You can't tell what was said, what others said, what others did, unless you were a fly on the wall. And, even then, you could easily misinterpret. Obama is a friendly parrier. In the same week, the PA issued statements that contained carrots and definitions, actually the same combination of carrots and definitions that Israel presents itself as. "We are very willing to make considerable compromises, and even some that might be fundamental. But, we need to see commitment." In the case of Israel, the indication of commitment required is cessation of any Israeli development in the West Bank, any development on the Palestinian side of the green line. That is doable, certainly tangibly, and even politically. (It might improve enthusiasm for likud, if people concluded that they were effective at anything, say reducing actual tensions.) I think you are a more effective writer when you identify the specific conditions that you hope that leaders will pay attention and commit to. This column struck me as you giving up, distrusting more than engaging.
UN: Gaza could be 'uninhabitable' by 2020 if trends continue (AP)
from the article: An excellent meeting