Obama: Dim hope for end to Israeli-Palestinian conflict

[webfact]

Obama: Dim hope for end to Israeli-Palestinian conflict
By DEB RIECHMANN

President Barack Obama rubs his eye during a joint news conference with Afghanistan\'s President... Read more

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama said Tuesday that the U.S. is weighing whether to back Palestinian efforts to seek U.N. recognition for an independent state and that recent remarks by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dim hope for a negotiated two-state solution.

Obama's comments at the White House did little to repair rocky U.S.-Israeli relations, which were aggravated by a Wall Street Journal report Tuesday alleging Israel spied on sensitive negotiations about Iran's nuclear program. The report said Israel acquired information from confidential U.S. briefings and other means and shared it with members of Congress to build a case against making a deal with Iran, which has threatened to destroy Israel.

Netanyahu is feuding with the White House over an emerging deal with Iran and also has come under fire for comments he made in the final days of Israel's election last week. Netanyahu ha voiced opposition to Palestinian statehood and warned his supporters that Arab voters were heading to the polls "in droves."

Netanyahu has since backtracked on his campaign statements, but the White House has reacted with skepticism.

"Netanyahu, in the election run-up, stated that a Palestinian state would not occur while he was prime minister," Obama said. "And I took him at his word that that's what he meant.

"Afterwards, he (Netanyahu) pointed out that he didn't say 'never,' but that there would be a series of conditions in which a Palestinian state could potentially be created," Obama said. "But, of course, the conditions were such that they would be impossible to meet any time soon."

Obama said he is evaluating U.S. policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But he said that in light of Netanyahu's comments, the "possibility seems very dim" for the Israelis and the Palestinians to agree to live side-by-side in peace and security.

"We can't continue to premise our public diplomacy on something that everybody knows is not going to happen, at least in the next several years," the president said.

Obama also said his disagreements with Netanyahu over Iran and the Palestinians shouldn't be framed as a personal issue. He said he has a "businesslike relationship" with Netanyahu and has met with him more than any other world leader.

"This can't be reduced to a matter of somehow let's all, you know, hold hands and sing 'Kumbaya,'" Obama said. "This is a matter of figuring out how do we get through a real knotty policy difference that has great consequences for both countries and for the region."

Fractures in the U.S.-Israeli relationship recently have been played out at the U.S. Capitol.

Obama was upset when House Speaker John Boehner didn't consult with the White House before inviting Netanyahu to give a speech to Congress just as the Iran nuclear talks were approaching a critical juncture. Some Democrats skipped the speech in which Netanyahu boldly warned that an emerging nuclear deal with Iran would not prevent it from developing nuclear weapons, but pave Tehran's path to the bomb.

The U.S. has been leading world powers in negotiations aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear program. The so-called P5+1 group — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States plus Germany — is rushing to craft a framework for a deal to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons in exchange for relief from sanctions before a deadline expires at the end of the month.

Netanyahu's office called the spying report "utterly false," saying Israel "does not conduct espionage against the United States or Israel's other allies."

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said Israel obtained information through other participants.

"All the information we obtained is from a different side and not through the United States," Lieberman told Army Radio.

At a news conference on Afghanistan, Obama said he didn't want to comment on other nations' intelligence, but said, "We have not just briefed Congress about the progress, or lack thereof, but we also briefed the Israelis and our other partners in the region."

When asked about the allegations that Israel spied on the nuclear talks, senior senators said they never gleaned any details from the Israelis that they didn't already know or hadn't learned in briefings by the Obama administration.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the Israeli officials did not spy directly on American negotiators, but obtained details through other means, including close surveillance of Iranian leaders who were being told the latest deals being offered by U.S. and European officials. The paper said European officials, particularly the French, have been more transparent with Israel about the closed-door discussions than the Americans.

Lawmakers denied knowing anything about it. Boehner, R-Ohio, said he was "baffled" by the report and was not aware of any spying.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he did not remember anyone from Israel ever sharing information with him that he didn't already know or had surmised from news accounts.

"One of my reactions was, why haven't they (the Israelis) been coming up here sharing information with me?" Corker said, smiling. "I haven't had any of them coming up and talking with me about where the deal is. So I was kind of wondering who it was they were meeting with. I kind of felt left out."

Asked whether he was ever briefed in greater detail by Israeli officials, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said: "Never. Oh no. I have talked to Israeli officials here and in Israel."

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a critic of Obama's foreign policy, said the same thing.

"No one from Israel has ever briefed me about the agreement. A bunch of us met with Mossad (Israel's intelligence service). That was a bipartisan exercise," Graham said, adding that he didn't learn anything new except that the Israelis thought that legislation calling for imposing new sanctions could hurt the negotiations.

"I hope somebody is spying on Iran," Graham said.
___

Associated Press writers Josh Lederman in Washington and Josef Federman in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-03-25

[ezzra]

Simply put, the Palestinians can't be trusted not to allow countries like Iran to come in and

pitch a tent on the Israeli borders like they're doing right now in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq,

Until such an arrangement will be reached whereby the peace will includes Hamas and

all the other small factions that are at war with Israel, any peace agreements with Abu Mazen

is useless and not the paper it's written on...

[rotary]

Mean while most people just want "Dim" memories of Obama

[Jai Dee]

One troll post has been removed from this thread.

