Netanyahu says meeting with Obama was 'important'

Can you imagine what Obama told Netanyaku in secret? Two hour meeting at the end of the day...? Did he give a good spanking to the leader of the settler and PM?

"We are not doing them a favor by freezing settlements, they shouldnt be there in the first place." Actually, Jordan shouldn't have kicked all the Jews out of the West Bank and Jerusalem in the first place.

"We" removed a few out of a few hundred roadblocks In principle but not in practice..We agreed to two states We agreed to slowdown construction...but we will continue Lets talk without preconditions except that you must say Jewish state agree to no military and who knows what else...we in Toronto indeed

You ask when will it be enough for them. The answer is When you freeze the settlements! We are not doing them a favor by freezing settlements, they shouldnt be there in the first place. You want Israeli citizens to live on that land, fine, annex the territory and make all the Palestinians full citizens of Israel.If thats unacceptable then fine, Stop allowing Jews to build and live on the land. Take your pick.

Something clearly went on behind those doors, what I wouldnt give to have been a fly on that wall...

teeth so that you can smile through your rear for spewing nonsense and pure lies.

Not even the usual photo-op was involved. Netanyahu is playing it cool and going along with the flow,possibly adhering to hints from Rahm Emmanuel.

spare me the platitudes about Israel upho;ding its side of the road Map agreement. The Road Map agreement was destroyed when Hamas took over Gaza. What part of the Roadmap has Hamas lived up to? The Israeli government are fools and traitors if they folow up on a void agreement by ceding concessions to one part of a less hostile of two party enemy. Correction, its not two party but multi-party hostile enemy. Do not, for your children and grandchildren's sake sample the potions being proffered by the US, UN, EU and Russia. Do you know how the US will protect Israel? same as pimp protects his whore which he hooked on drugs and alcohol.

States don'rt steal land they have conquered in battle. The losers can cry all they want and get whatever sympathy the wish. But they have to live with the consequences or fight. Israelis are fools tofall for this new-age, new-speak crapola. There is no placating your sworn enemy by ceding anything before a final agreement. Don't stop building settlements. If the Arabs want a peace thay will speed up the talks, offer concesions and reach an accord. If not take it all and throw them out. The current position in these negotiations is untennable and unwinnable. why would the arabs bother to negotiarte an agreement if the US, UN, EU and Russia are going slice Israel up hand them their demmands on a platter. Frankly, I think that the Arabs smell blood and there is no stopping them, like a pack of hounds chasing a little fox with the hunters (US, UN, EU, Russia, China, Brazil, UK, France) on horseback giving the chase. That's actually a magnificent example of statesmanship by the Arabs

I'm seeing lots of "seems" and lot's of "assumes" and great big dollups of wish-fulfillment. BS: "Syria`s desire to recover and retain 25 square kilometers of territory in the Jordan River Valley which it seized from Israel in 1948 and occupied until 1967." Remind me again: does Res 242 call for a) Israel to withdraw TO THE BORDERS OF 1947, or does it call for b) Israel to withdraw FROM TERRITORY OCCUPIED IN THE SIX DAY WAR? Which one? I know which, and I also know it isn't the one that you think it is. BS: "As the United Nations recognizes only the 1948 borders" The UN recognizes the 1948 Armistice Lines as "Lines of Armistice", and nothing more. It's says so in the Armistice Agreements themselves. That's why the UN calls them "Blue Lines" and "Green Lines", etc., rather than "those national borders over yonder".

Y: "I certainly agree with Eitan: 242 the way it is is the way out" Me too. What I object to is Eitan making up a bizarro-version of Resolution 242 and then claiming that this is what the UNSC meant. Well, if that is what they meant then that is what they would have written. And since they **DIDN'T** write Eitan's bizarro-text version of Res 242 (Eitan did) then one would have to conclude that Eitan's vision is somewhat clouded.

W: "Mark and Johnboy, regrettably, Eitan is correct on that one. On June 24, 2004, Congress passed HR resolution 479 approving Bush`s letter to Sharon in which it effectively renounced UNSC resolutions 242 and 338 pertaining to the Palestinians right of return and the required pullback to the 67 line. It also limited the scope of UNSC resolutions 446, 452, 465 ad 671 requiring the abandonment of WB settlements by Israel." So sorry, Walid, but I see no reference anywhere in there to a repudiation of the terms and conditions contained within the ROAD MAP. The Road Map called for a complete freeze in settlement construction. Now, can you find anywhere in HR 479 OR Bush's letter to Sharon anything that repudiates that condition?

With the Berlin wall down it remains only to dismantle the walls around the Palestinians.

It was introduced in 2009. It has nothing to do with Israel.

Abbas was happy to talk to Livni and Olmert for two years while settlements were frozen (enough) to everyone's satisfaction. It is the Obama administration that has created the unhappiness about the settlements by defining a freeze in terms that are almost impossible to achieve.

and more impportantly the two state solution they would freeze building within and new settlements in what will be Palestine. Afterall surely that money would be better spent providing housing for those who will not wish to become Palestinians.

Thank you President Obama for letting Bibi off the hook at home and saving face by meeting with him when you have so many more important issues in governing the citizens of the USA. Bibi has his own agenda and it does not mesh with ours or many world leaders. Can't say we Americans haven't tried.

