Couric: Do you trust Barack Obama?
Netanyahu: I trust Barack Obama, President of the United States to carry out with me the policies that have joined Israel and the United States. And what Barack Obama has called the "unbreakable bond." We have common goals, common interests. And we now have a job to do to get on with our common goal of achieving peace with security. I trust we'll be able to do that together.
Couric: While you want to accentuate the positive, clearly, that's part of your mission here in the United States, surely there have been disappointments with Obama Administration. Can you just be candid with me and tell me how the administration has disappointed you?
Netanyahu: You know, you remind me of the Israeli press. They say, "How come you had a good meeting with President Obama?" Well, because I did. Because we actually see eye to eye on some central issues. The quest for peace. The danger of Iran. The need to bolster security- for Israel and the region. That's the truth. We do see it. Have we had differences? Of course we have. But I think the differences …
Couric: Some awkward moments?
Netanyahu: Yeah, of course, we've had. So what? Even they are magnified and distorted. I think the president has a fine mind. And I can relate to it.
Couric: Can you explain this to me then? In a poll conducted a month ago, just a month ago, 71 percent of the Jews in Israel surveyed said they dislike President Obama - 47 percent expressed a strong dislike.
Netanyahu: Well, maybe they don't have the opportunity to have the kind of conversations that I had. And maybe they're not aware also the ongoing cooperation between Israel and the United States. In the fields of security, intelligence - the fact that-the Iron dome program to protect against missiles is something that has been bolstered by this administration and by this president. We have a common goal to achieve a secure peace. I'm looking forward to working with him to achieve it.
Couric: Well, to change public opinion in your country, should you be more strongly advocating on his behalf?
Netanyahu: You know, I invited the president to Israel. I hope that he finds an appropriate time to come. I think that when people get to know him and First Lady Michelle Obama was very kind to my wife. They gave us a very warm reception. I hope I'll be able to, will be able to reciprocate in Israel.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Netanyahu on CBS w/ Katie Couric: People are not aware of the ongoing cooperation between Israel and the U.S.
Jpost/ Analysis: President now working with the PM, not against him
(Jpost).Tuesday's White House meeting between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama was the fifth time the two leaders have met in some 14 months, but only the second time they have issued joint statements and answered questions together.
And the difference in Obama's tone on Tuesday, compared to the last time they met the press in the Oval Office in May 2009, was striking.
The two met together with PA President Mahmoud Abbas on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meeting last September, but following that meeting only Obama issued a statement citing "frank and productive" talks that barely hid his frustration. Two other Netanyahu-Obama meetings one in November and another in March came and went without any public appearance.
As was widely expected, both Obama and Netanyahu used Tuesday's press appearance to reaffirm the strength of the "unbreakable" bond between Israel and the US. And while cynics may say that Obama's pledge of allegiance to the special relationship was to be expected a few months before a midterm election, as his and his party's political fortunes are sinking, it was clear from the press opportunity that in the intervening 14 months Obama has come to realize that he has a lot more to gain by working publicly with Netanyahu, than against him.
In May's appearance Obama set the tone of the relationship that continued for months -- publicly calling out Israel, while speaking softly on the Palestinians; endorsing engagement with the Iranians; having an unrealistic view of what he could change in the Arab world.
Gone at Tuesday's press conference were the harsh demands on Israel that Obama unveiled at that first press conference, when he said starkly and baldly that "settlements have to be stopped." With that single utterance he distanced any chance of direct negotiations for months because of a Palestinian belief that they didn't need to negotiate with Netanyahu, because Obama would do their work for them.
Rather than bash Netanyahu for various plans in the works to build in Jerusalem, as he directed his secretary of state to do in March following Vice President Joe Biden's visit to Israel, this time Obama praised the Israeli government for "working through layers of various governmental entities and jurisdiction" and showing "restraint over the last several months."
Rather than in the spirit of his "stop the settlements" declaration from earlier calling publicly for Netanyahu to extend the settlement construction moratorium that ends in September, this time he said that his hope was that "once direct talks are begun, well before the moratorium has expired, that will create a climate in which everybody feels a greater investment in success."
