President Obama's stance towards achieving peace in the Middle East is based on the agreements reached so far, and the near-reached agreements between Israel and Palestinians during the Bush administration, and is consistent with U.N. resolutions of creating two states side by side, with security arrangements in place. Knesset Speaker Rivlin is highly aware that the U.S. is against unilateral undertakings (U.S. will veto U.N. attempt to declare Palestinian state in September which makes the exercise futile in the first place) which challenge a negotiated peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. What more proof is needed to indicate genuine support for the Jewish State? The realities are clear to most observers that Israel and the Palestinians will have to sit diplomatically and delineate the borders between the two states sooner rather than later, not only for demographical concerns of identity for Israel but the effects of not doing so to the entire region of the Middle East and the global impact. Knesset Speaker Rivlin should really be speaking more lengthly to his fellow members of Knesset and not the U.S. ambassador, in my opinion.
Hello user Logout | profile
You have watched of 10 articles
Erdogan: Turkey spent $10 billion on Syrian refugee crisis compared to UN's $455 million (Reuters)
from the article: Outgoing U.S. ambassador: Obama planning to visit Israel