... that this conflict have more generations to go ! Those of us who lived with it, will never see it ends. The palestinians are lost in their way of building palestine and we are with them in their wilderness. Those who left Egypt none of them saw the promised holy land. So are we; but not the generations that will come after us. It is for them & their children forever, is this conflict. Palestine is a ballon; each palestinian lend it with empty air. It became un-sustainable & it is already burst. Time for lamenting its departure have still more life in it. Today Israel is 7-million when Israel is 10-million we reached the holy land & our children are safe.

As the United Nations recognizes only the 1948 borders, there is little support for the Syrian position outside the Arab bloc nor in resolving the Golan Heights issue." BS "The United Nations,[1] the United States,[2] the European Union,[3] the United Kingdom,[4] the Arab League,[5] the International Committee of the Red Cross,[6] Amnesty International,[7] and Human Rights Watch[8] consider the Golan Heights to be territory occupied by Israel and not part of Israel proper." Wikipedia You should read during you lunch break--instead of using it to make yourself look---well----stupid really.

You wrote:" We removed road blocks - it was not enough for them"......etc. etc.. Almost every sentence began with "we." Ben, I didn't realize that Canada was also an occupier taking the land of others, putting up numerous road blocks, building settlements etc. Yet you say "we" and you live in Canada. What's up Ben? BTW. if you are referring to Israel and not your country of Canada, you must understand that agreeing to "the principle" of two states for two peoples doesn't mean that Israel will come through. In fact, given the number of settlements throughout the territories, a Palestinian state is all but impossible to create. Israel knows it. And so do you.

E: "it calls upon Israel to withdraw its troops from `territories`, not all of them, to agreed `secure boundaries`, " JB: "It calls for nothing of the sort." Oh, but it most certainly does, and the authors of the resolution even make it very clear that it does.

Tell us please how are you going to achieve The following quote Netanyahu "placing an emphasis on the importance of preventing the influx of weapons into any territory that Israel should withdraw from under a future deal".

Maybe if Obama hadn't started so early into his Presidency, to address the injustice of the occupation, then maybe that would have worked. At least the White House made sure that Benjamin will think twice before asking for another "meeting" with the US President. Wouldn't I have loved to be a fly on the wall in that room. In a couple of days we will know more. A 'temporary halt', with only Kindergardens all ready in progress, allowed to be finished (Boo Hoo!!!Boo....). Or more boasting on how is beating the the first African-American President ever, in every confrontation. Obama may be losing battles, but it is written in the stars that he will win the war. The price is begining to look like it will be dealt "personally" to Benjamin, how will be interesting to follow.

Throughout the 1990s, there were Israeli-Syrian negotiations regarding a normalization of relations and an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights. But a peace treaty was not made, mainly due to Syria's desire to recover and retain 25 square kilometers of territory in the Jordan River Valley which it seized from Israel in 1948 and occupied until 1967. As the United Nations recognizes only the 1948 borders, there is little support for the Syrian position outside the Arab bloc nor in resolving the Golan Heights issue.

"Netanyahu: Obama meet focused and positive" - Haaretz Not hard to guess what that means in reality. Focused means Obama said 'stop' and Netanyahu 'positively' said 'NO."

Jonnyboy is right --meetings and radio show appearances were canceled for them to compose themselves and figure out a statedgy..Obama was open, blunt, and no nonsense... Freeze settlements and we will talk!

Netanyahu: "It was a very focused and very positive conversation,..."This conversation dealt with the range of subjects that are important for the security of Israel, and for our joint efforts to advance peace." Obama: "The president reaffirmed our strong commitment to Israel's security, and discussed security cooperation on a range of issues." So, what is there to discuss except the weather?

Unfortunately sometimes strategic commitments for security interfere with human rights and justice.

You are 100% right about Congress having no control over matters beyond the USA but we have to keep in mind that the US has the veto in the UN that it has used more times to defend Israel than all the other combined vetoes of the the other UNSC permanent members in the UN's history. The American Government is bound to follow the directives of its Congress and if the Congress voted to discredit the Goldstone report, you can imagine that this report won't get anywhere in the Security Council because of the US automatic veto. The same thing will apply because the Congress will not retract its endorsement of the Bush letter in which it is clearly spelled out that America recognizes that the 67 borders don't have to be adhered to by Israel and Israel does not have to take back any Palestinians. It goes on to say that settlements that Israel deems necessary for its security will not budge. If you'd like to read the actual wording of the resolution: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/hconres460.html

1. Netanyahu wants to meet for the "sake of meeting" and needs it politically. Obama has had his Secretary of State in Israel as well as his Special Envoy Mitchell and Amd Susan Rice in the last few weeks. Obama has already (attempted to)accomplished his current business with Israel through these officials. 2. No one can now say Obama doesn't support Israel. Reporting from last night's meeting appears that Obama re-affirmed US's conmittment to support Israel as usual. So where's the complaint?

It may shock Americans, but the US does not have any legal right to change or renounce UNSC resolutions or other aspects of international laws. The US Congress can pass any resolutions it likes, but these have no standing outside the US.