Gone was the hectoring, like when he said in May in clear opposition to Netanyahu's position that "if there is a linkage between Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, I personally believe it actually runs the other way. To the extent that we can make peace with the Palestinians -- between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with a potential Iranian threat."
In May Obama coddled Iran, spoke of the country's "extraordinary history and extraordinary potential," and how "not talking [with the Iranians] clearly hasn¹t' worked. That's what been tried. And so what we're going to do is try something new, which is actually engaging and reaching out to the Iranians."
Fourteen months later, Obama's tone changed dramatically, as he spoke not of the great Persian Empire, but of the "toughest sanctions" at the UN Security Council ever adopted against Iran. He spoke of the US's own sanctions, as well as the sanctions of other countries around the world, "so we are continuing to put pressure on Iran to meet its international obligations, to cease the kind of provocative behavior that has made it a threat to its neighbors and the international community."
And gone too was the rather patronizing tone toward his guest, like when he said in May 2009 that he had "confidence" that Netanyahu would "rise to the occasion" in dealing with the many important decisions he would have to take as prime minister.
At the earlier meeting, a meeting that took place just two months after Netanyahu took over as prime minister, Obama voiced commitment to the Israel-US relationship, but was extremely sparse in any praise of Netanyahu, at a time when many expected him to congratulate the then new prime minister for recently having formed a new government.
On Tuesday, however, Obama changed gears, stressing that he trusted Netanyahu, and did so even before he became president. Obama said that, contrary to reports in the press, the US-Israeli relationship over the last year had broadened and continued to improve, "and I think a lot of that has to do with what the Prime Minister has done, and I am grateful."
During the low points in US-Israeli ties over the last year and a half, when it seemed Obama thought that by pressuring Israel he would get the Arab world to be more forthcoming, or that by engaging Iran he could get them to stop their nuclear program, there were those in Jerusalem who said that at a certain point in time the US President would hit reality's wall and see that these polices were simply not working.
Nobody knows yet what Obama told Netanyahu behind closed doors Tuesday regarding extending the settlement moratorium or building in Jerusalem or any number of other contentious issues that separates the two sides. But outside, in the glare of the cameras, the dramatic change of tone from the last time the two leaders fielded questions together indicated an Obama who seems to have realized that the public path he has followed up until now with Israel and Netanyahu has not worked, and it was time using that suddenly very popular phrase to characterize relations between nations to "push reset."
And the difference in Obama's tone on Tuesday, compared to the last time they met the press in the Oval Office in May 2009, was striking.
The two met together with PA President Mahmoud Abbas on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meeting last September, but following that meeting only Obama issued a statement citing "frank and productive" talks that barely hid his frustration. Two other Netanyahu-Obama meetings one in November and another in March came and went without any public appearance.
As was widely expected, both Obama and Netanyahu used Tuesday's press appearance to reaffirm the strength of the "unbreakable" bond between Israel and the US. And while cynics may say that Obama's pledge of allegiance to the special relationship was to be expected a few months before a midterm election, as his and his party's political fortunes are sinking, it was clear from the press opportunity that in the intervening 14 months Obama has come to realize that he has a lot more to gain by working publicly with Netanyahu, than against him.
In May's appearance Obama set the tone of the relationship that continued for months -- publicly calling out Israel, while speaking softly on the Palestinians; endorsing engagement with the Iranians; having an unrealistic view of what he could change in the Arab world.
Gone at Tuesday's press conference were the harsh demands on Israel that Obama unveiled at that first press conference, when he said starkly and baldly that "settlements have to be stopped." With that single utterance he distanced any chance of direct negotiations for months because of a Palestinian belief that they didn't need to negotiate with Netanyahu, because Obama would do their work for them.
Rather than bash Netanyahu for various plans in the works to build in Jerusalem, as he directed his secretary of state to do in March following Vice President Joe Biden's visit to Israel, this time Obama praised the Israeli government for "working through layers of various governmental entities and jurisdiction" and showing "restraint over the last several months."
Rather than in the spirit of his "stop the settlements" declaration from earlier calling publicly for Netanyahu to extend the settlement construction moratorium that ends in September, this time he said that his hope was that "once direct talks are begun, well before the moratorium has expired, that will create a climate in which everybody feels a greater investment in success."
