Netanyahu stands firm against demands from Barack Obama

Source: The Telegraph (UK)

Netanyahu stands firm against demands from Barack Obama

Israel stood firm against demands from Barack Obama on Monday to cease the construction of Jewish settlements and embrace the "two-state solution" to achieving peace in the Middle East.

By Alex Spillius in Washington
Last Updated: 10:23PM BST 18 May 2009

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, in his first meeting with the US president, made it clear that while he welcomed Mr Obama's commitment to the region, he was more concerned about dealing with the threat of Iran than peace talks.

Mr Obama was unable to secure any commitments on ceasing the construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank or embracing the "two-state solution" to achieving peace in the Middle East.

Sitting side by side in the White House, the two leaders hailed the friendship between their two countries but remained far apart on how to proceed towards a resolution of the 60-year conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

Mr Obama said the Palestinians had to take steps to guarantee Israel's security – but took a tough line on the construction of settlements on Arab land.

"Israel is going to have to take difficult steps as well," he said. "There is a clear understanding we have to make progress on settlements. Settlements have to stop."

He called on Mr Netanyahu, who leads a hawkish, Right-wing coalition, to seize a "historic opportunity" to work earnestly for peace.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/5346415/Netanyahu-stands-firm-against-demands-from-Barack-Obama.html

---

Par for the course. :-(

caught a earful from a cranky DUer.


Some people just won't let go of their belief that Israel has an inherent right to collect US treasure while being *A-holes.


*Yes the Palestinians are A-holes as well, but taking more of their land just doesn't seem like a workable option towards peace.

just today...

Interesting info about that down there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x275212

Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likudnik friends do not do listening. They are like the fly in the La Fontaine fable, which buzzes around the horses' muzzles and thinks it is moving the coach. Flies with ideas above their station risk being swatted.

Israeli leaks suggested that at his first meeting with President Obama in Washington DC today, Netanyahu hoped, and maybe even expected, that if he just kept talking about Iran he could ignore recent Obama administration strictures. No one can say that he was not warned. Incremental signals from Washington have been building the case for the fly-whisk to come into operation.

A popular US president, newly elected, with a financial crisis to hand, could soon persuade American voters that there good reasons not to send scarce cash to a foreign government set on ignoring the wishes of its benefactor. Serious signals like that would soon introduce term limits for Netanyahu's shaky coalition. Israeli voters tend to punish prime ministers who alienate the Americans too much. Netanyahu brought nothing to the table – and he is leaving with nothing even if, at this stage he did not get the public dressing down that is coming his way eventually.

Perversely, having the pugnacious Netanyahu as Israel's prime minister could burnish American credentials with everyone else in the region. There will be a visible difference between Obama and Netanyahu, in contrast to the Clinton and Bush era negotiations – when at best the US played good cop to Israel's bad cop, while both were actually torturing the Palestinians.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/may/18/obama-netanyahu-israel-palestine-iran

eom

>>>Mr Obama said the Palestinians had to take steps to guarantee Israel's security – but took a tough line on the construction of settlements on Arab land.>>>

I sort of understand "the wall". Suicide bombers and all. I sort of understand "checkpoints".

But why ... if the Arabs are so dangerous, if the Arabs are so anti-Semitic, if the Arabs are so filled with hatred and so primitive.... why would the Israelis want to move CLOSER to their historical antagonists.

Generally, if there is a real danger, one moves *away* from it.

Not *towards* it.

I have no horse in this race. But it *is* an important race.

And the outcome concerns far more people than the Israelis and the Palestinians.

It's controlled by extremists, who are controlled by larger players with their own interests. The Arab world urges and funds the extremists in Palestine, while Israeli and Jewish extremists fund the settlers. Often, the extremists are the settlers.

Ordinary Palestinians think Jews stole their land (which they did), but are willing to let them stay now. The ordinary Jews believe this is their ancient homeland (which it is, for whatever scripture is worth), but are willing to engage in a two state solution. The middle is sick of the fighting, but are captured.

For our part, B.B. King said it best- "Paying the Cost to Be the Boss". We have some obligation to help a democracy, or a quasi-democracy, but if they don't like our conditions- fine, you're on your own. Get your bling elsewhere. You don't get to dictate the rules to your creditor.

and not roll over like all previous administrations. So far Netanyahu has refused to acknowledge what was asked of him in that press conference, much less say he'll try for it.