The only party that believes that non-binding Congressional resolutions are more important than the UN ones is Israel. Exactly. Why not? Both are non binding, and at least the ones coming from the American congress have some morality. Who cares about the UN Assambly? The only safeguad of reason within the United Nations is the Security Council. That is the reason why rogue states such as Iran, Lybia and Venezuela foster to tare the system down. The same reason lays behind populist attempts to tare down liberalism. The American founding father undertsood this issue from the scratch. The worst faction is the democratic faction. And the worst of all is an international democracy in where antisemitic, reactionary nations would have the same veto power of the United States.

Labhras, I don't agree with the "I love Israel" Congressional resolution. In the first place, this resolution although non-binding, it does somewhat cripple whatever future US Presidents may want to do about the conflict because it put up a moral roadblocks in favour of Israel and this all Israel needed to run with the ball. The price of getting the resolution that helped forge ahead with the wall and settlements expansion had been the sacrificing of the 8000 Gaza settlers, this is what Weisglass said in Haaretz. If you want the Haaretz Ari Shavit interview titled the Big Freeze, Google Haaretz Dove Weisglas Interview. The only party that believes that non-binding Congressional resolutions are more important than the UN ones is Israel. Last week we had a similar "non-binding" Congressional resolution discrediting the Goldstone report and this all that Israel needed to stop worrying about the Goldstone.

He promised total transparency, they hid what he did and is doing behind locked doors Healthcare wouldn't cost an additional dime, now it's in the trillions of dollars Can anyone name a single promise he made while running for the Presidency that's he's actaully kept??

... every time Israel is obliged to hear something not exactly according to it's dearest wishes, it is pre-fixed by: "'strong commitment' to Israel's security"

number one has it right. Obama should tell netanyahoo that there will be no USA veto of the Goldstone report if israel doesnt shape up and stop the settlements. Trouble is that the jews have such a tight control of American government that it isn't possible. Congress would attack the president and he would get nothing accomplished until voted out a few years from now....

" It also limited the scope of UNSC resolutions 446, 452, 465 ad 671 requiring the abandonment of WB settlements by Israel. " walid Since when has the US congress taken over the duties of the United Nations.

Monkey business, that is.

....exactly what the American public thinks about the Israel of 2009, but most polls suggest that Israel is enjoying about 60 % + support among the American people. But if you deduct Jewish Americans, Arab Americans and the "crazy" Christian Right, you won't get more than maximum 50 % support for Israels policies from "neutral" Americans. And in view of the fact, that the American people are getting showered 24/7 with pro- Israel propaganda from most of their "main- stream" media, that is not really too impressive of a number, is it...???

This resolution, together with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 have provided the foundation of peaceful coexistence between the Arabs and Israel. It took decades for some of the Arabs to come around to agree accept these resolutions and once they did, peace between them and Israel has been signed and put in place. I am talking of course about Egypt and Jordan. To finish the job Jordan should return to most of the West Bank and Egypt to most of the Gaza, especially since an independent state in these territories, even if all were ideal, is probably not going to be viable, which is probably why 242 doesn't even propose the establishment of such a state.

Obama's toe-ing the same line about making sure Israel security is America's number 1 priority (above the US economy and record job-losses). He's a fraud and he will change nothing!

Eitan - Where`s the Record? If, as you claim and Netanyahu claims, there was a secret accord to ignore the entire Roadmap, why is there no record anywhere in the US government records? (Mark of Lewiston) Mark and Johnboy, regrettably, Eitan is correct on that one. On June 24, 2004, Congress passed HR resolution 479 approving Bush's letter to Sharon in which it effectively renounced UNSC resolutions 242 and 338 pertaining to the Palestinians right of return and the required pullback to the 67 line. It also limited the scope of UNSC resolutions 446, 452, 465 ad 671 requiring the abandonment of WB settlements by Israel. The Haaretz interview of Dov Weisglass of that same year confirmed that the Gaza pullout had be done to ultimately secure that Congressional resolution and to put the peace process in "formaldehyde".

"It calls upon Israel to withdraw from territories captured in 1967 ..." In the french version there is "les territories" Advocates of the Arab cause chose naturally to interpret the two as equivalent. The United States, advocate the first wording allowing for minor border adjustments. The Palestine Liberation Organization chose to reject it entirely. However, the final draft of the Security Council resolution presented by the British Ambassador, Lord Caradon, on November 22, 1967 stick to the british american wording and interpretation. In Lord Caradon testimony "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial."A Goldberg the American embsassador had similar ideas. The ultimate goal of 242, as expressed in paragraph 3, is the achievement of a "peaceful and accepted settlement." namely negotiated agreement. We are still daling with it.

Haaretz have reported Obama's plea for a full settlement freeze on countless occasions. Your comments about the military censor are just poppycock. By the way the White House are asking for a settlement freeze in the West Bank and not in "Gaza" as you put it.

...in the media circus he inhabits.

Who stopped Arafat from making a counter offer instead of letting loose his suicide bombers.?