Gone was the hectoring, like when he said in May in clear opposition to Netanyahu's position that "if there is a linkage between Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, I personally believe it actually runs the other way. To the extent that we can make peace with the Palestinians -- between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with a potential Iranian threat."
In May Obama coddled Iran, spoke of the country's "extraordinary history and extraordinary potential," and how "not talking [with the Iranians] clearly hasn¹t' worked. That's what been tried. And so what we're going to do is try something new, which is actually engaging and reaching out to the Iranians."
Fourteen months later, Obama's tone changed dramatically, as he spoke not of the great Persian Empire, but of the "toughest sanctions" at the UN Security Council ever adopted against Iran. He spoke of the US's own sanctions, as well as the sanctions of other countries around the world, "so we are continuing to put pressure on Iran to meet its international obligations, to cease the kind of provocative behavior that has made it a threat to its neighbors and the international community."
And gone too was the rather patronizing tone toward his guest, like when he said in May 2009 that he had "confidence" that Netanyahu would "rise to the occasion" in dealing with the many important decisions he would have to take as prime minister.
At the earlier meeting, a meeting that took place just two months after Netanyahu took over as prime minister, Obama voiced commitment to the Israel-US relationship, but was extremely sparse in any praise of Netanyahu, at a time when many expected him to congratulate the then new prime minister for recently having formed a new government.
On Tuesday, however, Obama changed gears, stressing that he trusted Netanyahu, and did so even before he became president. Obama said that, contrary to reports in the press, the US-Israeli relationship over the last year had broadened and continued to improve, "and I think a lot of that has to do with what the Prime Minister has done, and I am grateful."
During the low points in US-Israeli ties over the last year and a half, when it seemed Obama thought that by pressuring Israel he would get the Arab world to be more forthcoming, or that by engaging Iran he could get them to stop their nuclear program, there were those in Jerusalem who said that at a certain point in time the US President would hit reality's wall and see that these polices were simply not working.
Nobody knows yet what Obama told Netanyahu behind closed doors Tuesday regarding extending the settlement moratorium or building in Jerusalem or any number of other contentious issues that separates the two sides. But outside, in the glare of the cameras, the dramatic change of tone from the last time the two leaders fielded questions together indicated an Obama who seems to have realized that the public path he has followed up until now with Israel and Netanyahu has not worked, and it was time using that suddenly very popular phrase to characterize relations between nations to "push reset."
Jonathan Schanzer/ Bibi and Barack's Smiles Cannot Erase Challenges to U.S-Israel Relations
(Jonathan Schanzer - FoxNews).Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Barack Obama were all smiles in front of a sea of cameras at the White House yesterday. The president's press team was not kidding when it told journalists beforehand that the summit would be significantly warmer than Netanyahu’s March visit, when Obama upbraided Netanyahu over Israel’s Jerusalem policies and refused to snap photographs with him.
In a press conference following some quality face time with the Israeli leader, Obama rejected allegations that the U.S.-Israel relationship was strained as "flat wrong," and signaled that he is increasingly optimistic about the prospects of Palestinian-Israeli peace. Netanyahu, for his part, was simply eager to mend ties with Israel’s most important ally.
Still, despite yesterday's warm reception, the two leaders have two different agendas that may clash in the months ahead.
Obama’s Goals: The U.S. president needed this meeting for a few reasons: First and foremost, as he heads into November mid-term elections with flagging poll numbers, he needs to show that he isn’t out to make nice with dictators and kick our democratic allies in the shins. With American support for Israel still high, Politico's Laura Rozen notes that Democrats on the Hill, "fear that they will suffer with key donors… from the perception that Obama has been too tough on the Israeli leader."
While the president now projects friendship in public, he will continue to squeeze Netanyahu for concessions over Israeli construction in the West Bank and Jerusalem.
Indeed, Obama appears to be wedded to an idea held by his circle of advisors (including Dennis Ross of the National Security Council, according to some reports) known as “linkage.” This concept, which is at once untested and misguided, holds Israeli territorial concessions -- whether or not they are in Israel’s interests, or yield any reciprocal compromises -- as the key to ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which will in turn help bring an end to jihadist violence in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other anti-American pockets in the Middle East.