9) You will not post inflammatory messages on the forum, or attempt to disrupt discussions to upset its participants, or trolling. Trolling can be defined as the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

[dexterm]

I think Pres Obama is expressing his frustration with Netanyahu, who was supposedly negotiating a 2 state solution in good faith. Now he finds it was all a smokescreen to expand West Bank colonies and protract the conflict indefinitely.

Israel will never have peace until it makes its enemies its friends. Obama is simply looking for a way to make that happen, to break the cycle of violence and end an embarrassing 48 years of USA’s closest ally occupying another people.

He could do it with one simple phone call...tell his UN Ambassador to keep her veto hand down when next Palestinian statehood is being proposed. Then let the UN take over and impose sanctions on Israel because they have invaded a fellow member’s territory and refuse to withdraw.

Meanwhile Palestinians as of next week can take Israel to the ICC for war crimes and breaching the Geneva Convention.

This 2 pronged strategy is the only way Israel can be brought to its senses.

[BudRight]

Every President since Einsenhower has tried to broker 'peace in the Middle East.' Might as well go play golf, at least the President would get some exercise that way.

[dexterm]

Every President since Einsenhower has tried to broker 'peace in the Middle East.' Might as well go play golf, at least the President would get some exercise that way.

Maybe that's a good reason for the USA to stand aside. They have lost credibility as an honest broker by granting Israel immunity via the UNSC veto to do what it likes and ignore UN resolutions.

I would like to see UN sanctions imposed on Israel, but that would be a step too far for some politicians hamstrung by the Israeli lobby and probably the USA would jump in to veto that, but it might give Israel a scare to shock it into getting serious about making a just peace agreement.

I can however see Israel's largest trading partner the EU imposing sanctions of its own. They are not weighed down as much as USA by powerful groups such as AIPAC.

There's an interesting letter from several prominent Brits published in today's Guardian calling for such.

Only sanctions can change Israeli policy

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/24/only-sanctions-can-change-israeli-policy

[ToddinChonburi]

How soon we forget about the Israeli children that were killed by mmmmm....... was it Hamas ? And all the Mortars that are aimed into Israeli neighborhoods.

Like a good neighbor Hamas is there !!!!

Edited March 25, 2015 by ToddinChonburi

[hard124get]

How about stop rewarding the perpetrators of the conflict with billions of dollars ?

[Rimmer]

An inflammatory troll post has been removed

[Steely Dan]

So the supposed Israeli spying doesn't get its own thread. Just as well as the WSJ article risks backfiring, when you consider the Obama administration promised to keep Israel informed of all developments in the P5+1 talks with Iran, yet according to the OP it was France that actually chose to inform Israel, no doubt both parties being horrified by the concessions the U.S made to Iran in their bilateral talks.

Regarding 'dim' prospects of a two state solution, the prospects were equally dim before and after the election. Israel is only one party to such an agreement, but look at the other side.

The Palestinian authority applied to the ICC and U.N recognition, both in violation of the Oslo accords. Hamas are again being supplied by Iran and recently 500 Hamas operatives in the West Bank were arrested to prevent a plot to overthrow the Palestinian authority, some unity government! Finally the residents of Southern Israel again report the sound of tunneling from the border region with Gaza. What a joke it is to conclude Netanyahu's election campaign rhetoric would make one iota of difference with all that going on.

[Seastallion]

from the OP; "Netanyahu's office called the spying report "utterly false," saying Israel "does not conduct espionage against the United States or Israel's other allies.""

It doesn't eh? So the Mossad agents that were caught in NZ trying to obtain a NZ passport using the identity of a disabled man was a figment of the entire NZ news media's imagination?

From Wiki;

The 2004 Israel–New Zealand passport scandal was an incident of passport fraud in July 2004 that led New Zealand to take diplomatic sanctions against Israel. High-level contacts between the two countries were suspended after two Israeli citizens suspected of being Mossad agents, Uriel Kelman and Eli Cara, were caught trying to fraudulently acquire a New Zealand passport using the identity of a man with cerebral palsy. Prime Minister Helen Clark declared that New Zealand government viewed the acts carried out by Kelman and Cara as "not only utterly unacceptable but also a breach of New Zealand sovereignty and international law."

[dexterm]

So if one gives Netanyahu the benefit of the doubt, and accept that he just got carried away with rhetoric re his racist anti Arab remarks and that he really does want a 2 state solution, what could these “painful compromises” be that he can offer that would be acceptable to the Palestinians?

They need not accept anything less than Olmert’s or Ehud Barak’s deal (but this time 100% not 97% of land swaps), a shared Jerusalem, and compensation for Palestinian refugees (the world community could pick up that chickenfeed tab of about $5bn I estimate).

You can’t force them to accept less, because if they don’t sign, other Arab countries won’t sign either and you haven’t got a secure comprehensive peace. You are back to a managed conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative

But all the while the Palestinian population is growing, and the final solution becoming more difficult.

If the EU even gets a hint of the enactment of the extreme solutions of Lieberman (forced transfers), Bennett (Palestinians to be concentrated in the Bantustans of Ramallah, Nablus, and Jenin) or worst Moshe Feiglin’s (herd the Palestinians into tent cities in Sinai), then EU sanctions if not UN sanctions would be sure to follow.

Israel becomes an economic basket case dependent on increased US handouts, and Israeli Jews start emigrating in their hundreds of thousands for a better life elsewhere.

So what’s Netanyahu's plan for peace then?