MQ: "The resolution does not mention at all anything about Palestinian state." A quick question to test your knowledge: how many Arab states are mentioned in Res 242? MQ: "However it does recognize the vitality of existing states that took part in the 1967 conflict, i.e. Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Syria." Only one of those is mentioned in Res 242. MQ: "It calls upon Israel to withdraw from territories captured in 1967 but certainly not from all of them." Quote please. MQ: "It assumes the withdrawal will be to 'secure and recognized boundaries' to be decided by the parties through negotiations." It "assumes" nothing: it "affirms" that peace requires, inter alia, an IDF "withdrawal from territory occupied in the recent conflict" The logic is therefore: IF the territory is occupied THEN the IDF must withdraw from it OTHERWISE there will be no "peace". MQ: "It also assumes"... It makes no assumptions whatsoever, Moshe. But you are.

The Washington Declaration, which was signed by His Majesty King Hussein and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin at the White House on July 25, 1994, formally ended the 46-year state of war between Jordan and Israel. The Declaration committed both Jordan and Israel to aim at the ?achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace between Arab states and the Palestinians, with Israel.? Eitan is an illegal squatter---who would expect anything but a self serving interpretation from him or his ilk. Speaking of which???. "Also, many Nahal-founded settlements are still thriving today in the Galilee, the Negev, and the West Bank (as well as formerly in the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip)." wikipedia You are part of the above so it follows that your interpretation is also self serving.

Tactical shortcomings were by not,of course, a Palestinian monopoly.Barak and his team were full of them.For example, the Primeminister was too slow to grasp the centrality of the issue of Jerusalem at this conference and was therefore unprepared for the far reaching concessions that were required.Nor were Barak,s bargaining positions on the territorila issue reasonable enough to be seen by the Palestinians as credible.To start as he did, with a proposal of a Palestinian State on 66 per cent of the West Bank in ordeer to offer later at Camp David 87 per cent and not reject ut of hand Clinton,s proposals at the summit of 91 per centWas an indication to the Palestinians that he did not really have red lines.Baraks negotiating tactics were a standing invitation to the Palestinians to keep the pressure on the Israelis and never say yes to what Bark liked to call his "Generous Proposals". The question of Israel,s unreasonable point of departure for negotiations with potential Arab interlocaturs, whether Palestinians,Syrians or Egyptians, is of far reaching significance.Israel,s unrealistic bargaining positions failed to convince the Arabs of the seriousness of her professed quest for peace and only invited them to never accept an Israeli as final The Israeli internal discourse on the price of peace has therefore always been an excerise in wishful thinking and self deceipt, not least of course with regard to the Palestinian question. Schlomo Ben Ami---Baraks FM from his book,"Scars of War, Wounds of Peace" pages 250/251

it is in occupied Syrian Heights so why would we expect facts from an illegal settler. Go back to Israel or wherever you came from--you are squatting on stolen lands.

You have, I see joined in prejudging the Ft Hood tragedy as a terrorism incident, even though that is not the judgment of the US Army or even any part of the US government as yet. So, are you joining in the orgy of Islamophobia that screams for the US military to purge itself? Just like that part of the US population that doesn't even know anybody who ever served?

Yes Mr Bubu, Ill do everything you say. Ill even suck your tiny penis if you let me. Yes sir, Ill bomb those scum bag Iranians and make them look bad and make you look good for murdering innocent Palestinians. Yes Mr Prime Minster, you can have a genocidal regieme and Ill back you up, you can violate UN resolutions and Ill veto them. You can do whatever you want and Ill still bend over backwards for you.

When you were in Babylon did you desire to go back to Judea? Did you want to be free? Well darling, so do the Palestinians.

Interestingly Haaretz neglects to report demands from the White House for a full settlement freeze in Gaza. Military Censor being employed to censor political matters I wonder?

Ignoring the veracity behind the myth of the 'defensive' war of '67, international law does not recognize conquest of land by force. Whether or not it was the aggressor, Israel has no legitimate claim to land occupied after 1967. The entire world agrees to this including the United States, Israel's life line and number one supporter. Expelling people from their land, a form of ethnic cleansing, is barbaric. Please come to join the modern, civilized world.

appears to know full well what is in UN Security Council resolution 242 and he relies only on the resolution and not an Australian interpretation of it. The resolution does not mention at all anything about Palestinian state. However it does recognize the vitality of existing states that took part in the 1967 conflict, i.e. Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Syria. It calls upon Israel to withdraw from territories captured in 1967 but certainly not from all of them. It assumes the withdrawal will be to "secure and recognized boundaries" to be decided by the parties through negotiations. And it also assumes that those "territories" vacated by the IDF will be taken over by Egypt, Syria and Jordan respectively. I propose that instead to attempting to fool people, read and think about this short but very good resolution. Just Google for it.

I go for 1 state :) all arab and jew and let see after that if Israel has the ball to treat all the arab like they do now :)

obama certainly does not mind being seen with totalitarians. he just cannot stand the idea that israel refuses to be bullied. as to average u.s. citizens, how would you know what they think about israel. what is reasonably certain is that they abhor terrorists. the recent terrorist mass murder in fort hood will not help one bit.

