'Obama-Netanyahu meeting very useful and productive'

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2011 5:11 AM GMT
    'Obama-Netanyahu meeting very useful and productive'
    Netanyahu aide says talks went better than the PM had anticipated; U.S. Press Secretary Jay Carney says length of closed meeting 'indication of how productive and constructive' talks between U.S. president and PM were.


    http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/obama-netanyahu-meeting-very-useful-and-productive-1.363082

    Talks between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama went better than planned on Friday, but certain differences remained between the two leaders and their visions for Palestinian-Israeli peace.

    The two met just a day after Obama delivered a speech on the United States' Middle East policy in which he called for a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians based on 1967 borders. Netanyahu rejected this, saying that such borders are "indefensible".

    After a closed door meeting in the Oval Office that last more than an hour and a half, Obama and Netanyahu delivered comments to the press, and while both cited certain points of contention, it was made clear that these were "differences between friends".

    Netanyahu was pleased with the outcome of the meeting, said one of his aides, adding the talk went better than he had anticipated. He reiterated his rejection of 1967 borders, saying it was important that he make this clear to Obama in their talks. He added that the international expectation that Israel return to 1967 borders is an obstacle to peace.

    The prime minister's aide said talks with Obama were open, honest and friendly. He clarified that the differences between Netanyahu and the U.S. president were a matter of policy, were not personal, saying Israel cannot absorb Palestinian refugees, and will not negotiate with Hamas.

    White House Press Secretary Jay Carney also was cautiously optimistic about Netanyahu and Obama's meeting, issuing a statement shortly after the Israeli and American leaders spoke with the press.

    The press secretary said that the length of the one-on-one talk between Obama and Netanyahu, more than twice the time expected, was a positive sign, and "an indication of just how productive and constructive this meeting was".

    When pressed about the disagreement between Obama and Netanyahu regarding 1967 borders, an issue Netanyahu addressed on Friday and the U.S. president did not, Carney said that "what the president said yesterday was quite clear."

    He added that the U.S. president said "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."

    Carney said that Obama recognizes the security issue for Israel, and that the United States recognizes Israel's right to self defense. He added that the U.S. will work to ensure security provisions that are "robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security".

    Carney dispelled the notion that Netanyahu was "mad" at Obama for calling for a deal based on 1967 borders, saying "I'm not sure that I accept that he was mad," adding "I think they had an excellent meeting."

    The U.S. press secretary reflected on Netanyahu's objection that 1967 borers are "indefensible", clarifying that this is an issue of security.

    "I think the prime minister made very clear, and the president did, that they don't agree on every issue, but that they are both committed to working together," he added.

    Carney reiterated that while the United States will continue to push for peace between Israel and the Palestinians, it will keep in mind "Israel's security, which the United States remains committed to profoundly."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2011 5:21 AM GMT
    It will only go well so long as Obama backs down and away from the 1967 borders deal, that has long been on the books, and he only hears what he wants to; simple as that.

    Israel is still only a child, and it needs to be put in it's place, and treated like one, and yes we will get temper tantrums too. But they are still only a child, a new born country, why should they always get their way? It's not healthy for them. If we don't bring them up right, they will forever act like petulant children.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2011 6:22 AM GMT
    Why did Obama allow himself to be sandbagged like this?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2011 6:28 AM GMT
    True_blue_aussie saidIt will only go well so long as Obama backs down and away from the 1967 borders deal, that has long been on the books, and he only hears what he wants to; simple as that.

    Israel is still only a child, and it needs to be put in it's place, and treated like one, and yes we will get temper tantrums too. But they are still only a child, a new born country, why should they always get their way? It's not healthy for them. If we don't bring them up right, they will forever act like petulant children.



    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    I could not agree more !!!

    OBAMA NEEDS TO STICK TO THE STARTING POINT FOR NEGOTIATIONS BEING THE 1967 LINES, SWAP FROM THERE,

    This time those god damned SETTLEMENTS HAVE GOT TO BE STOPPED !! if they don't then the negotiations cannot be considered in GOOD FAITH. Frankly so far there never has been good faith with Israel, because they expect all negotiations to be primarily to their benefit. This time negotiations need to be MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL for both PALESTINE AND ISRAEL.