Netanyahu’s Goals: The Israeli Prime Minister has very different needs. First and foremost, even though Congress passed sweeping Iran sanctions, Netanyahu needs more. Specifically, he needs a green light from Obama to attack Iran, if it gets much closer to developing a nuclear weapon. But he would settle for a yellow light, too; Israel knows that even if the U.S. sits this one out from a military perspective, it will need Washington’s diplomatic cover at the United Nations Security Council and beyond.
Israel has other defense concerns, too. The Israeli Haaretz newspaper reports that Israel seeks to block a deal between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, under which the Saudis would buy “scores of new F-15 fighter jets.”
Netanyahu also hoped to see the diplomatic fruits of his decision to ease Israel’s blockade of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. Ahead of his Washington trip, Netanyahu took several steps to expand the flow of goods and make it easier for people to enter and leave the area. Netanyahu did this knowing full well that it will make the Hamas terrorist group stronger, enabling it to import weapons more easily and to generate more income in taxes from everything sold in the area under its control. Netanyahu said yesterday that he was taking steps in the "quest for peace between Israel and the Palestinians," but his true aim was to build good will with Obama.
In taking these steps, critics will argue, Netanyahu invested more in the U.S.-Israel relationship than in Israeli security.
Peace Process Realities: As Daniel Shapiro, Obama’s senior Middle East director at the National Security Council, recently put it: “We believe there are opportunities to further narrow those gaps, to allow the sides to take that next step to direct talks.”
The gaps may have narrowed, but they are still too wide to bridge. This is something that Obama will not yet admit. The Palestinians -- both Hamas and Fatah -- still incite violence against Israel on a regular basis. And even if they didn’t, the two factions remain locked in a civil war that makes it impossible to identify a legitimate interlocutor for the Palestinian people.
While it is good to see the White House mend fences with Israel, the challenges of the coming months cannot be surmounted with an all-smiles White House photo-op.es it impossible to identify a legitimate interlocutor for the Palestinian people.
Netanyahu invited Obama to visit Israel, presumably to see these challenges from up close. Will Obama accept?
In a press conference following some quality face time with the Israeli leader, Obama rejected allegations that the U.S.-Israel relationship was strained as "flat wrong," and signaled that he is increasingly optimistic about the prospects of Palestinian-Israeli peace. Netanyahu, for his part, was simply eager to mend ties with Israel’s most important ally.
Still, despite yesterday's warm reception, the two leaders have two different agendas that may clash in the months ahead.
Obama’s Goals: The U.S. president needed this meeting for a few reasons: First and foremost, as he heads into November mid-term elections with flagging poll numbers, he needs to show that he isn’t out to make nice with dictators and kick our democratic allies in the shins. With American support for Israel still high, Politico's Laura Rozen notes that Democrats on the Hill, "fear that they will suffer with key donors… from the perception that Obama has been too tough on the Israeli leader."
While the president now projects friendship in public, he will continue to squeeze Netanyahu for concessions over Israeli construction in the West Bank and Jerusalem.
Indeed, Obama appears to be wedded to an idea held by his circle of advisors (including Dennis Ross of the National Security Council, according to some reports) known as “linkage.” This concept, which is at once untested and misguided, holds Israeli territorial concessions -- whether or not they are in Israel’s interests, or yield any reciprocal compromises -- as the key to ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which will in turn help bring an end to jihadist violence in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other anti-American pockets in the Middle East.
Netanyahu’s Goals: The Israeli Prime Minister has very different needs. First and foremost, even though Congress passed sweeping Iran sanctions, Netanyahu needs more. Specifically, he needs a green light from Obama to attack Iran, if it gets much closer to developing a nuclear weapon. But he would settle for a yellow light, too; Israel knows that even if the U.S. sits this one out from a military perspective, it will need Washington’s diplomatic cover at the United Nations Security Council and beyond.
Israel has other defense concerns, too. The Israeli Haaretz newspaper reports that Israel seeks to block a deal between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, under which the Saudis would buy “scores of new F-15 fighter jets.”