He is not even interested in the security of the United States so how can he have Israel's security interests in mind?

after about 200 years of murdering Jews in Palestine? The refusal to negotiate or recognise borders? The offer of effective 100% of the WB area and Gaza has been on the table.Its not what they want they want to occupy both states by using the refugee card.Before the Arabs took over running the UNWRA in the M.E the UN chief there said explicitly the Arabs do NOT want to solve the refugee issue. Add that to King Abdullah stripping citizenship from Palestinians in Jordan,what Palestinians say to their people in Arabic,not the platitudes the naive West want to hear in English and you should be able to comprehend why trust is seed on barren soil.

you said everything : isrel and military power is its short term strength and its long term weakness

if palestinians have miserable life they only have to blame their terrorist authorities who have always choose war instead of negotiations. They had wars as much as they wanted.

he seems to be more than just a little concerned over the concept of the palestinians seeking u.n. recognition of a unilaterally declared state within the 1967 borders; and for good reason! were the palestinians to do so, and if the unsc recognizes it, which is very much a possibility, it would place the issue exactly where it has always belonged: where it all began in the first place. this would negate the need for so-called peace negotiations, which historically have been nothing more than a means for israel to buy time as it continues it land grab, and would allow for the full force of international pressure, in the form of sanctions, to weigh upon the israeli government to completely withdraw from palestinian territory. and remember, the u.s. is committed to israel's "security", but NOT to "any" of its occupations.

E: "why not apply Security Council Res. 242 as is?" And Res 242 is.... what, exactly? E: "it calls upon Israel to withdraw its troops from 'territories', not all of them, to agreed 'secure boundaries', " It calls for nothing of the sort. It affirms that "peace" requires this: "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;" It affirms that "peace" also requires this: "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;" You appear to have read only the Readers Digest version, and so believe (wrongly) that there is only ONE principle, when there are really TWO. You are, therefore, quite wrong in your interpretation of Res 242. That's your problem, Eitan, right there.

....with Netanyahu...??? Well, if there would be so much enthusiasm for (right-wing) Israel among average U.S. citizens, he probably would have allowed at least some pictures to be taken, wouldn't he...???

since 1967 war u.s always been blind and unfair supporter of israel, while palestenians lead more miserable life with no hope for future .billios upon billions of dollars of u.s tax payers has gone to israel and for what ,to make more enemies for america!!!

Israeli officials need a kick in the pants today and placed behind bars for their war crimes against the Palestinian people and others in the region. It's their continued aggression that is fueling tensions in the region and around the world to-day. Their land confiscation and warmongering is be-yond being accepted today. It's out of step with the free and moral world. Dutch

Neither side in this conflict has a clean hand, alas...Both sides believe in their bones that they're absolutely correct. No one has room for doubt. Neither side seems to have the capacity to see or feel for the other. The Palestians have full right to desire a state, to desire every centimetre of terrain of the W.Bank as possilbe. The Israelis have every right to desire security, and to want to preserve & protect their state. Written by neither Arab nor Jew, O Jerusalem presents an account of 47/48/49, which is remarkably respectful of both sides, and might be illuminating for some

is? This resolution has been the basis for and the governing of all peace talks and agreements between Israel and its Arab neighbors, e.g. Egypt, Jordan. 242 does not even hint at the setting up of an additional state between the River and the Sea. Instead, it calls upon Israel to withdraw its troops from "territories", not all of them, to agreed "secure boundaries", and implicitly expects Egypt to assume control over much of the Gaza Strip, which it had control until June 1967, and for Jordan to do the same over much of the West Bank, which it controlled until the defensive Six-Day War. And once again, the legal basis is UN Security Council Resolution 242 which has been tested successfully: Israel-Egypt peace treaty for 30 years and Israel-Jordan peace treaty for 15 years .

They are reporting not only that Netanyahu cancelled his post-chat press briefing, but that Barak also cancelled all of his planned radio interviews. So whatever was said (and I have no idea what was said) it took those two dudes completely by surprise; so much so that they were not ready to front the press afterwards. Not until they have had time to compose themselves and agree between the two of them how they were going to spin this. Hmmmmm, gonna be an interesting few days.....

Netanyahu has it all wrong. He should be in the position to beg for negotiations with abbas. Israel was attacked and conquered the West bank. That is Israel's legitimate claim to all of the West Bank. Israel does not need any endorsement from the UN for this. Abbas should be begging to get some land some donation of area so he can govern themselves , self determination and all that crap. It is Israel's generosity to give them or not. They have no need to and can keep the Pals as refugees or expel them to other Arab lands. We were attacked and we won and we conquered. We were not the aggresors. Everyone is forgetting this very vital and important fact. Therefore , israel and netanyahu should be focusing on israel's interest , build at any pace they want , and if Abbas begs for a parcel and land and Israel is generous- the Pals can get some donation with all the strings attached. Of course Obama was a child and is not aware of this piece of history. However,Israel should remember

When two leaders come to an "understanding" there is (naturally enough) a very real danger that the two sides will come to "misunderstand" what those "understandings" actually were. That is why when two leaders want to come to an "understanding" the first thing that is done is that a "memorandum of understanding" is written, and that MoU is signed as an agreed record of what the two sides "understand" those "understanding" to be. The corollary: absent a "memorandum of understanding" there is - literally - no "understanding", merely some recollections from a bunch o' people who have their own agendas. Neither Israel nor the USA can find any MoU between Bush and Olmert. It doesn't exist. It never did exist. Which means that there never was an "understanding", merely some nods, winks, and mutual back-scratching between two disreputable, dishonest, discredited politicians. Understand now?

