Obama
is Desperate to get anything Started on Middle East Peace
Before Mid-Term Elections And 2012 Elections To Boost Ratings!
He wants to show Anything in Foreign Policy to lift the Image
Of Himself, His Administration, Plus His Democratic Buddies!
If He Can take Credit for Middle East Peace it would Help!
PA & Israel are now seeing Obama as a master of Guile!
He Is a Lying Politician Taking Credit For Other’s Work!
August 24, 2010
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
If Obama can come riding into the September 2 Peace Conference on the proverbial white horse of the cowboy flick hero, and get some sort of an agreement out of this weird assortment of characters with a list of non-negotiable things stretching from Israel to the White House, it would go a long way toward restoring his greatness. In fact, I feel sure that is the reason he, and his administration, talked out of both sides of their mouths to Netanyahu and Abbas – Telling both sides different things to get them to Washington to restore some of Prince Obama’s shattered popularity.
The ONLY type of peace that can occur in Israel will be as phony as a three dollar bill, but most of the world would buy it as a true peace wrought by the workings of miracle change man Barrack Obama. But, quite frankly, I am hoping Obama will be successful in bringing in a false peace, because the sooner it comes in, the surer I will be as to about when the final war of this age will begin, terminating some three and one-half years later at the battle of Armageddon as Jesus returns at his Second Advent.
I Thessalonians 5:3,4 – For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. [4] But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
A false peace will briefly come to the Middle East prior to 2015, whether or not this September Peace Conference will produce it, I cannot say.
Begin Excerpt 1 from Arutz Sheva
‘Direct Talks’ Scheduled for a Total of One Day
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
August 24, 2010
Reporters were scratching their heads Monday as they tried to break through non-answers and flowery talk about the trumpeted “direct talks” between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
The discussions apparently will last a total of a few hours in Washington next Thursday.
The United States has billed the talks as the beginning of a process that will end in an agreement on “final issues” such as the borders of a proposed new Arab state headed by the PA, the status of Jerusalem and Arab demands to allow several million Arabs from foreign countries to immigrate to Israel on the basis of ancestral residence in Israel.
A readout of the transcript of the daily State Department briefing reads like a wild goose chase as reporters tried to read through a smokescreen of diplomatic semantics that did not address their questions.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dramatically announced last Friday that the direct talks will take place—after weeks of “indirect talks” that never got off the ground. Instead of dealing with substantive issues, U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell shuttled back and forth between Israel and PA officials to try overcome the issue of the 10-month building freeze on Jewish buildings in Judea and Samaria.
PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has demanded the freeze be extended as a condition for direct talks, and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has insisted that good faith would be shown by sitting down without ultimatums.
Reporters discovered that the “direct talks” actually will focus on the same freeze issue that was an obstacle to indirect talks.
One reporter asked U.S. State Department spokesman Philip Crowley, “What specifically are you doing about this issue, which seems to be the prime issue for the Palestinians? This is the one [issue] that is going to break the negotiations down before anything else.”
Crowley answered, “We’re very mindful of the importance the issue is within the negotiation. That’s why we want to get in the negotiation. None of these issues can be resolved outside of this negotiation.”
But will the freeze be extended? Crowley hedged his bets and replied, “The direct negotiation begins on September 2, and you can rest assured that this will be among the topics discussed early on.”
The frustrated reporter wondered how the talks will result in anything concrete. “You’ve had five – you’ve had a year and a half of absolutely nothing, or a year and three months of nothing, and then five – and then several months of indirect negotiations, during which presumably we all thought that this was the kind of issue that were going to be discussed. Now you’re saying that basically this is not – this hasn’t been discussed at all?”
However, Crowley would not be pinned down on what will happen if Israel does not agree to the PA demand.
“We are very mindful of the Palestinian position and once we’re now into direct negotiations, we expect that both parties will do everything within their power to create an environment for those negotiations to continue constructively,” he stated.
“And what happens after September 2?” asked another reporter. “Right now, we’re just focused on the meetings on the 2nd of September,” Crowley explained. “I can’t rule out that they would continue, but I wouldn’t project that based on what we know now. Right now, we’re only projecting a one-day meeting.”
Virtually all foreign media, from China to the United States, have reported the direct talks as face-saving move for U.S. President Barack Obama. He plans to meet separately with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Abbas next Wednesday before they sit down together the following day.
The president’s direct intervention makes it more likely “he going to be called upon sooner rather than later to earn his Nobel Peace Prize,” Aaron David Miller, an adviser to six former secretaries of State, told USA Today.
David Makovsky, director of the Project on the Middle East Peace Process at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the news magazine, “When they reach an impasse, and they will, the expectation will be that the president has to come in and fix these things,” says Miller, now at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “Does he really understand what he’s getting himself into?”
Begin Excerpt 2 from DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
Clinton upholds deal with Israel – Obama reneges re Bushehr, Palestinian issues
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
August 23, 2010, 7:48 PM (GMT+02:00)
DEBKAfile reports Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is misleading his ministers by presenting the direct talks opening with the Palestinians on Sept. 2 as a diplomatic victory. He has omitted to disclose that the Obama administration has reneged on the secret deals for paving the way to the talks.