Netanyahu also hoped to see the diplomatic fruits of his decision to ease Israel’s blockade of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. Ahead of his Washington trip, Netanyahu took several steps to expand the flow of goods and make it easier for people to enter and leave the area. Netanyahu did this knowing full well that it will make the Hamas terrorist group stronger, enabling it to import weapons more easily and to generate more income in taxes from everything sold in the area under its control. Netanyahu said yesterday that he was taking steps in the "quest for peace between Israel and the Palestinians," but his true aim was to build good will with Obama.
In taking these steps, critics will argue, Netanyahu invested more in the U.S.-Israel relationship than in Israeli security.
Peace Process Realities: As Daniel Shapiro, Obama’s senior Middle East director at the National Security Council, recently put it: “We believe there are opportunities to further narrow those gaps, to allow the sides to take that next step to direct talks.”
The gaps may have narrowed, but they are still too wide to bridge. This is something that Obama will not yet admit. The Palestinians -- both Hamas and Fatah -- still incite violence against Israel on a regular basis. And even if they didn’t, the two factions remain locked in a civil war that makes it impossible to identify a legitimate interlocutor for the Palestinian people.
While it is good to see the White House mend fences with Israel, the challenges of the coming months cannot be surmounted with an all-smiles White House photo-op.es it impossible to identify a legitimate interlocutor for the Palestinian people.
Netanyahu invited Obama to visit Israel, presumably to see these challenges from up close. Will Obama accept?
Aluf Benn/ Meeting leaves Netanyahu strengthened by Obama from the Left without having to make concessions
(Aluf Benn-Haaretz).From the White House's perspective, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in a constant state of vacillation, evading any decision that could get him into political trouble.
United States President Barack Obama is striving to put an end to Netanyahu's hesitations and push him to make the historic decision to withdraw from the occupied territories and establish a Palestinian state in place of the settlements.
Such a breakthrough is expected to shift the balance of powers in the Middle East and put the U.S. and its president on the Arab world's good side. But Netanyahu is not budging from his secure seat on the fence.
During the two leaders first years in office, Obama tried to push Netanyahu off the fence using sticks: His administration denied Netnayahu joint photo-ops with the U.S. president as well as other honors and extorted interim concessions, such as accepting a two-state solution, a ten-month settlement freeze, a silent cessation of construction in East Jerusalem and an ease on the Gaza blockade.
Netanyahu accepted the dictates, but the strategic policies have not changed and a Palestinian state is still a distant dream. Netanyahu has also succeeded in surviving politically, maintaining a right-wing coalition despite the pressures from Washington.
However, Obama is changing his tactics. Instead of punishing Netanyahu with sticks, he is trying to entice him with carrots: Netanyahu might make an effort to taste the carrot and finally fall off the fence.
Even if a Palestinian state and a peace agreement don’t come from it, and the Arab world shrugs its shoulders, Obama will at least garner support from Israel sympathizers in Congress and the U.S. Jewish community ahead of the midterm elections in November.
This sets the background for the sudden display of affection for Netanyahu at the White House on Tuesday.
After a year of dribs and drabs and briefings over the lack of chemistry between the two leaders - the fact that Obama can't stand Netanyahu and does not believe him - we suddenly heard praises like he had an "excellent conversation" with his Israeli counterpart, and public statements saying: I believe that Netanyahu wants, and is willing to take risks for peace.
That is exactly how former U.S. President Bill Clinton spoke of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and President Bush of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Obama did not settle for the personal, friendly gestures or Michelle's meeting with Sara, but also added messages that are music to Israeli's ears: A call for direct talks with the Palestinians "before September," and a public promise that efforts for weapons control and decommissioning nuclear weapons "will not harm Israel's security."
Netanyahu, in exchange, spoke of peace, but evaded publicly supporting a Palestinian state, warned that a withdrawal from the West Bank could culminate with rockets landing in central Israel, and urged Obama to strengthen the sanctions against Iran.
For Netanyahu this was a huge victory. His claim that he can stand against U.S. pressure, making only tactical concessions, has proven true. He leveraged internal U.S. politics in his favor, without weakening the right-wing coalition in Jerusalem.