If, as you claim and Netanyahu claims, there was a secret accord to ignore the entire Roadmap, why is there no record anywhere in the US government records? Why hasn't Bush spoken up? The only ones speaking up in the US are convicted felons like Elliott Abrams. Why can't an Israeli government keep its word, given in writing to a US government?

Fools they be who believe him

Too bad that you run out of the medicine leffty...

Israel was ready to be "generous". By stealing less land than previously?

IS THERE A MEZUZA AT THE OVAL OFFICE DOOR? Jews of all stripes are welcome, from those called "self hating" to "self affirming", including even a few with black skullcaps. Almost enough for a small morning or evening worship service. Perennial question: is it good for the Jews?

Isreal was implemented in the heart of the Arab and Muslim world and since was given all life support by the western power. Isreal has reached an overwhelming supermacy while its adversaries reel under impotent but ruthless rulers. But this absurd state of matter cannot prevail any longer. This unstable equilibrium is fake.

Try keeping the word Israel gave the United States as Phase One of the Roadmap and stop preventing the Palestinians from keeping their word in the rest of the West Bank. It's a simple formula.

regard to the large settlement blocs should be respected by Bush's successor. And if a word of a US President is not worth anything in Obama's view, why should his words be taken seriously...??

Oy vey if we could only stop those builders from pounding nails.

or have Arafat refuse peace.

Prince Bandar called his refusal criminal. His criminal terrorist suicide bombers were his counter offer Before that Arabs prefered terror to talks. Then they elected no peace ever,obliterate Israel by Islam,Hamas. What was the excuse for refusal before the "occupation",the Arab blanket excuse for everything.

you obviously think that the Hamas and Hizbolla leaders are nice people you can sit down and have a beer with...

Oy Bama is less trustworthy than Ahmadinejad. The latter, at least, is honest and open about his hatred and desire to eliminate Israel and Jews. This American President's agenda is to destroy Israel. Thankfully, with the current, strong Israeli government, Oy Bama can't do so in the 3 years he has remaining before he and his crowd are booted out.

What possible security can the Palestinians give to the 4th most powerful nation in the world

Israel military strength prevents it from achieving peace with it is neighbors because mistakingly it asume that it can dictate it. In the short term it will win, however in the long term it bound to loose. Additionally, a people looking for peace do not elect peace killers like nitenyaho. Without American pressure Israel will continue it is ways.

What Palestinian land ? Do you mean the area that the Palestinians ( at that time they were simply called Arabs ) refused to accept for their state at the time of the UN Partition Plan , in 1948 ?

This is fluff. Let us see how many settlements are destroyed and how soon the occupation ceases. Was the Golan mentioned, or, especially its water? Was Gaza mentioned?

Nobody believes a word you say.

will remain smug in his hawkishness b/c no American prez will dare take on the Zionist lobby. Israel will lose in the long-term if it rejects a Palestinian state, let there be no doubt. As for Obama, he has backed down on everything and let down the Palestinian people who welcomed his message of hope. Abbas will not run again and this will mean a change in dynamic: declaration of palestinian statehood, return to more active violence, who know. One thing is for sure, the status-quo will not change with Israel holding the whole of the middle-east hostage.

1.Marhaba hungry university students. 2.Fortunately for The Middle East, there is a Lech Walesa for The Walls of Jerusalem. 3.With his formula of Five Loaves that catches Two Big Fish, the small but well-trained shepherd boy will get rid once and for all the head of all ISMS just like Lech Walesa got rid of CommunISM. 4.Satanism will be defeated as promised by God in the Garden of Eden and Satan?s head will be crushed by another son of The Woman.

No, the peace talks are dead since the palsare uncapeable to admit a jewish majority country. recognizing Israel, but demanding some sort of "right of return" is far from be a resoneable demand. Peace is possible, but not easy, and not only Israel will have to open hand of some points of its interest, but also de pals, which, they dont even concider to think about it. The arabs had tried 3 times to take the land by force, all failures. They should start to play it nicely now, but it doesnt mean open their legs to Israel, but it also doesnt mean they can make any ridiculous demand and israel should open its legs to them. Israel is ready to give up a huge part of what they want, but, are they ready to open hand of some points of view? I honestly dont think so....you saw what Turkey PM said a couple days ago, thats the kind of "resoneable" people israel must deal with. Now think about if it was your country dealing with them...

Would you even buy a used car from this man?

It was the policy of all previous American administrations that settlements were AN obstacle to peace, but Obama came in and made the settlements THE obstacle to peace, thus setting in concrete Abbas's demands not to negotiate until a settlement freeze took place first and this effectively froze any normalization other Arab States may have contemplated. The settlements do of course complicate matters but they should be part of the negotiations, not demands made by the other party before negogiations can begin. The Palestinians are obviously the weaker partner here and if they had effective leadership they would sit down immediately with Israels leaders and talk peace. It's sad that Israel has no decent partners to talk peace with: either the terrorist group Hamas on one side that's against Israel's right to exist or the Palestinian Authority that is corrupt and weak on the other side.

many years now, thanks to successive Israeli governments that prefer to steal and colonize Palestinian land rather than make peace.