It has always been considered political suicide to challenge conventional Israeli policy, and Obama is obviously treading carefully, but I think the days of Israel getting something for nothing have to come to an end.

How can we justify continuing to fund aggressive expansion into Palestinian territory and say that we are committed to peace? How can we allow ourselves to be pushed into yet another tragic war at the behest of another warmongering right-winger? It just makes no goddamned sense at all, and I really hope Obama is for real about this.

He'll lose the Jewish vote. He won them by 78% in the last election. He pisses them off and they could go Republican. He hasn't shown that out and out boldness. He tends to work the levers behind the scenes.

These international meetings are really not looking too good in terms of results. Lot's of nice hugs and friendliness, but no results. Still, it's like Obama to be open at first, and if no results come in, the hammer gets dropped. Diplomacy takes longer than Bush's "this job would easier I were dictator" mentality, but the results are worth it.

something or you'll fall for anything.Israel took over because of christian support.It was a religious thing then and still is.Get rid of religion and this will stop.Jews don't believe in christ and yet christians support them.What a crock of shit.I quit believing in the tooth fair early in life and religion several years later.

"Get rid of religion".

That's not what I would put in the category of 'viable solutions'. You have to play the hand you're dealt, not the one you wish were dealt.

Everyone, after all, except for a few religious crazies, is willing to try a two-state solution, and would like to move towards it, and this includes most American Jews.

But obviously this is the difficulty in taking this position, he risks losing political capital. What I am hoping is that Obama takes the rational view that we can no longer put world security in jeopardy in order to pander to a political minority on the other side of the world from the conflict. It is immoral and unjustifiable.

all of them if it is seen as a good faith effort to get peace. note - I am Jewish and my vote is obviously not in question.

I think that on the Middle East, Arab countries are saying things they haven't in the past. Getting Netanyahu as PM was a bad break - but remember Begin was Likkud too. I would doubt that any leader would radically change his/her position while visiting a foreign country. It would be more likely for him to return to Israel and - if he can be persuaded the advantages outweight the downside, he will likely gradually move.

at AIPAC that were different, but perfectly compatible and in line with what Obama said yesterday. They also have George Mitchell working this issue and he is respected on both sides. Those speeches were given before American Jews, most in line with Likkud. (the majority of Jews are more likely to agree with the various peace organizations.) This was a concerted attempt to win over the strongest advocates to seeing that Obama's peace effort is what is best for Israel, the Middle East and the world. This is an effort to proactively gain the political high ground, to minimize the support for Israel rejecting this by winning over the people who backed intransigence in the past.

Last Friday, Senator Kerry did the parallel thing at a conference in Jordan when he eloquently spoke of the need for Arab countries to support the moderates and not the extremists. He did this in such a thoughtful eloquent fashion that made sense and was widely applauded by the audience. King Abdullah later agreed and praised his comment. (Kerry's comment starts at about 41 minutes in. http://www.weforum.org/en/knowledge/Events/KN_SESS_SUMM_28780?url=/en/knowledge/Events/KN_SESS_SUMM_28780 )

This is the first time that I have ever seen a concerted effort of this sort to challenge both sides to live up to their own values - which all these things did. I assume there are others, notably George Mitchell, who are also involved in this issue. The ironic thing is that we are doing this now, when America's ability to speak of moral leadership is still recovering from the last 8 years (as well as, to a lesser degree the last half century). (Note - I do not mean just Obama and the US, leaders like King Abullah have been the leaders.) If it succeeds it will be an enormous victory for moral leadership and win/win for both Israel and the Arab world.

Here is a sampling of their take. First is Haaretz:



Here is The Guardian:

Cut off any money to Israel! It's that simple!

read a bit, and they have a difference of opinion about a two-state solution AND Iran, which is great.

The Telegraph sucks; Netanyahu won nothing.

It has Haaretz and The Guardian's take, which is remarkably similar to The Telegraph.

Nethanyahu standing firm isn't really news, of course he is for building more settlements he would be against stoping building them. You didn't need to read the article to know that. What is news is that Obama said that Israel need to stop settlements. It is newsworthy for a US President to say something like that

from putting a stop to the settlements? If we really wanted the settlements to stop, it seems like we'd have a few ways of making Israel listen.

The U.S. can give Israel a very strong warning...and if that fails, they'll give them an even stronger warning, this time maybe using their angry eyes. And if that doesn't work, then the U.S. will give Israel a very very very strong warning, with angry eyes, and maybe a wagging finger this time.