One part was US non-reaction to the Bushehr reactor start-up, another to refrain from twisting Israel’s arms in negotiations with the Palestinians.The White House is standing by neither.
Begin Five Excerpts from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs/Daily Alert
Excerpt 1 from State Department
U.S. Announces Renewed Israeli-Palestinian Peace Talks
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced Friday: “After proximity talks and consultations with both sides, on behalf of the United States Government, I’ve invited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Abbas to meet on September 2nd in Washington, D.C., to re-launch direct negotiations to resolve all final status issues, which we believe can be completed within one year. President Obama has invited President Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan to attend in view of their critical role in this effort….These negotiations should take place without preconditions.” (State Department)
Excerpt 2 from New York Times
In Mideast Talks, Scant Hopes from the Beginning
Ethan Bronner
The American invitation on Friday to the Israelis and Palestinians to start direct peace talks was immediately accepted by both governments. But just below the surface there was an almost audible shrug. There is little confidence – close to none – on either side that the Obama administration’s goal of reaching a comprehensive deal in one year can be met.
Yossi Beilin, who left politics in 2008 after years as a leftist member of Parliament and government minister, said Friday that the Obama administration was wrong to set a one-year goal. “I think this is a huge mistake by the U.S. administration,” he said. “There is not a chance in the world that in a year – two or three – peace can be achieved. The gap between the sides is too big.” On the Palestinian side, not even the leadership is enthusiastic.
Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, has spent the past year and a half resisting the entreaties of Mr. Netanyahu to sit down together without preconditions. He was hoping that the Obama administration would impose a solution.
As most Israelis see it, twice in the past decade their governments made generous offers to the Palestinian leadership that were rejected or ignored, evidence that peaceful coexistence was not the other side’s goal. What happened in Gaza over the past five years has also created intense Israeli disillusionment. Israel withdrew its settlers and soldiers and the result was a victory for Hamas, which rejects Israel’s existence, and thousands of rockets shot at Israeli communities from Gaza.
Dore Gold, a former diplomat who has left public service but is closely associated with Mr. Netanyahu, said the negotiations “can be important as long as Israel’s red lines are not crossed.” The lines he considers red are the need to keep Jerusalem united and under Israeli sovereignty and preserving Israeli control of the area in the West Bank along the Jordan border to prevent any flow
of weapons in. (New York Times)
Excerpt 3 from Prime Minister’s Office
Netanyahu: We Can Surprise the Skeptics to Reach Peace
Prime Minister Netanyahu told the Israeli Cabinet Sunday: “I welcome the U.S. invitation to start direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority without preconditions.
Since the Government’s inauguration nearly a year and a half ago I have been calling for these direct talks. The achievement of a peace agreement between us and the Palestinian Authority is a difficult thing, but it is possible….We are seeking to surprise the critics and the skeptics, but in order to do this we need a real partner on the Palestinian side. It is possible to succeed with a hand extended in peace, but only if someone on the other [side] likewise extends one. ”
This agreement will be based on three initial components: First of all, on real and sustainable security arrangements on the ground; secondly, upon recognition of Israel as the national state of the Jewish People, and this means that the solution of a problem like the demand for return will be realized in the territory of the Palestinian state; and the third component, the end to the conflict. We are discussing a peace agreement between Israel and a demilitarized Palestinian state. This state, if it should be established after this process, is due to end the conflict and not to be a facade for its continuation by other means.” (Prime Minister’s Office)
Excerpt 4 from Washington Post
What It Took to Get Israelis and Palestinians to Agree to Talks
David Ignatius
The Palestinian side agreed Friday to come to the talks based on a statement of principles that was issued by the Quartet.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, however, is responding to the invitation issued by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, without endorsing any terms of reference. Indeed, Netanyahu is said to have explicitly rejected the language of the Quartet statement as a framing document. It’s a classic piece of diplomacy: One side is responding to one letter of invitation; the other is responding to a subtly different request. It’s a finesse that has succeeded in getting both to the table, but it also highlights the huge differences that exist between the two sides. If it was this hard to get people to agree to come to the table, that surely doesn’t bode well for the larger issues that need to be resolved. (Washington Post)
Excerpt 5 from Washington Post
Many Possible Israeli Concessions Would Be Suicidal
George F.
Will
The only place for a Palestinian state is the West Bank, which Israel has occupied – legally under international law – since repelling the 1967 aggression launched from there.
The West Bank remains an unallocated portion of the Palestine Mandate, the disposition of which is to be settled by negotiations.
There was in 2007 essentially a coup in Gaza by the terrorist organization Hamas. So now Israel has on its western border, 44 miles from Tel Aviv, an entity dedicated to Israel’s destruction, collaborative with Iran and possessing a huge arsenal of rockets. Rocket attacks from Gaza increased dramatically after Israel withdrew.
The number of UN resolutions deploring this? Zero. The closest precedent for that bombardment was the Nazi rocket attacks on London, which were answered by the destruction of Hamburg, Dresden and other German cities. When Israel struck back at Hamas, the “international community” was theatrically appalled.
(Washington Post)
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
You may use material originated by this site.
However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.