    What security will PALESTINE have that ISRAEL WILL NO LONGER ATTEMPT TO STEAL MORE LAND ?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2011 2:10 PM GMT
    Palestinian Sees Prospects of Deal Receding
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/world/middleeast/21palestinian.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

    JERUSALEM — After President Obama’s high-profile speech on Thursday in which he laid out broad principles for reaching an Israeli-Palestinian deal, the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, called an emergency meeting at his headquarters in Ramallah in the West Bank. He advised his associates not to comment on the speech, according to a senior Palestinian official who attended the meeting, but to wait instead for Mr. Obama’s meeting with the prime minister of Israel in the White House “and see if there are any positive signs.”

    By the end of that meeting, judging by the statements of Mr. Abbas’s associates, the prospects of renewed negotiations leading to a swift agreement appeared at least as distant, if not more, than before.

    The official, Nabil Shaath, a leader of Mr. Abbas’s party and a veteran negotiator, said that Mr. Obama’s speech had “contained little hope for the Palestinians,” except for the one sentence that spoke of the borders of a future Palestinian state being based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps, a shift in American diplomatic language that addressed a long-held Palestinian demand.

    ...It was the Palestinians who walked out of the last round of peace negotiations last September after a partial Israeli moratorium on building in the settlements expired. In order to return to talks, Palestinian officials say, they want to hear Mr. Netanyahu agree to the 1967 lines as the basis for negotiations and a renewed, if temporary, settlement freeze.

    ...Mr. Shaath said that Mr. Obama’s speech conceded most issues to the Israelis, including viewing Israel as a Jewish state, opposing the plans for United Nations recognition and criticizing the Fatah faction for its recent reconciliation pact with Hamas, which the United States designates as a terrorist organization.

    ...Palestinian officials brushed aside the statements by Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu that the recent pact between Fatah and Hamas raises serious problems and requires answers from the Palestinian leadership. Fatah leaders said that the reconciliation was an internal affair that had nothing to do with the peace process.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2011 2:20 PM GMT
    "useful and productive" is diplomatic language for "infinitesimal level above a complete disaster".

    Netanyahu has merely reiterated standard dogma. It's extremely frustrating.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2011 5:40 AM GMT
    TigerTim> merely reiterated standard dogma.

    This is why negotiating behind closed doors is more productive.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2011 5:51 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidSo now, what happens?

    Does Obama back down and appear weak?

    Does Obama cut funding to Israel?

    Does Obama withdraw the USA from the peace process completely?


    Or all of the above.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2011 8:25 AM GMT
    Damn that dirty ZioNazi never learn
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2011 8:39 AM GMT
    C4 deserves it
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2011 10:22 AM GMT
    UNSCR 242 does not call for a full (let alone immediate or unilateral) Israeli withdrawal.
    It calls upon the parties to negotiate a settlement and then for Israel to withdraw accordingly.


    Indeed, the PLO - the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian Arabs" - has accepted this much in a signed treaty.

    From the Oslo "Declarations of Principles":

    ARTICLE I: AIM OF THE NEGOTIATIONS

    The aim of the Israeli-Palestinian NEGOTIATIONS within the current Middle East peace process is, among other things, to establish a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, the elected Council (the "Council"), for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, for a transitional period not exceeding five years, leading to a permanent settlement based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

    It is understood that the interim arrangements are an integral part of the whole peace process and that the NEGOTIATIONS on the permanent status will lead to the implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

    ...It is understood that these NEGOTIATIONS shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, BORDERS, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.

    sxydrkhair & KenetiketCT, do you accept this?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2011 3:18 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidSo now, what happens?

    Does Obama back down and appear weak?

    Does Obama cut funding to Israel?

    Does Obama withdraw the USA from the peace process completely?


    ___________________________________________________________


    To my way of thinking Obama already appears weak, he really didn't say anything new regarding the 1967 lines, that's been the baseline for decades, If he'd wanted to appear and actually be strong on this subject as he should have demanded an immediate stop to the settlements and he'd have come down hard on Netanyahu for the newly declared addition the day before the meeting of 1500 more units.

    For Obama to have acted Presidential in the position of power, he should have done something like canceling the meeting unless those new settlement units were canceled Immediately.

    Obama won't even threaten cutting funding to Israel because he wants AIPAC and wealthy Jewish backing for his re election. Again the TAIL IS WAGGING THE DOG. That declaration of additional settlements brings the total to over 2000 that are in process of being built and those recently approved fro construction. THIS IS A SLAP IN THE FACE AND MAKES SEEKING PEACE A SHARADE.

