Obama abandons a negotiated settlement.

By Ted Belman

Apparantly, US wants dramatic statements from Netanyahu..

    Hence, the sources estimated that the issue of borders “must be on the table,” with America expecting Netanyahu to refer to the 1967 borders as the basis for a final-status agreement and the establishment of a Palestinian state.

So much for negotiations.

March 5, 2011 | 3 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

3 Comments / 3 Comments

  1. Abbas nixes deal including temporary borders
    PA President’s comments are the highest-level official response so far to news that Netanyahu is expected to publicly propose a peace plan in the coming weeks.

    Abbas: Palestinian state must become permanent member of UN
    PA president reiterates his opposition to an Israeli peace initiative for a Palestinian state with temporary borders.

    Netanyahu: Binational state would be disastrous for Israel
    Comment comes as Prime Minister expected to present Mideast peace initiative after weeks of intense international pressure over the apparent peace talks deadlock.

  2. Uzi Arad quits Netanyahu

    To get a feeling of who and what BB is all you need to know, see and watch is how he handles pressure within his coalition.

    Lieberman nixes appointment of Arad as UK envoy

    FM says Netanyahu’s decision to make Uzi Arad
    ambassador to London will not be honored: “We don’t need an outside appointment.”

    Arad resigns as head of National Security Council

    Netanyahu adviser says he’ll return to academia after Lieberman nixes his appointment as envoy to London.

    Politics: Stuck with each other

    How bad are Netanyahu-Lieberman relations, how did Arad’s UK appointment get nixed, could it result in Israel having absentee ballots?

  3. Apparantly, US wants dramatic statements from Netanyahu..

    I don’t for one buy this planted item probably from office of PM of Israel. Sounds like trial balloon to cover concessions BB is going to make in his address re: new (Piece) initiative. Blame it all on Washington pressure is an old tried and true formula in justifying decisions PM’s of Israel know will not sit well with most or large part of Israeli electorate.

    Between now and the elections of 2012, everything the the President of the U.S does will be domestic politically centered. Picking a major fight with Israel now will not I believe enhance his chances at reelection. The only reason Obama could/would initiate such a demand on BB is that they already know or believe he will deliver.

    Case in point: Mideast can go to hell

    Following midterm elections defeat, Obama’s foreign policy dictated by domestic voices

    The American veto was meant to appease the domestic needs of President Obama. The veto does not carry any positive message for the region. The opposite is true. And so, status quo fans in Israel, as well as Arab objectors to the diplomatic process, can rub their hands with glee. They win. The impasse shall persist. The Americans gave up on us. Should the diplomatic process resume, it will only happen after the next presidential elections, or after another wave of bloodshed in the region. Depends what come first.

    Congress was the one behind the White House order to impose a veto on the Security Council decision to condemn Israel in the face of ongoing construction in the territories. When word got out regarding the upcoming condemnation, letters and calls were directed at the president and secretary of state by senior legislators from both parties. The letter urging the administration to impose a veto was signed within 10 hours by 100 legislators from both parties.

    With this letter on his desk, the president engaged in a 50-minute conversation with Mahmoud Abbas, in an attempt to convince him to withdraw the condemnation proposal. However, Abbas was already trapped by his own decisions – he submitted the proposal, failed, and grew weaker. Read More