[chuckd]

Better yet...what is Palestine's plan for peace NOW?

What are they willing to give up for peace?

[arjunadawn]

Better yet...what is Palestine's plan for peace NOW?

What are they willing to give up for peace?

Your question goes to the heart of the matter and in my opinion that Palestinians have virtually nothing to give to gain peace, except the only thing Israel is insistent on- a right to exist in mutual existence. Yes, there are smaller and important issues, but were this singular issue to be emphatically declared and enforced, the road to working out the secondary, but important, issues of land and such could be approached. Give the Jews peace. Give the arabs their home.

[arjunadawn]

How about stop rewarding the perpetrators of the conflict with billions of dollars ?

I agree with this statement totally. The continued pouring of money into the PA and related bank accounts of their personal terrorist henchmen and Hamas only serve to support a decaying warmongering entity. Stop the combined international community from propping up the PA/Hamas and lets see how they move closer toward reconciliation. Good point. Its nice to see others who liked this agree as well!

[Seastallion]

Better yet...what is Palestine's plan for peace NOW?

What are they willing to give up for peace?

I imagine most of them would be willing to give up freedom fighting for their occupied lands to be given back!

I imagine most of them would be willing to give up freedom fighting for their water to be given back.

[Seastallion]

How about stop rewarding the perpetrators of the conflict with billions of dollars ?

I agree with this statement totally. The continued pouring of money into the PA and related bank accounts of their personal terrorist henchmen and Hamas only serve to support a decaying warmongering entity. Stop the combined international community from propping up the PA/Hamas and lets see how they move closer toward reconciliation. Good point. Its nice to see others who liked this agree as well!

You need to do a bit more reading, and not from the Fox News viewers on TVF.

The Billions referred to, as you know, was to Israel. The PA don't get that much.

The PA, and Hamas are indeed open to reconciliation. This is a fact. This is why Netanyahu no longer cites the PA or Hamas as a reason not to to parley.....Netanyahu now cites Iran and ISIS as a reason not to negotiate because he can no longer shift blame from himself to PA/Hamas, so he shifts it elsewhere.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Seastallion

[dexterm]

Better yet...what is Palestine's plan for peace NOW?

What are they willing to give up for peace?

Compromise 1. They are willing to accept that land allotted to them in the original partition but lost in war to Israel in 1948 is gone forever, when Israel would not allow the return of refugees after hostilities ended [Please let’s not go off topic into the rights and wrongs of the war..we’ve been there so many times before and neither side will convince the other]. That’s a sizable chunk of their original homeland and a huge compromise.

Compromise 2. But they draw the line at the 67 borders. When Clinton at Camp David asked to see Arafat’s proposals he showed him a 1967 map, and said let’s begin here. They did and started working on land swaps. Israel should never have bent the Geneva Convention rules that allow military outposts in Occupied Territory. Israel turned them into whole cities. The Palestinians are willing to compromise there too. Israel can keep the large settlement blocs, but Palestinians want 100% of like for like land in return.

Compromise 3. They are willing to accept financial compensation for refugees to start a new life, while Israel gets to keep their farms and homes for which many still have the keys. If they added psychological damage, personal injury and unlawful killing, the bill would be astronomical.

Compromise 4. I believe they can be persuaded to accept trust building conditions such as demilitarization and UN/EU/US/Israeli troops in the Jordan Valley to address Israeli security needs.

Compromise 5. A fudged deal over Jerusalem. Israel gets to keep more than they had pre 67. Pals respect Wailing Wall and any temple excavations. Israel respects sanctity of Al Aqsa.

Reward 6. Total recognition of the state of Israel in secure recognized borders in a permanent peace agreement involving exchange of ambassadors, and free trade with all surrounding Arab countries plus Iran

But they won’t accept adding insult to injury by being herded out of the last remaining vestiges of their homeland. That’s a non starter.

Edited March 25, 2015 by dexterm

[arjunadawn]

Obama and Company will continue the media and ancillary pressures of "gaslighting" (a favorite progressive and communist tool of repetition) the notion that all options for a solution are now irrevocably soiled because the previous labeling of the PA/Hamas not being valid partners for peace now equally apply to Israel because of Bibi's comments. Having stolen one of the few legitimate moral cards Israel has left Israel is reduced (in perception) to the level of antagonist (rightly or wrongly), and in this place supranational solutions are the only solutions. The previous standard that peace can only be wrought by both parties meeting and hammering out differences can no longer be countenanced, not because its untrue, but because Obama and his pro islamic leanings now have diplomatic casus belli to paint Netanyahu and indeed all Israelis as obstacles to their own well being. Inflicting good upon others is a cornerstone of progressive ideology. It is hardly possible for a progressive to accept an opposing view could be equally moral and valid and factual; it is just outside their intellectual lexicon.

The likelihood of regional war increased each day Obama meddles in the region. This is hardly an opinion shared by me alone. Therefore, I suggest the title "Dim hope..." is an understatement; there is no hope for a peaceful solution as long as Obama and the military advisers (who remained following his pogrom and culling) continue to see forcing Israel into an existential marriage with an avowed enemy as the viable course. This fool is seeking to race around the diplomatic ballpark, screaming past third base (in spite of the international warnings and those from home), and sliding into home plate of the next election with an Iranian deal and forced Israel concession as his term ends; and both will not survive a season. Obama will be known but presently and historically as not only the worst president in the history of the United States but the greatest agitator of world peace ever. (Unless of course his goal is actually preparing the foundations for his very next job?)