    True to Form our resident ZIONIST APOLOGIST IGNORES THE NEED FOR AN END TO SETTLEMENTS FOR PEACE TALKS TO GO FORWARD. so its no wonder IAN and sxydrkhair is so disgusted with the OBNOXIOUS FOOL
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    May 22, 2011 3:37 PM GMT
    It appears Obama, though treading lightly, is at least digging his heels in the sand a bit and taking a firmer stand towards Israel --- and that in itself is progress. Both Israelis and Palestinians will need to make some compromises or this whole thing will just keep spinning round and round endlessly.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2011 3:50 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidIt appears Obama, though treading lightly, is at least digging his heels in the sand a bit and taking a firmer stand towards Israel --- and that in itself is progress. Both Israelis and Palestinians will need to make some compromises or this whole thing will just keep spinning round and round endlessly.


    ______________________________________________________


    To be honest, the forces of status quo Zionist Zealots (Netanyahu and Lieberman) from Israels side, I don't think has real interest in seeking Peace or the Settlements would never have gone as far as they have. I think they have been using the settlements to grab more and more strategic land in the hopes of the long term goal of getting as much as possible, and its an important question to ask, if inded their purpose is to totally end the possibility of a Palestine by those settlement expansions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2011 4:57 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidIt appears Obama, though treading lightly, is at least digging his heels in the sand a bit and taking a firmer stand towards Israel --- and that in itself is progress.

    How odd that Obama is taking a firmer stand with the party who is sitting at the negotiating table waiting for a peace partner.

    At a time that the PA government includes Hamas, which not only categorically opposes any future compromise or peace agreements, it refuses to accept agreements signed (by the PA government it is part of) nearly 20 years ago.

    Can you imagine that Pakistan's government includes Al Qaida and Obama takes a firm stand with India?

    Of what value are Israeli concessions, compromises and withdrawals if the other side isn't bound to honor the agreements leading to it?
    Be it Hamas in the PA or perhaps a future Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2011 3:57 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidBoth Israelis and Palestinians will need to make some compromises or this whole thing will just keep spinning round and round endlessly.

    Already 10.5 years ago Israel was willing to compromise on a net 97% of the disputed territories and on the Arab neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem - which would become an independent, sovereign, and internationally recognized state - contiguous in Gaza and the WB. Clinton further offered a $30 Billion fund to compensate/resettle the Palestinian Arab refugees in the nascent Palestinian Arab state. And Israel was willing to compromise on the Temple Mount, Judaism's holiest site, placing it under some shared mechanism.

    The Arab side violently rejected this (as it has compromises proposed in 1937, 1947 and since).

    Already 6 years ago Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza.
    The Arab response? The skyrocketing of terror and the rise of Hamas.

    That's the obstacle to peace, that the majority of Palestinian Arabs (not to mention the anti-Jewish/anti-Israel zealots) are - in principle - against it.
    It falls short of their actual goal, the destruction of Israel as the Jewish state.
    Look up the Hamas Covenant and the Palestine National Charter, and search for the PLC's 1974 "phased plan".
    The latter authorized the PLO to get what it can by feigning peace... and then to continue the war for everything else.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2011 5:46 AM GMT
    YAH YAH !! TELL US ABOUT IT LEERON !!! anyone who sees through Israel and doesn't believe that continueing land grabs and building more and more settlements shows anything but Israel Having an iterest in peace. BULLSHIT LEERON !!! Your propaganda just found a way to blame Palestinians rather than the fact that Israel is more interested in grabbing more land and building settlements than it is in Peace. You keep leaving out details and everyone here sees right though your bullshit !!

    So tell us all about how Israel is so interested in peace that within the first 5 months of this year there are under construction or plans for construction of 2600 more ZIONIST SETTLEMENT UNITS. That is a very peacefull gesture right there isn't it !!! WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK ISRAEL IS ACTUALLY FOOLING ?
  • TrentGrad

    Posts: 1541

    May 23, 2011 6:13 AM GMT
    Sorry RLD, but the Palestinians and the Arabs deserve a LOT of blame for where the Palestinian people are today!

    If the Palestinians and the Arabs had shown a commitment to peace in 1948, this would all be a moot point.

