mistake is not in what President Obama has said,
but it is in its timing, because had he adopted this stance immediately when
he assumed the presidency, this would have been better than his insistence
of halting the settlement activities. This is because halting the settlement
activities during a transitional period in which peace has not yet been
achieved is something that no Israeli prime minister has agreed to as a
result of the domestic pressure. Moreover, this has not been a demand or a
condition stipulated by the Palestinian side, even during the period of
signing the Oslo Accord."

Helal stresses that the loser in this battle will not be Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but the loser will be the US President. This is
because of many reasons, the first of which is that the US Congress is not
in the hands of the Democrats, but it is in the hands of the Republican
Party, which is prepared to understand the Israeli situation, and to support
the Israeli prime minister. The second reason is that, so far, there is no
Arab country that is prepared to support the United States publicly, and
engage as a fundamental partner in pushing forward the peace process.

The third reason is that the peace process has stopped for more than a year,
and hence there is nothing to which the negotiators can return. The fourth
reason is that the Palestinian national unity between Hamas and Fatah will
be exploited by Netanyahu to promote the concept of the hostility of the
Palestinians to the State of Israel, especially as Hamas is classified
according the US law as a terrorist organization.

With regard to the Palestinians' intention to get a resolution to establish
the Palestinian State through the UN General Assembly in September 2011,
Helal says: "There is a difference between the UN Security Council
resolutions, and those of the UN General Assembly, as the resolutions of the
latter are semi-honorary, and are not binding to any side. The United
States' acceptance of rejection of this resolution will depend on the
language of the draft resolution presented for voting, i.e. if the
Palestinian demand at the UN General Assembly is compatible in all its
articles with the stances and policies of the United States (especially
after Obama's announcement specifying the pre-1967 borders as a basis for
the negotiations) this will make it difficult for the United States to
reject such a resolution. Nevertheless, generally speaking, a vote in the UN
General Assembly in favor of the Palestinians will not lead to the
establishment of the State of Palestine."