US drops demand for settlement freeze after tripartite meeting

[Kurska]

"After US President Barack Obama said Tuesday that he discussed "important steps to restrain settlement activity" with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, US special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell went a step further, saying that an Israeli settlement freeze is not essential for peace talks with Palestinians to resume.

Speaking to reporters after Obama's meeting with Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Mitchell said the United States had never presented "preconditions" and did not want the either party to do so. "

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1253627543052&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

sounds like a significant and sudden reversal, but more along the lines of "We never demanded a settlement freeze" which sounds like a croc to me, but as is politics.

[Ozymanithrax]

1. If it gets them talking...

then it is a useful croc'o'shit.

[Scurrilous]

2. Israeli FM: Summit a victory for settlement stand

<snip>

"Israel's foreign minister said Wednesday that the summit of Israeli, U.S. and Palestinian leaders proved Israel could successfully fend off international pressure to freeze West Bank settlement construction.

Palestinian officials expressed disappointment with Tuesday's meeting in New York. The U.S. appeared to back down from a demand, expressed forcefully in recent months, that Israel cease all construction in West Bank settlements.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met in New York with President Barack Obama and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. It was Netanyahu's first meeting with Abbas since taking office in March. Beyond a cool handshake, there were no signs of progress toward the U.S. goal of restarting peace talks.

The Palestinians have said they will not resume negotiations until Israel halts all construction in settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem. The Palestinians claim both areas and the Gaza Strip, all captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war, as parts of a future independent state.

Speaking to Israel Radio, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said the fact that the meeting took place showed Israel's firm stand against a settlement freeze was effective.

"This government has shown that you don't always need to get flustered, to surrender and give in," Lieberman told Israel Radio. "What's important for me is that this government kept its promises to the voter ... and the fact is that this meeting happened."

Obama and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had previously demanded a full halt to construction in the settlements.

But at Tuesday's meeting, Obama did not explicitly call for a settlement freeze, and George Mitchell, the White House Mideast envoy, said afterward that the administration does not see a resolution of the settlement showdown as a precondition for resuming negotiations."

more

[shira]

3. "freeze not essential for peace talks"............well, duh!

Peace talks between Olmert and Abbas went on for months without a settlement freeze but the gaps between the 2 sides were insurmountable - so it took this long to finally realize a freeze isn't essential for more of the same?

:eyes:

Amateurs.

[aranthus]

4. No one thought it was essential.

This was about Abbas seeing whether he could manipulate Obama to pressure Israel to give him a concession.

[IndianaGreen]

7. Abbas gets paid by the US. He will hike his hind leg and bark on command.

Bibi is being Bibi. He is the perennial perpetual motion machine, in which a lot of activity takes place but nothing really happens.

[oberliner]

8. What Palestinian leader do you support?

If you are accusing Abbas of being a lapdog, who ought the world look to as the legitimate leader of the Palestinian people at this time, if anyone?

[IndianaGreen]

9. It is up to Palestinians to pick their leaders

not you, me, US, or Israel.

[oberliner]

10. They have already done so

I'm just asking your opinion of the leaders they have chosen.

[azurnoir]

5. Obama: America rejects Israeli settlements

America rejects the legitimacy of Israel's settlement enterprise, US President Barack Obama insisted in his address to the UN General Assembly on Wednesday.

After first calling on Palestinians to end "incitement" against Israel, Obama reiterated that "America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements."

He also acknowledged that his country too often fails to criticize Israel's policies toward Palestine. "The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians."

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=227335

spin and counterspin and sounds like more empty "piece talks"

[IndianaGreen]

6. I miss the days of Bill Clinton's triangulations

Ask me what time it is, and I will tell you Obama's latest position on any given controversial topic.

[Scurrilous]

11. Hold those premature victory dances

<snip>

"Yesterday, Israel hawks appeared to be competing over who could do the best victory dance after the Obama-Netanyahu-Abbas photo opportunity went down without an Israeli commitment to a settlement freeze. Netanyahu's intransigence certainly did harm American standing and prestige in the region, and undermined a number of key American foreign policy goals -- just as one would expect from a close ally and friend. Why this black eye for American standing so delighted certain pundits is an interesting question.

But the victory dances, while entertaining in their own way, were premature. They celebrated a relatively minor tactical win, which carried some significant costs for their own position at the wider strategic level. Put bluntly, in exchange for an evening's backslapping and triumphant TV play, they got a pissed off President who is more committed than ever to doing exactly what he said he would do and who is more -- not less -- inclined to demonstrate his determination to play the role of even-handed broker.

The President's UN speech today makes this very clear. Obama said extremely clearly that despite Netanyahu's running out the clock ahead of the trilateral, "we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements." He then laid out a clear American position about where the game should now shift:

The time has come to re-launch negotiations – without preconditions – that address the permanent-status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians; borders, refugees and Jerusalem. The goal is clear: two states living side by side in peace and security – a Jewish State of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people.

I am not naïve. I know this will be difficult. But all of us must decide whether we are serious about peace, or whether we only lend it lip-service. To break the old patterns – to break the cycle of insecurity and despair – all of us must say publicly what we would acknowledge in private. The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians. And nations within this body do the Palestinians no favors when they choose vitriolic attacks over a constructive willingness to recognize Israel’s legitimacy, and its right to exist in peace and security.

That's tough, even-handed, and clear. It's exactly what needed to be said, and it throws down the gauntlet directly and at the Presidential level. Netanyahu won September 22, but Obama and his team aren't playing to win a day. They're playing to win the game: achieving a two-state solution which protects American national security interests, along with the vital and just interests of both sides."

more

[azurnoir]

12. Thanks I had similar thoughts

when juxtaposing the "victory" proclamations with President Obama's UN statement, he is it seems a master chess player and not all too distracted by "shiny flashing lights"

[bemildred]

13. Nobody won anything that I can see.

This is all tactical maneuvering and PR bullshit. "The game goes on" is what I see.

Mr Lynch makes some sound points, but I don't agree with all of it.

It is interesting to watch how the "negotiations without preconditions" issue moves back and forth depending on who wants to look like a peacemaker and who wants to look "tough".