    If the Jordanians and Egyptians had any interest in seeing the birth of a Palestinian state in 1949, it could've been formed in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. Again, they chose not to proceed.

    If the Palestinians had agreed to the Camp David Accord, most of the West Bank and all of Gaza would've gone back to the Palestinians over a period of transition, and Arab Israeli municipal control over East Jerusalem would've been established. Once again, the Palestinians said no.

    Those are facts, and they are in far less dispute that your allegations of intentional Israeli atrocities committed against the Palestinians.

    And then, as if that wasn't enough, wings of Likud, Shinui and Labour joined together to form Kadima, a party that was committed to peace with the Palestinians. So what did the Palestinian extremists do while Kadima was in power? Like fucking morons, they launched thousands of rockets...resulting in the Israeli incursion into Gaza...and later, to Likud taking back power with the backing of right wing extreme parties.

    And now people are crying because Likud and their partners are building more settlements? It's the Palestinians themselves who are to blame for bringing Likud and the political right to power in Israel once again!

    Frankly, I'm fed up with the misuse of the term "Zionist." It's stupid how people have saddled it with such pejorative ferocity in an attempt to manipulate it into a Jewish version of "Nazi" or some nonsense!

    Perhaps everyone who misuses it should now and forever be called a "Jihadist" or perhaps "Terrorist?" Seems like a fair observation, given that so many Arabs and Muslims have no problem attacking Israelis and Jews, but fail to acknowledge their own misgivings and abuses of Jewish residents and citizens of their own countries.

    The Arab League has been a welcome party to the negotiations...maybe the next time they come to the table, they should pony up some of the $700 billion they owe to Jews who they abused, stole property from, and forced out of their countries!

    Either that, or they should just stay the fuck out!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2011 5:29 PM GMT
    TrentGrad saidSorry RLD, but the Palestinians and the Arabs deserve a LOT of blame for where the Palestinian people are today!

    If the Palestinians and the Arabs had shown a commitment to peace in 1948, this would all be a moot point.

    If the Jordanians and Egyptians had any interest in seeing the birth of a Palestinian state in 1949, it could've been formed in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. Again, they chose not to proceed.

    If the Palestinians had agreed to the Camp David Accord, most of the West Bank and all of Gaza would've gone back to the Palestinians over a period of transition, and Arab Israeli municipal control over East Jerusalem would've been established. Once again, the Palestinians said no.

    Those are facts, and they are in far less dispute that your allegations of intentional Israeli atrocities committed against the Palestinians.

    And then, as if that wasn't enough, wings of Likud, Shinui and Labour joined together to form Kadima, a party that was committed to peace with the Palestinians. So what did the Palestinian extremists do while Kadima was in power? Like fucking morons, they launched thousands of rockets...resulting in the Israeli incursion into Gaza...and later, to Likud taking back power with the backing of right wing extreme parties.

    And now people are crying because Likud and their partners are building more settlements? It's the Palestinians themselves who are to blame for bringing Likud and the political right to power in Israel once again!

    Frankly, I'm fed up with the misuse of the term "Zionist." It's stupid how people have saddled it with such pejorative ferocity in an attempt to manipulate it into a Jewish version of "Nazi" or some nonsense!

    Perhaps everyone who misuses it should now and forever be called a "Jihadist" or perhaps "Terrorist?" Seems like a fair observation, given that so many Arabs and Muslims have no problem attacking Israelis and Jews, but fail to acknowledge their own misgivings and abuses of Jewish residents and citizens of their own countries.

    The Arab League has been a welcome party to the negotiations...maybe the next time they come to the table, they should pony up some of the $700 billion they owe to Jews who they abused, stole property from, and forced out of their countries!

    Either that, or they should just stay the fuck out!

    Must say I completely agree with you. There won't be a lasting peace as long as the Arabs continue telling their kids that Jews are to be hated.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2011 7:32 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    Netanyahu has merely reiterated standard dogma. It's extremely frustrating.


    The standard dogma of NOT giving PRE-1967 borders to Palestine? Since when in the history of the Universe has there ever been such a fuss and world-wide condemnation towards a country that took land from winning a war over 4 decades ago? I don't understand why people aren't advocating the destruction of virtually every other country in the world whose borders have changed as a result of winning during war. Where the fuck is Prussia? That was a country up until 1932. Why don't we hate Germany for this?