Then good. Otherwise, save your breath Bibi. Or is Bibi going to intentionally hang up peace talks on whether or not a few dozen buildings are built before or after talks are done? If Bibi wants to hang up peace talks on such a minor difference, then all he is doing is making it clear that he and Israel are against peace.

Oh, yeah! It's what Bambi always says to the international media and then turns around and tells Israel, "Oh, nooo.....no curbing the settlements". Yawn.

We removed road blocks - it was not enough for them... we agreed to the principle of two states for two peoples - it was not enough for them... we agreed to slow down construction - it was not enough for them... We said lets talk without pre-conditions - it was not enough for them... How much will it take for it to be "enough". Abbas said that they were soo close to a peace deal before Netanyahu became P.M... But he(Abbas) wont even talk to Netanyahu who has done more then his predecessors in offering "olive branches". When will it be enough for them? When they decide to say yes to peace, yes to life, yes to coexistence, and most importantly, yes to compromise!

Bibi was a mess the first time around and is a mess the second time around. If he has to crawl on his hands and knees to Obama. Let him. ALL settments are illegal. Bibi, Ehud, and your moldavian thug of an FM are experts in the art of obfuscation and delay?which has been a hallmark of Israeli policy since 1967.Transport the illegal settlers out of the West Bank. Period. Put their names on the lists at the border crossings and checkpoints so they can no longer cross the greenline into the West Bank. Israel can monitor Palestinians, they can monitor law-breaking Israelis too.They can put up tin shacks in the Negev if they want to be "pioneers".Israel can wage war in Lebanon, Syria, killing thousands in Gaza but finds it "difficult" to evacuate outposts? Ridiculous. Settlements permanent? Good. The '67 borders should be returned to, and any settlement can stay in the new Palestinian State, with the provision that the settlers are subject to any and all Palestinian law.

will never learn. "He will make concessions " ,on what ,the pal "right of return"? He is as surrender apt as Barak was as the PM

All Bibi has to do is stop lying and announce taht he is ready to accept the Camp David-Taaba proposals if the Palestinians do too. But he can't say anything like that because he and his Likud bloc ARE NOT SERIOUS. They only become partners for peace if they stop being who they are.

Bibi says he is willing to be more generous with regards to scaling back settlement construction. Can you belive the nerve of this man? Here is a novel idea : get out of land that is not yours and stop making "security" excuses.

In the 'City of God' St Augustin tells of the story of a pirate whose ship was captured by the Navy of Alexander the great. He was brought in front of Alexander who asked him: 'What are you doing, stealing other people's property?'. The pirate reportedly answered: 'What do you mean by stealing other people's countries?' The new profet is generous, and promises more: 'I'll toss a bone to the Palestinians, let us set up the peace talk.I never said I would stop settlements'. from this article: "Netanyahu was further set to tell Obama that there was never any Israeli intention to halt settlement construction before entering into talks with the Palestinians. "What more do I need to do?" he was to ask." You don't understand Netanyahu, the settlements will have to entirely demolished, not stopped. Otherwise you will get no peace. EVER.

only thing worse than freezing settlements is admitting you can't

what Bibi should be telling obama is to take a flying leap..but he doesn't have the balls to do that. The messiah/man-child couldn't care less about Israel, in fact, truth be told, he's against her and with the arabs. The US presence in Israel isn't about aid or help in time of trouble (not under this "turkey") it's about keeping an eye on Israel, it's about control. That's what the messiah is best at-control-just look at his history and his proposals-they're about control.

Netanyahu said it loud & clear. Without 100% cast steel Security, Israel will never let go one iota of any land or anything Israel needs for its Security! Time for the Arab to understand that only a genuine regret of what they said all these years about the Jews & Israel will bring a cast iron peace.Zionist entity etc Their hate of the Jews & Israel was always above board & a source of their false pride! Unless the Arab humble themselves and admit their many mistakes Peace will never dawn on this land! Calling Israel an occupier; it must be the first in the Palestinians history when an 'occupier' help them to build a country of their own. That alone deserve a 'thank you' to Israel from the Palestinians. There was not even the name of Palestine mentioned before the Jews returned to this land. If only the Palestinians will remember that. Abbas is no fool.He knows the limitations of his people.His ambition was tailor made to what his people can afford. Beyond that is nothing.

Cant wait to see what Bibi's definition of 'generous' is. You know it won't feature in any of our dictionaries!

with something that does not belong to him in the first place and something that he has no right to have! It's just simply amazing how arrogant, dishonest, ignorant, idiotic and vicious is Bibi's behavior and that also applies to so many Israelis. Does Bibi now agree with what rabbi Shapiro has said about killing other people because the bible says so?

* Keep Sharon's word to the United States and follow Israel's obligations in Phase One. * Stop preventing the PA from carrying out the rest of it's obligations in Phase One in the West Bank and allow them access to the Gaza Strip. It really is simple Netanyahu. Call the White House when you're serious, and ask for Barack. The phone number was published today in the NY Times.