[arjunadawn]

How about stop rewarding the perpetrators of the conflict with billions of dollars ?

I agree with this statement totally. The continued pouring of money into the PA and related bank accounts of their personal terrorist henchmen and Hamas only serve to support a decaying warmongering entity. Stop the combined international community from propping up the PA/Hamas and lets see how they move closer toward reconciliation. Good point. Its nice to see others who liked this agree as well!

You need to do a bit more reading, and not from the Fox News viewers on TVF.

The Billions referred to, as you know, was to Israel. The PA don't get that much.

The PA, and Hamas are indeed open to reconciliation. This is a fact. This is why Netanyahu no longer cites the PA or Hamas as a reason not to to parley.....Netanyahu now cites Iran and ISIS as a reason not to negotiate because he can no longer shift blame from himself to PA/Hamas, so he shifts it elsewhere.

First, your too smart to think my tongue was not in my cheek. I only tried to coopt his point has having relative validity to both points of view Israel and PA; you know this. It is possible one can surmise a poster's education is gleaned as he goes about his day reading this or that, but a wise person knows when this is not the case in another. If you think my education is provided by the posters here on TV, you are, however, partially correct: there are some very smart people here, Seastallion, including the ones I dont agree with.

I have no knowledge of "fact" suggesting Hamas was open to "reconciliation," unless you mean with PA, and PA with Hamas. I have simply no knowledge of this and were this true could alter my point of view. If much of what those of us do here is try to convince other people of either an important topic or to see our point of view, please do guide me to grasp this point you make. I am unaware of it. It is possible if I noted it I would call it taqiyya, this is true; but give me the chance to consider your point with something more than assertion. At least let me see it, or hear it would be better. I have access to Arabic translation in real time. Just link us.

It is possible Nethanyahu exaggerates the threats arrayed against him; all leaders in history have done this particularly to avoid circumspection at home. I concede this may be true. But this fact, if true, does not lessen the validity of the charge he asserts- IS and Iran seek the destruction of Israel and are projecting and consolidating resources to achieve just this in their lifetimes. This point seems more unassailable than the notion that Hamas wants reconciliation with Israel and few have heard about it.

EDIT: I long ago had someone say to me "if that which you are worried about was even 10% true, would that be enough to cause your fear or concern?" And so if Netanyahu takes a threat which is even 5% true and exaggerates it to 80% strength, but the topic involves threats of nuclear destruction, and your people have and are being persecuted throughout the world- still, would not the 5-10% truthfulness render the exaggerations defensible, or meaningless, or at least provide context?

If two people who hung out up the street, thugs, drinkers, clowns, cornered my wife and told her the next time I was out of town they would visit and she would be raped for hours, and my wife told me this story later in tears. Would I mitigate the threat with reasoning of the likelihood of such a thing? Would I surmise my wife exaggerates for attention, increasing reducing the threat matrix from an initial 100% to now maybe 40%. If there was even a 5% possibility that it was entirely true and a 1% likelihood it would happen, I would arrive in the dark and commit in advance an act that cannot be posted here. What man would not? What man, when using his own formula would not devise some response, or action, or aversion? What leader would not? He did not create the threat arrayed against him so to charge him with exaggerating the threat is meaningless as the threat is existential- the utter oblivion of his entire people! 1% is enough!

Edited March 25, 2015 by arjunadawn

[connda]

It's been a problem for over 60 years, and it will still be a problem in another 60 years.

[BKKBobby]

How about stop rewarding the perpetrators of the conflict with billions of dollars ?

I agree with this statement totally. The continued pouring of money into the PA and related bank accounts of their personal terrorist henchmen and Hamas only serve to support a decaying warmongering entity. Stop the combined international community from propping up the PA/Hamas and lets see how they move closer toward reconciliation. Good point. Its nice to see others who liked this agree as well!

You need to do a bit more reading, and not from the Fox News viewers on TVF.

The Billions referred to, as you know, was to Israel. The PA don't get that much.

The PA, and Hamas are indeed open to reconciliation. This is a fact. This is why Netanyahu no longer cites the PA or Hamas as a reason not to to parley.....Netanyahu now cites Iran and ISIS as a reason not to negotiate because he can no longer shift blame from himself to PA/Hamas, so he shifts it elsewhere.

First, your too smart to think my tongue was not in my cheek. I only tried to coopt his point has having relative validity to both points of view Israel and PA; you know this. It is possible one can surmise a poster's education is gleaned as he goes about his day reading this or that, but a wise person knows when this is not the case in another. If you think my education is provided by the posters here on TV, you are, however, partially correct: there are some very smart people here, Seastallion, including the ones I dont agree with.

I have no knowledge of "fact" suggesting Hamas was open to "reconciliation," unless you mean with PA, and PA with Hamas. I have simply no knowledge of this and were this true could alter my point of view. If much of what those of us do here is try to convince other people of either an important topic or to see our point of view, please do guide me to grasp this point you make. I am unaware of it. It is possible if I noted it I would call it taqiyya, this is true; but give me the chance to consider your point with something more than assertion. At least let me see it, or hear it would be better. I have access to Arabic translation in real time. Just link us.

