Netanyahu to Obama: Any Syria Agreement Must Take Israel's Interests Into Account
Source: Haaretz
Thirteen months after their last meeting and following a four-month period during which they have not spoken by phone, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama met on Monday at the White House for a two-and-a-half hour meeting.
At a press briefing after the meeting, Netanyahu said that he conveyed to Obama Israel's expectations that any international agreement in Syria between will have to "take into account Israel's interests."
Netanyahu reiterated several times that his meeting with Obama was the best meeting between the two leaders to date. He noted that the conciliatory tone that was evident in the statements given to reporters before the meeting continued to characterize the rest of the meeting. According to Netanyahu, even on issues on which they differ, he and the president spoke about how to work together.
Netanyahu also said that Obama and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry briefed him during the meeting about a possible political solution in Syria. He said he told Obama that he has doubts over the possibility of reaching a political agreement in Syria and reuniting the country under some kind of regime.
Read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.685114
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
LiberalArkie
(15,716 posts)47of74
(18,470 posts)
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)f--k it. Israel isn't doing anything constructive so why bow to them.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)OK, I can dream can't I?
forest444
(5,902 posts)Alas, it's anything but.
Frankly, I doubt there's a single nation in the world - friend or foe - that has, by its own actions, besmirched U.S. standing abroad as much as Israel has.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
Joey Liberal
(5,526 posts)We don't answer to him.
6chars
(3,967 posts)I always imagine people writing this with the veins popping in their temple.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Do we really need a right-wing Israeli welfare queen sucking up more US $$ while their apartheid state is running like a dream?
Cut em loose.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)6chars
(3,967 posts)I would be shocked if Obama thinks otherwise.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)Under the best hopes, the international powers are looking for an agreement that includes a real ceasefire and the Syrians voting for an inclusive government. The best hope is that Assad is not included in the new government.
Obviously, that government should not support attacks on Israel. However, if what Netanyahu is meaning is that the government should not be aligned with Russia and Iran, like Assad is, that could be a step too far. It almost certainly is impossible to get all factions to agree to that and it goes against the goal stated by the west that Syrians will decide who rules them.
At this point, ending this hell is more important than the geopolitical game. Any neo con influences that helped start this fire are part of the problem, not the solution.
Response to karynnj (Reply #21)
6chars This message was self-deleted by its author.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)I seriously doubt that a solution would include Iran keeping troops anywhere in Syria - certainly not on the Golan Heights. I would hope that an unspoken goal will be to tamp down the proxy wars between all outside powers. If it is seen as in the interest of everyone - the US, Saudi Arabia as well as Iran and Russia - to push their Syrian side to end the civil war and find common ground, there is no reason to think that things - geopolitically would be worse than they were in 2009 before the civil war started.
I have no idea what this "25 year plan" you reference is.
What I do see is that the US is seriously working with others to end what is a hellish situation. I would suggest that it is very likely that any agreed upon resolution will be greeted as the Iran deal was by Netanyahu and the Republicans. This is why there are many articles that already speak of Obama having "lost" Syria - implying that he had the US enter the civil war more aggressively, we would now have a secular, moderate government that at least respects if not likes the US -- and, of course, no ISIS.
This ignores in the first place, that ISIS would still have gained adherents from the Iraqi Sunnis shut out by Maliki and some of them would have been immediately across the border in Syria as they are the same tribes and the border was a line drawn by Europeans. It also ignores that every time we looked closely at the "moderates" in Syria- many were or were aligned with some not very moderate elements. This meant that what was seen as the easiest path for the US - arming the rebels was problematic - as those arms would have migrated to our enemies.
What works for those who backed that approach is that it is always easier to show that the path taken had a bad end. It seems clear that Obama had a set of options here - all of which were and are bad. However, it is very hard to argue that ANY agreement that ends the civil war, allows the country to rebuild and allows innocent people to have lives that are not a complete nightmare is better than the status quo.
If you read any statement from Lavrov or Kerry, they agree that the Syrian people have to decide who they want to rule them and what their constitution should be. Note that specifying what the relationship of that FUTURE government is with the various powers is inconsistent with the stated agreement that it is the Syrian people who must choose this. Obviously if a government forms that threatens Israel, the US would be there in support of Israel, but that is far down the road -- and the main issue here has to be ending the fighting in Syria.