Netanyahu got off easy, without having to make any announcements that would anger Benny Begin, Moshe Ya'alon and the Yesha council. Meanwhile, Obama is strengthening him from the left.
The presidential embrace will make it difficult for the Labor Party to resign from the government now, using the excuse that Netanyahu is not doing enough to promote peace.
If Obama believes him, what will Welfare Minister Isaac Herzog say?
United States President Barack Obama is striving to put an end to Netanyahu's hesitations and push him to make the historic decision to withdraw from the occupied territories and establish a Palestinian state in place of the settlements.
Such a breakthrough is expected to shift the balance of powers in the Middle East and put the U.S. and its president on the Arab world's good side. But Netanyahu is not budging from his secure seat on the fence.
During the two leaders first years in office, Obama tried to push Netanyahu off the fence using sticks: His administration denied Netnayahu joint photo-ops with the U.S. president as well as other honors and extorted interim concessions, such as accepting a two-state solution, a ten-month settlement freeze, a silent cessation of construction in East Jerusalem and an ease on the Gaza blockade.
Netanyahu accepted the dictates, but the strategic policies have not changed and a Palestinian state is still a distant dream. Netanyahu has also succeeded in surviving politically, maintaining a right-wing coalition despite the pressures from Washington.
However, Obama is changing his tactics. Instead of punishing Netanyahu with sticks, he is trying to entice him with carrots: Netanyahu might make an effort to taste the carrot and finally fall off the fence.
Even if a Palestinian state and a peace agreement don’t come from it, and the Arab world shrugs its shoulders, Obama will at least garner support from Israel sympathizers in Congress and the U.S. Jewish community ahead of the midterm elections in November.
This sets the background for the sudden display of affection for Netanyahu at the White House on Tuesday.
After a year of dribs and drabs and briefings over the lack of chemistry between the two leaders - the fact that Obama can't stand Netanyahu and does not believe him - we suddenly heard praises like he had an "excellent conversation" with his Israeli counterpart, and public statements saying: I believe that Netanyahu wants, and is willing to take risks for peace.
That is exactly how former U.S. President Bill Clinton spoke of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and President Bush of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Obama did not settle for the personal, friendly gestures or Michelle's meeting with Sara, but also added messages that are music to Israeli's ears: A call for direct talks with the Palestinians "before September," and a public promise that efforts for weapons control and decommissioning nuclear weapons "will not harm Israel's security."
Netanyahu, in exchange, spoke of peace, but evaded publicly supporting a Palestinian state, warned that a withdrawal from the West Bank could culminate with rockets landing in central Israel, and urged Obama to strengthen the sanctions against Iran.
For Netanyahu this was a huge victory. His claim that he can stand against U.S. pressure, making only tactical concessions, has proven true. He leveraged internal U.S. politics in his favor, without weakening the right-wing coalition in Jerusalem.
Netanyahu got off easy, without having to make any announcements that would anger Benny Begin, Moshe Ya'alon and the Yesha council. Meanwhile, Obama is strengthening him from the left.
The presidential embrace will make it difficult for the Labor Party to resign from the government now, using the excuse that Netanyahu is not doing enough to promote peace.
If Obama believes him, what will Welfare Minister Isaac Herzog say?
Netanyahu to ABC: 'Don’t Be So Skeptical…We Can Perform Miracles'
(George Stephanopoulos). In his first interview since a day filled with smiles and handshakes at the White House, the Israeli Prime Minister outlined for the first time some of the "concrete steps" promised to President Obama to advance the peace process.
“There are more things we are prepared to do..There are things like additional easing of movements, some questions of economic projects,” Benjamin Netanyahu said. “There are quite a few. The point is we are prepared to do them.”
Netanyahu did not specifically include extending the freeze on the settlement construction set to expire in September, but suggested he was open to that possibility if progress is made in the peace talks.
“I think once we get there realities may change, but I think the most important reality is that we don’t stick on…all sorts of requirements and grievances, “ he said.
Netanyahu told me he wants to put aside all preconditions, excuses and grievances and just start negotiating.