It is possible Nethanyahu exaggerates the threats arrayed against him; all leaders in history have done this particularly to avoid circumspection at home. I concede this may be true. But this fact, if true, does not lessen the validity of the charge he asserts- IS and Iran seek the destruction of Israel and are projecting and consolidating resources to achieve just this in their lifetimes. This point seems more unassailable than the notion that Hamas wants reconciliation with Israel and few have heard about it.

EDIT: I long ago had someone say to me "if that which you are worried about was even 10% true, would that be enough to cause your fear or concern?" And so if Netanyahu takes a threat which is even 5% true and exaggerates it to 80% strength, but the topic involves threats of nuclear destruction, and your people have and are being persecuted throughout the world- still, would not the 5-10% truthfulness render the exaggerations defensible, or meaningless, or at least provide context?

If two people who hung out up the street, thugs, drinkers, clowns, cornered my wife and told her the next time I was out of town they would visit and she would be raped for hours, and my wife told me this story later in tears. Would I mitigate the threat with reasoning of the likelihood of such a thing? Would I surmise my wife exaggerates for attention, increasing reducing the threat matrix from an initial 100% to now maybe 40%. If there was even a 5% possibility that it was entirely true and a 1% likelihood it would happen, I would arrive in the dark and commit in advance an act that cannot be posted here. What man would not? What man, when using his own formula would not devise some response, or action, or aversion? What leader would not? He did not create the threat arrayed against him so to charge him with exaggerating the threat is meaningless as the threat is existential- the utter oblivion of his entire people! 1% is enough!

Iran is not a doomsday cult, thats a myth that abuses the fact that Iranians are shiites to make it remotely plausible and sellable to the ignorant masses.The guys in the funny hats and robes wants to hold on to the power and keep on dictating the life of Irans citizens. A nuclear attack on Israel would be the end of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

ISIS held territory will be become a paranthesis in the history books in a not too distant future

Anyway, Israel will always be able to find some threat with small likelihood of becoming a reality or imaginary theoretical internal/outside threats as an excuse too postpone a solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict.

Nice try.

Edited March 25, 2015 by BKKBobby

[Lissos]

Israel respects sanctity of Al Aqsa.

Once the Palestinians do, that will help too. On the whole, Israel already does. Practical issues such as protestors essentially using the actual mosque as a fort in situ and centre of operations when they decide to kick off about something, complicates matters and makes the demand about respect for sanctity less than convincing at times.

Israel has always been keenly aware of the sensitivity of the compound, explaining the decision in 67. It will howevet not sit by as it used as an elevated launch pad for rioting.

Question is, do the Palestinians even recognise the Jewish reverence of the mount? On videos I've seen, they appear to scoff at the suggestion that it is holy for Jews. Glick seeking equal rights of access in a down to earth and friendly way from what I saw, even got him shot. Closing access to the compound for a few hours led to the running down with a car of civilians at a light rail station.

[Seastallion]

How about stop rewarding the perpetrators of the conflict with billions of dollars ?

I agree with this statement totally. The continued pouring of money into the PA and related bank accounts of their personal terrorist henchmen and Hamas only serve to support a decaying warmongering entity. Stop the combined international community from propping up the PA/Hamas and lets see how they move closer toward reconciliation. Good point. Its nice to see others who liked this agree as well!

You need to do a bit more reading, and not from the Fox News viewers on TVF.

The Billions referred to, as you know, was to Israel. The PA don't get that much.

The PA, and Hamas are indeed open to reconciliation. This is a fact. This is why Netanyahu no longer cites the PA or Hamas as a reason not to to parley.....Netanyahu now cites Iran and ISIS as a reason not to negotiate because he can no longer shift blame from himself to PA/Hamas, so he shifts it elsewhere.

First, your too smart to think my tongue was not in my cheek. I only tried to coopt his point has having relative validity to both points of view Israel and PA; you know this. It is possible one can surmise a poster's education is gleaned as he goes about his day reading this or that, but a wise person knows when this is not the case in another. If you think my education is provided by the posters here on TV, you are, however, partially correct: there are some very smart people here, Seastallion, including the ones I dont agree with.

I have no knowledge of "fact" suggesting Hamas was open to "reconciliation," unless you mean with PA, and PA with Hamas. I have simply no knowledge of this and were this true could alter my point of view. If much of what those of us do here is try to convince other people of either an important topic or to see our point of view, please do guide me to grasp this point you make. I am unaware of it. It is possible if I noted it I would call it taqiyya, this is true; but give me the chance to consider your point with something more than assertion. At least let me see it, or hear it would be better. I have access to Arabic translation in real time. Just link us.

It is possible Nethanyahu exaggerates the threats arrayed against him; all leaders in history have done this particularly to avoid circumspection at home. I concede this may be true. But this fact, if true, does not lessen the validity of the charge he asserts- IS and Iran seek the destruction of Israel and are projecting and consolidating resources to achieve just this in their lifetimes. This point seems more unassailable than the notion that Hamas wants reconciliation with Israel and few have heard about it.

EDIT: I long ago had someone say to me "if that which you are worried about was even 10% true, would that be enough to cause your fear or concern?" And so if Netanyahu takes a threat which is even 5% true and exaggerates it to 80% strength, but the topic involves threats of nuclear destruction, and your people have and are being persecuted throughout the world- still, would not the 5-10% truthfulness render the exaggerations defensible, or meaningless, or at least provide context?