OK children. Listen closely. This is how we negotiate. Grab something big and then say you are willing a-to stop grabbing more, b-grab a little slower, or c-(if things are really tough), agree to give back a little bit of what you will grab tomorrow. Always remember: the whole point of negotiation is to end up with more than you have to start with. You can always give up a little of whatever extra you can grab when no one is looking. The ultimate skill is the grab!

The thing, perhaps, that Bibi has forgotten about Americans is that after a certain amount of being attacked, ignored, mocked and made fun of, the American in a negotiation doesn't see these gestures as part of "hard bargaining". What is likely to happen is that on principle, the American negotiator, especially when he IS a superpower, will just write you off and walk away. Bibi's behavior is perhaps a massive political faux pas with Chamberlian conclusions for Israel.

Something is does not make sense----arabs start 5 wars=kill civilans=lose land=Israel gives back land=receives 10,000 rockets=arabs and world complain Israel has over reacted=Israel builds on conquered land==arabs and obamass say its not fair.... Maybe the world, the arabs and obamass are just stupid !!!!!

The world has been witness to Israel's failure to abide by its past commitments to halt settlement construction, so for it to now accept Israel's 'promise' to merely temporarily curb them would be absurd. Israel has not even removed very many of its illegal outposts in the occupied West Bank, and instead is attempting to legitimize some of them in total disregard of its prior commitments to do so. In order for talks to begin, Israel must first demonstrate that it capable of abiding by its previous commitments or nobody in their right mind would ever trust that Israel would keep any furture agreements.

Settlers are following their own agenda and it is outside the scope of any Israeli government, left or right, to stop them. Only Salam Fayad's proposal of unilaterally declaring a Palestinian state will work. That will relieve Israel of any responsibility for the settlers. After that settlers can either return to Israel proper or live in Palestine as palestinian jews (like Israeli arabs). The only other posibility is a continuation of the conflict and the eventual defacto establishment of a one-state solution, wich will eventaully become Palestine with jewish minority (this is surely what Hamas would prefer).

Each new apartment building will have one less apartment? All building will be halted on day a week? No 'new' settlements will be started though the area of old ones will be expanded to include their intended locations? The size of every third new building will be reduced by one square meter? Generous isn't good enough. Stop.

It is not enough to "scale back"..previous promises of removing outposts is a must. Some action is necessary..scaling back is the easy way out, it avoids confrontation in israel and therefore does not prove he has the fortitude to deliver the goods.

"Netanyahu was further set to tell Obama that there was never any Israeli intention to halt settlement construction before entering into talks with the Palestinians." !!!!! Bibi is admitting that Israel never intended to uphold an agreement it freely entered into !!!!!! The Road Map, Phase 1: "Israel also freezes all settlement activity, consistent with the Mitchell report." Now there are no two ways about that: Israel AGREED to the Road Map, and that meant that Israel AGREED that it would freeze all construction *in* Phase 1 (the non-talking phase) before everyone moved *to* Phase 2 (the talking-to-each-other phase). What Netanyahu is now claiming is that Israel's AGREEMENT doesn't count because Israel had its fingers crossed when it accepted. Sorry, Bibi, it doesn't work that way, as you yourself insist regarding Hamas and its refusal to accept "prior agreements".

You are the Prime Minister, Bibi. You get to decide the "intentions". It is called leadership. Duh?

"What more do I need to do?" You don't need to do anything more, Mr. Bibi. Things will be done for you.

The one state bi-national solution; the only solution there can ever be in the end. There will never ever be a two state solution while the Zionist extremists are around.

On coming to power Netanyahu acknowledged that Israel would honour all of its International obligations and agreements. Under the Obama led Peace Process Netanyahu agreed to follow the Road Map. It was made clear to Netanyahu that ALL previous agreements stood to which he agreed. Under the Road Map ,in 2003 ,Israel agreed and signed in agreement to freeze ALL settlement construction including natural growth. Israel has an obligation to honour that. It is NOT a pre condition,it is a signed and agreed to action. It is Israels failure to keep its word that is holding the peace process up. It is not generous to offer less than what Israel agreed to. Save that line for the gullible.

But no one wants your generosity. Credibility would be fine.

An offer to scale back (not halt) illegal construction on stolen and occupied land... how 'generous'...

i am disappointed that netanyahu would cave in to obama instead of staying strong. the implication that if israel would stop settlement expansion there would be peace is ludicrous. what we need for peace is palestinian recognition of israel's right to exist.

He had better be ready to be so generous that he stops settlements completely if he wants the world to respond favorably.

If Israel is really meaning business, it should consider the following: DISMANTLE ALL THE SETTLEMENTS! This is not Rocket Science. For, one knows that the use of settlements is to put facts on the ground. Israel knows Palestine will not quit on the 1967 Borders. If it is so, then way investing on what can only be temporary? Settlements have one use for the Israeli state: Prevent peace-talks! If Likud means "PEACE" business, then it means the dismantle of settlements. Having already said no to that demand, the world knows what peace means to Likud, or Kadima, or Labor, or Shas, or Beiteinu...

...await him just like last time, before he could even get off the plane in Israel, his government would be dissolved. President Obama should simply say, "full freeze or not?" Bibi: "Uh, not." President Obama: "OK, Get out." "Oh and Bibi, you can forget that veto over Goldstone. Think about that next time you play me."