Like the Iran deal, Obama's (through Kerry) stated position here is NOT the neocon position - and I personally am very happy that that is the case. (As for Israel, note that the far right Israelis also were angry with the deal to remove what ended up 600 tons of chemical weapons - even though it clearly made Israel safer. )
bemildred
(90,061 posts)He is not highlighting differences, and "interests taken into account" is pretty weak stuff.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)a week before the trip. It is his right to pick whomever he wants, but - even without the ridiculous blog comments, this is a choice that is essentially giving both the Obama administration and the international community the finger. That it follows him NOT replacing Dermer and selecting another far right, West Bank settler as the UN ambassador.
The problem with this is that what he depends on is that the US will spend a huge amount of time - at a high level - lobbying the rest of the world to not react to the very provocations that their own diplomats cause. In addition to the anger at Boehner etc in attempting to embarrass Obama and work against what was then seen as a long shot to get a nuclear deal with Iran, I felt a huge amount of anger that Dermer actually met for over an hour with Kerry - as Kerry went through the results of Kerry having spoken to his peers in about 40 countries on behalf of Israel - and Dermer did not tell him that Boehner had invited Netanyahu and that would be announced later that day.
I assume that Netanyahu is trying to BOTH signal to Israel that he can "control the relationship" with the US and get a huge increase in aid to compensate for the nuclear deal that actually makes Israel safer and that he won't back down from far right positions. The fact is that American politics being what they are, there really is never a price that Netanyahu has to pay no matter how obnoxious he is.
Duval
(4,280 posts)It is so nice to know we have enough money to give more billions to Israel. I guess infrastructure, etc. will just have to wait...
Blue_Adept
(6,399 posts)Seriously. You could change the names to high school boys or girls and the locations to places kids go and it would sound exactly the same.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)Otherwise, nothing gets solved, and everything gets worse.
meow2u3
(24,764 posts)before any agreement with Syria can take place.
Who the hell does Netanyahu think he is, interfering with American foreign policy? What makes Nut'n'yahoo think HE'S the President of the United States?
Do America a favor. Go worry about your own country, Benny!
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Of course, he probably does.
Response to Purveyor (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)They always hated Assad and wanted him gone. That means more ISIS which threatens the US.
It seems to me that Israel hates the Shiite countries and leaders more than the Sunnis.
Yet ISIS, Al Quaida et al that are really bad actors hate the west and the Shiites.
So I think the US and Israel's interests here don't line up.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)
McKim
(2,412 posts)We have had quite enough of Mr. Netanyahu's directing our country how to carry out its foreign policy. He needs to keep quiet after his shameful and hateful remarks of recent months. His speech to congress a while back was really over the top. This man needs to quiet down.
America is turning away from supporting Israel and its human rights violations. As a person of faith, I believe in non violence.
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions are a non violent strategy to convince Israel that they must stop violating human rights of Palestinians. Only then can they have a peaceful, one state, bilingual and bicultural state. I feel sorry for all the Israelis who
moved there to have a better, safer life and live out their ideals. It did not turn out that way for them. A new policy for human rights can work and a change of hearts is in order. The present path in Israel is not sustainable.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)that "America is turning away from supporting Israel"? I see zero evidence of that. bds is nothing but a joke among Americans and not one city or state has joined in. I can show you poll after poll showing Americans sympathize with Israel FAR more than they do the Palestinians - Democrats at a lower percentage but still crazy high numbers for Republicans and Independents and perhaps you can show me where one person in congress has gotten elected taking up the cause of the Palestinians over Israel.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)From February 2015
http://www.gallup.com/poll/181652/seven-americans-continue-view-israel-favorably.aspx
PRINCETON, N.J. -- Even as relations between the leaders of Israel and the United States reportedly deteriorate over disagreement about how to handle Iran's nuclear program, Israel has retained its broadly favorable image in the U.S. over the past year. Seventy percent of Americans now view that country favorably, and 62% say they sympathize more with the Israelis than the Palestinians in the Mideast conflict. By contrast, 17% currently view the Palestinian Authority favorably, and 16% sympathize more with the Palestinians.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)And who can say, "No" to such a nice man?
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)and if Syria's neighbor were just our allies like Turkey and Jordon, we'd do nothing. This cluster**** was drummed up and sold as an opportunity to help Israel get rid of Assad.