If two people who hung out up the street, thugs, drinkers, clowns, cornered my wife and told her the next time I was out of town they would visit and she would be raped for hours, and my wife told me this story later in tears. Would I mitigate the threat with reasoning of the likelihood of such a thing? Would I surmise my wife exaggerates for attention, increasing reducing the threat matrix from an initial 100% to now maybe 40%. If there was even a 5% possibility that it was entirely true and a 1% likelihood it would happen, I would arrive in the dark and commit in advance an act that cannot be posted here. What man would not? What man, when using his own formula would not devise some response, or action, or aversion? What leader would not? He did not create the threat arrayed against him so to charge him with exaggerating the threat is meaningless as the threat is existential- the utter oblivion of his entire people! 1% is enough!

I know your tongue was in your cheek, that's why I said "as you well know", and I know well why you posted tongue in cheek.

However, many a true word is spoken in jest, and you followed up your tongue in cheek jest with fallacy.

I'll give you some links when I have time, but it is true that Hamas has agreed to an indefinite truce and to recognise the state of Israel. I would have been booed out of the hall by the Israel supporters by now if this was not true.

My point about Netanyahu's rhetoric no longer including Hamas (and no longer including the PA is an old well established fact) should, in fact be evidence enough for you that he no longer can see them as a threat should a deal be struck. Netanyahu is not one to let political points slip nor is he one to avoid rhetoric when he thinks he can get away with it....hence the emphasis on ISIS and Iran now.

Palestinian statehood should have nothing, and in fact does have nothing, to do with ISIS or Iran. As Obama has observed, Netanyahu's concerns are simply a stalling tactic. He may as well have said "I will not consider a 2 state solution while the threat of global warming continues". Just as invalid a concern.

[arjunadawn]

It is possible Nethanyahu exaggerates the threats arrayed against him; all leaders in history have done this particularly to avoid circumspection at home. I concede this may be true. But this fact, if true, does not lessen the validity of the charge he asserts- IS and Iran seek the destruction of Israel and are projecting and consolidating resources to achieve just this in their lifetimes. This point seems more unassailable than the notion that Hamas wants reconciliation with Israel and few have heard about it.

EDIT: I long ago had someone say to me "if that which you are worried about was even 10% true, would that be enough to cause your fear or concern?" And so if Netanyahu takes a threat which is even 5% true and exaggerates it to 80% strength, but the topic involves threats of nuclear destruction, and your people have and are being persecuted throughout the world- still, would not the 5-10% truthfulness render the exaggerations defensible, or meaningless, or at least provide context?

If two people who hung out up the street, thugs, drinkers, clowns, cornered my wife and told her the next time I was out of town they would visit and she would be raped for hours, and my wife told me this story later in tears. Would I mitigate the threat with reasoning of the likelihood of such a thing? Would I surmise my wife exaggerates for attention, increasing reducing the threat matrix from an initial 100% to now maybe 40%. If there was even a 5% possibility that it was entirely true and a 1% likelihood it would happen, I would arrive in the dark and commit in advance an act that cannot be posted here. What man would not? What man, when using his own formula would not devise some response, or action, or aversion? What leader would not? He did not create the threat arrayed against him so to charge him with exaggerating the threat is meaningless as the threat is existential- the utter oblivion of his entire people! 1% is enough!

Iran is not a doomsday cult, thats a myth that abuses the fact that Iranians are shiites to make it remotely plausible and sellable to the ignorant masses.The guys in the funny hats and robes wants to hold on to the power and keep on dictating the life of Irans citizens. A nuclear attack on Israel would be the end of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

ISIS held territory will be become a paranthesis in the history books in a not too distant future

Anyway, Israel will always be able to find some threat with small likelihood of becoming a reality or imaginary theoretical internal/outside threats as an excuse too postpone a solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict.

Nice try.

First, Iran is a country, not a cult, and no, there is no myth that the country of Iran, formally Persia is itself a doomsday cult. Irrespective of whether Iran is predominantly shia or not the cult of the Twelvers is quite real, and quite literally informs many of the actions Iran takes. Yes, the eschatology of both Twelvers, Shia, and Sunni do see your marginalized note "doomsday" as the mechanism that facilitates the return of the Mahdi, or the rise of the Caliph, depending on who we are discussing. To suggest their is no apocalyptic vision to the diplomatic apparatus of State is not just wrong but dangerous.

The myth you mention, if existed, would make everyone who believed such a thing an idiot because it makes no sense at all, as posted above. The shia/sunni problem has existed since Kaybar and continues; this is a different phenomena from both the apocalyptic visions both sunni and shia have and that of the Twelvers in believing they are required to facilitate this mechanism. Islam differs from other religions in that wrath and judgement are not reserved for the next life but "the best of all people" are empowered to action the judgement here in this life, thus the highly evolved jurisprudence of Shar'ia. When you attempt to simplify something please dont suggest its my commentary that is being addressed. I would never avow such a topical commentary on the threats posed in the middle east.

