Posted on 05/21/2009 2:55:13 PM PDT by seanmerc
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu got together officially this week for the first time, but their talks failed to win agreement on how to solve perennial Middle East problems.
They managed to agree on a common concern that Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons.
In meeting with the hawkish Netanyahu, Obama agreed that a nuclear-armed Iran was unacceptable. He warned that the diplomatic talks he was initiating to halt Iran’s program would not continue forever, and he roughly set a one-year deadline for the dialogue.
The president also said he wouldn’t foreclose "a range of steps" if Iran did not cooperate. His statement was interpreted to mean that all options were on the table -- including military strikes.
Is Obama toughening his dovish campaign foreign policy?
Obama failed to get Netanyahu to agree to the creation of a Palestinian state. The president did, however, throw the Israeli leader the usual bone by referring to the "special relationship" between the U.S. and Israel. The president also said "when it comes to my policies towards Israel and the Middle East . . . Israel’s security is paramount."
He didn’t mention anything about the Palestinians’ security.
Although each leader worked at being nice during Netanyahu’s White House visit, there are concrete differences between the U.S. president and the Israeli hardliner.
Netanyahu went beyond the customary demand that Palestinians recognize the existence of Israel -- a weary refrain since the late Yasser Arafat recognized Israel, paving the way for negotiations dating back to the Carter era.
Now Netanyahu has added a new wrinkle. He says Israel has to be recognized as a "Jewish state," a term that carries an enormous meaning and leaves the Arabs in Israel at a disadvantage.
Under Israel’s occupation for three decades, the Palestinians have been suppressed by the Israeli military and forced to pass through Israeli checkpoints. Thousands of Palestinian refugees have been living in camps for years.
It is interesting that Netanyahu said he wanted "to make it clear that we do not want to govern the Palestinians" but he did not mention a separate Palestinian state, which Western leaders see as the only solution to the continuing strife in the region.
Obama is continuing his search for peace in the Middle East by meeting a parade of so-called moderate Arab leaders, including Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak; Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas and Jordanian King Abdallah. Obama then travels to Egypt next month to deliver a speech billed as a major address to the Muslim world.
In a new twist, there is speculation that the U.S. and Israel are seeking an alliance against Iran with those countries. Under this theory, the U.S. would line up against Syria, Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Hezbollah in Lebanon, all of which have ties with Iran. Divide and conquer.
American presidents have played a big role in the Middle East since the creation of Israel and not always in an even-handed way -- if such an approach were possible.
Meanwhile, Obama has picked up the cudgels.
"The Palestinians are going to have to do a better job of providing the kinds of security that Israelis would need to achieve a two-state solution," he said. "The other Arab states have to be more supportive and be bolder in seeking potential normalization with Israel," he added.
Obama also said "Israel is going to have to take some difficult steps as well." He made it clear that Israel must stop constructing settlements in the West Bank in order to move ahead with negotiations.
Obama is already immersed in two wars bequeathed by the Bush administration. He should not pull America into another war in the Middle East.
LOL!
***************************
In the interests of journalism, I submit the following corrected assessment:
"In meeting with the realist Netanyahu, sissy boy and
America hater Obama did appear to agree that a nuclear-armed Iran
was unacceptable, although the astute observer noted
that Obama had his fingers crossed behind his back"
Amazingly — IMPOSSIBLY — Helen Thomas has gotten uglier.
Someone needs to post a photo of Helen next to a photo of that hideous space creature from “Phantom Menace” (the slave owner who owned Anakin and his mother).
There’s a “separated at birth” resemblance going on there—seriously! :0)
Holy Jesus....I flew with a guy that would “poke” anything...ugly fat women was his late night specialty....and I don’t think Helen would have been his prey.....I don’t think they have made a enough booze to make her a potential late night “poke”!
Didn’t you mean 1876?
BC or AD?
Don’ believe in evolution but that is the best argument I’ve ever seen for it.
All they need to do to cast doubt on the latest “proof” of evolution — the 47 million year old lemur — is carbon date Helen Thomas.
Hey, you look-a at her and your pee-pee shrinks to this-a big.
No, 1796.
LAMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
too much
the force is stron in you young Tamar1973
I’m going to say what no one else will. She is HOT in that pic with JFK!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.