From my take on this article it seemed like only Netanyahu is looking for a sustainable peace. This article was very vague about "core issues." Are Americans expecting Israel to put half of Jerusalem, a settlement freeze, and a lift on blockade for peace talks to begin? And whats crazy about trying to bring these to people closer together first with economics instead of assuming these people will get along once a treaty is in place. I think Obama should have a different vision then what other presidents did. This is not like Egypt where a top-down is more likely to work. I believe Obama should try to hit more demanding issues through a bottom-top approach first. The Fatma, Israel, and Hamas need to agree on ways to pay and provide electricity to gaza. This will help Gaza not waste so much water by not having its water and sewage treatment plants not have the electricity to prevent salinating and polluting more water. Further economic ties and ending hate that is being taught to young Palestinians will make way for more serous treaties that will be held. It will also bring confidence to Israeli's that these are not more empty talks that will end with more rockets or an intifada. Seems like putting Jerusalem on the table first or any of the more hotly disputed "core issues" is asking for failure. Who then are the ones not serous for peace?
Hello user Logout | profile
You have watched of 10 articles
Palestinians report 5 wounded in clashes with IDF near Tulkarem (Haaretz)
from the article: U.S. frustrated with Netanyahu over stalled proximity talks