These threats arrayed against Israel can, for the purposes of intellectual objectivity, be considered separately from the emotionally charged Palestinian/Israeli conundrum. In this intellectual vacuum what is noted? What exists in this narrowed consideration are valid threats against Israel, against Jews, that are founded on 1,400 years of bias, prejudice, slavery, and dhimmitude. Indeed, the entire fabric of Islamic Sharia is predicated upon Jews and "people of the book" being subjugated and punished; were Jews and "people of the book" redacted out of Shar'ia the entire jurisprudence collapses. This single fact is itself enough to cause consternation to the Israeli State. Couple that with a mounting transnational terrorist army of jihadis who' secondary target are Jews and the threat mounts. Add to this the public and avowed determination of a State player to destroy not only the state but every Jew and the threats mount further. Add to this hostile formula the possibility of the terrorists getting NBC and the State getting nukes and every single step is fraught with uncertainty and vagueness. Lastly, to finish the recipe, remove from Israel's side the single entity that sustained in during its formulative growth and you have a near potential existential disaster. Only one thing further could make this worse: when the previous entity, the United States, which withdraws support, actually then begins working against Israeli interests then the Jews are actually in dire danger. It would not surprise me at all if Obama's actions result in total war. Obama has empowered every single entity that poses an existential threat to Israel, and then abandoned her.

Its exceptionally difficult to sensationalize or exaggerate such forces arrayed against you, though emotive arguments here and internationally seek to do so.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/islam-ithna-ashari.htm

https://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/24/analysis-is-rouhani-a-twelver-irans-president-elect-just-thanked-the-mahdi-for-his-victory/

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/islam-in-iran-vii-the-concept-of-mahdi-in-twelver-shiism

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/11/07/why-irans-top-leaders-believe-that-end-days-has-come/

There are others who reject my view and make sound arguments; I will not post contrary links to support these views here. A previous effort of mine to do just this resulted in confusing people. My effort then being to make my argument, post for and against links, and hope my view prevailed; this was not received well by anyone. Yes, there are multiple things to consider on many of these issues, but really only three possible perspectives: Brilliant statecraft, an apocalyptic vision, or a combination of both. However, after numerous years studying these topics and planing (though not completed) my doctorate on related matter it is my opinion that Iran is not simply manipulating brilliant statecraft (though it is doing this as well). Iran poses an immediate threat to both Israel and the region!

Edited March 25, 2015 by arjunadawn

[Steely Dan]

It is possible Nethanyahu exaggerates the threats arrayed against him; all leaders in history have done this particularly to avoid circumspection at home. I concede this may be true. But this fact, if true, does not lessen the validity of the charge he asserts- IS and Iran seek the destruction of Israel and are projecting and consolidating resources to achieve just this in their lifetimes. This point seems more unassailable than the notion that Hamas wants reconciliation with Israel and few have heard about it.

EDIT: I long ago had someone say to me "if that which you are worried about was even 10% true, would that be enough to cause your fear or concern?" And so if Netanyahu takes a threat which is even 5% true and exaggerates it to 80% strength, but the topic involves threats of nuclear destruction, and your people have and are being persecuted throughout the world- still, would not the 5-10% truthfulness render the exaggerations defensible, or meaningless, or at least provide context?

If two people who hung out up the street, thugs, drinkers, clowns, cornered my wife and told her the next time I was out of town they would visit and she would be raped for hours, and my wife told me this story later in tears. Would I mitigate the threat with reasoning of the likelihood of such a thing? Would I surmise my wife exaggerates for attention, increasing reducing the threat matrix from an initial 100% to now maybe 40%. If there was even a 5% possibility that it was entirely true and a 1% likelihood it would happen, I would arrive in the dark and commit in advance an act that cannot be posted here. What man would not? What man, when using his own formula would not devise some response, or action, or aversion? What leader would not? He did not create the threat arrayed against him so to charge him with exaggerating the threat is meaningless as the threat is existential- the utter oblivion of his entire people! 1% is enough!

Iran is not a doomsday cult, thats a myth that abuses the fact that Iranians are shiites to make it remotely plausible and sellable to the ignorant masses.The guys in the funny hats and robes wants to hold on to the power and keep on dictating the life of Irans citizens. A nuclear attack on Israel would be the end of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

ISIS held territory will be become a paranthesis in the history books in a not too distant future

Anyway, Israel will always be able to find some threat with small likelihood of becoming a reality or imaginary theoretical internal/outside threats as an excuse too postpone a solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict.

Nice try.

First, Iran is a country, not a cult, and no, there is no myth that the country of Iran, formally Persia is itself a doomsday cult. Irrespective of whether Iran is predominantly shia or not the cult of the Twelvers is quite real, and quite literally informs many of the actions Iran takes. Yes, the eschatology of both Twelvers, Shia, and Sunni do see your marginalized note "doomsday" as the mechanism that facilitates the return of the Mahdi, or the rise of the Caliph, depending on who we are discussing. To suggest their is no apocalyptic vision to the diplomatic apparatus of State is not just wrong but dangerous.

The myth you mention, if existed, would make everyone who believed such a thing an idiot because it makes no sense at all, as posted above. The shia/sunni problem has existed since Kaybar and continues; this is a different phenomena from both the apocalyptic visions both sunni and shia have and that of the Twelvers in believing they are required to facilitate this mechanism. Islam differs from other religions in that wrath and judgement are not reserved for the next life but "the best of all people" are empowered to action the judgement here in this life, thus the highly evolved jurisprudence of Shar'ia. When you attempt to simplify something please dont suggest its my commentary that is being addressed. I would never avow such a topical commentary on the threats posed in the middle east.

These threats arrayed against Israel can, for the purposes of intellectual objectivity, be considered separately from the emotionally charged Palestinian/Israeli conundrum. In this intellectual vacuum what is noted? What exists in this narrowed consideration are valid threats against Israel, against Jews, that are founded on 1,400 years of bias, prejudice, slavery, and dhimmitude. Indeed, the entire fabric of Islamic Sharia is predicated upon Jews and "people of the book" being subjugated and punished; were Jews and "people of the book" redacted out of Shar'ia the entire jurisprudence collapses. This single fact is itself enough to cause consternation to the Israeli State. Couple that with a mounting transnational terrorist army of jihadis who' secondary target are Jews and the threat mounts. Add to this the public and avowed determination of a State player to destroy not only the state but every Jew and the threats mount further. Add to this hostile formula the possibility of the terrorists getting NBC and the State getting nukes and every single step is fraught with uncertainty and vagueness. Lastly, to finish the recipe, remove from Israel's side the single entity that sustained in during its formulative growth and you have a near potential existential disaster. Only one thing further could make this worse: when the previous entity, the United States, which withdraws support, actually then begins working against Israeli interests then the Jews are actually in dire danger. It would not surprise me at all if Obama's actions result in total war. Obama has empowered every single entity that poses an existential threat to Israel, and then abandoned her.

Its exceptionally difficult to sensationalize or exaggerate such forces arrayed against you, though emotive arguments here and internationally seek to do so.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/islam-ithna-ashari.htm

https://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/24/analysis-is-rouhani-a-twelver-irans-president-elect-just-thanked-the-mahdi-for-his-victory/

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/islam-in-iran-vii-the-concept-of-mahdi-in-twelver-shiism

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/11/07/why-irans-top-leaders-believe-that-end-days-has-come/

There are others who reject my view and make sound arguments; I will not post contrary links to support these views here. A previous effort of mine to do just this resulted in confusing people. My effort then being to make my argument, post for and against links, and hope my view prevailed; this was not received well by anyone. Yes, there are multiple things to consider on many of these issues, but really only three possible perspectives: Brilliant statecraft, an apocalyptic vision, or a combination of both. However, after numerous years studying these topics and planing (though not completed) my doctorate on related matter it is my opinion that Iran is not simply manipulating brilliant statecraft (though it is doing this as well). Iran poses an immediate threat to both Israel and the region!

And the odds of this state of affairs being a result of serial incompetence as oppose to malign intent are somewhat remote.

[Ulysses G.]

The PA, and Hamas are indeed open to reconciliation. This is a fact. This is why Netanyahu no longer cites the PA or Hamas as a reason not to to parley.

Utter nonsense as usual and Netanyahu DOES cite Hamas as a reason to this day. The PA and Hamas are only open to reconciliation with EACH OTHER.

“I’m saying something very clear,” as long as I’m prime minister of Israel, we will not negotiate with a government that is backed by Hamas, an organization that is committed to our destruction.”

-Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Shortly after the reconciliation deal between the PA and Hamas was signed, Abbas said that a Palestinian unity government would recognize Israel. Hamas officials, however, DENIED it.

Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal confirmed that Hamas remains committed to wage "jihad" against Israel., while Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar added that the unity pact does not mean the organization will recognize the Jewish State or cease its terrorist activities in Gaza. "We have turned the page on this division [with Fatah]," said Mashaal. "Hamas has already made sacrifices and this was necessary to be closer with our brothers, but with the invader [israel] we will not make any compromises."

Edited March 25, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[SheungWan]

Every President since Einsenhower has tried to broker 'peace in the Middle East.' Might as well go play golf, at least the President would get some exercise that way.

Maybe that's a good reason for the USA to stand aside. They have lost credibility as an honest broker by granting Israel immunity via the UNSC veto to do what it likes and ignore UN resolutions.

I would like to see UN sanctions imposed on Israel, but that would be a step too far for some politicians hamstrung by the Israeli lobby and probably the USA would jump in to veto that, but it might give Israel a scare to shock it into getting serious about making a just peace agreement.

I can however see Israel's largest trading partner the EU imposing sanctions of its own. They are not weighed down as much as USA by powerful groups such as AIPAC.

There's an interesting letter from several prominent Brits published in today's Guardian calling for such.

Only sanctions can change Israeli policy

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/24/only-sanctions-can-change-israeli-policy

Not exactly prominent Brits but rather a round up the usual suspects exercise unless you consider Hugh Lanning a contributor to the Morning Star a prominent Brit. Well I guess Guardian readers do. Somewhat dim in their own way.

[BKKBobby]

Israel respects sanctity of Al Aqsa.

Once the Palestinians do, that will help too. On the whole, Israel already does. Practical issues such as protestors essentially using the actual mosque as a fort in situ and centre of operations when they decide to kick off about something, complicates matters and makes the demand about respect for sanctity less than convincing at times.

Israel has always been keenly aware of the sensitivity of the compound, explaining the decision in 67. It will howevet not sit by as it used as an elevated launch pad for rioting.

Question is, do the Palestinians even recognise the Jewish reverence of the mount? On videos I've seen, they appear to scoff at the suggestion that it is holy for Jews. Glick seeking equal rights of access in a down to earth and friendly way from what I saw, even got him shot. Closing access to the compound for a few hours led to the running down with a car of civilians at a light rail station.

I think a lot of Israeli jews would like to see whats beneath Al-Aqsa if they would get free hands and without the risk of facing any repercussions. Edited March 25, 2015 by BKKBobby