“We want President Abbas to grasp my hand, get into a room, shake it, sit down and negotiate a final settlement of peace between Israel and the Palestinians,” he said.
The Israeli leader said he appreciated yesterday’s warm reception and dismissed the chill in U.S.-Israeli relations, saying it is "natural" for allies to have disagreements.
Netanyahu told me he is confident that he can bring a peace agreement to the region that a majority of Israelis support.
“Don’t be so skeptical,” he said. “Raise your hopes. It’s summer time and we can perform miracles if we set our sights to them.”
“There are more things we are prepared to do..There are things like additional easing of movements, some questions of economic projects,” Benjamin Netanyahu said. “There are quite a few. The point is we are prepared to do them.”
Netanyahu did not specifically include extending the freeze on the settlement construction set to expire in September, but suggested he was open to that possibility if progress is made in the peace talks.
“I think once we get there realities may change, but I think the most important reality is that we don’t stick on…all sorts of requirements and grievances, “ he said.
Netanyahu told me he wants to put aside all preconditions, excuses and grievances and just start negotiating.
“We want President Abbas to grasp my hand, get into a room, shake it, sit down and negotiate a final settlement of peace between Israel and the Palestinians,” he said.
The Israeli leader said he appreciated yesterday’s warm reception and dismissed the chill in U.S.-Israeli relations, saying it is "natural" for allies to have disagreements.
Netanyahu told me he is confident that he can bring a peace agreement to the region that a majority of Israelis support.
“Don’t be so skeptical,” he said. “Raise your hopes. It’s summer time and we can perform miracles if we set our sights to them.”
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Barry Rubin's take on Obama/Netanyahu meeting: No Love fest , but agree on Giving each other's need to maintain realtionship
(Barry Rubin-Rubinreports).Why was the meeting this time between President Barack H. Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a success? The answer is simple though not all the reasons are publicly known. So I'll tell you about them.
Obama wants to improve relations with Israel for several reasons. Obviously, he doesn't want to be bashing Israel in the period leading up to the November elections is an important incentive. Polls show that for Americans his administration’s relative hostility toward Israel is its least popular policy. But there is more to this trend than just that point.
What Obama wants is to be able to claim a diplomatic success in advancing the Israel-Palestinian “peace process,” perhaps the only one he can so spin. Keeping indirect talks going and even better, moving them up to direct talks is his goal. So he wants Netanyahu’s cooperation for that.
The same point holds regarding the Gaza Strip, where Obama wants to claim he has defused a crisis he has called “unsustainable.”
(I hate that word. When you hear something is “unsustainable” immediately become suspicious. This has everything to do with perceptions and little to do with realities where quite a lot of things are quite sustainable. Pretty much every single Middle East problem has been sustained for decades.)
And he also wants to keep the Israel-Arab front calm while he deals with Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran, seeking above all to avoid crises and confrontations and to keep up his (bogus) bargain of trading flattery for popularity.
So here’s the deal. Give Israel some U.S. support in exchange for modest steps that the administration hopes accomplishes its goals. Israel will give some things that don't appreciably hurt its interests in order to maintain good relations with the United States.
First, Israel has revised the list of goods it permits to go into the Gaza Strip. The details were all agreed beforehand with the United States. The Obama Administration will support Israel over Gaza generally, including endorsing its independent investigation of the flotilla issue.
As the Israeli government explained it, the new list "is limited to weapons, war materiel, and dual-use items." Such military items include--aside from the obvious--a long list of chemicals, fertilizers, knives, optical equipment, light control equipment, missile-related computer technologies, and so on.
Israel is defining dual-use items by an international agreement, the "Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies," and thus this should be acceptable to Western governments.
Construction material will be carefully monitored and allowed in only for specified projects. Israel will keep out dual-use goods including construction materials (concrete and pipes, for example) that can be used by Hamas to build bunkers and rockets.
At present, there are 45 such projects approved by Israel. The Palestinian Authority must also approve each one (thus, in theory, the buildings created would strengthen its popularity and influence though this is probably wishful thinking). These include school and medical buildings, water and sewage systems, and housing. If Israel determines through its multiple intelligence-collecting sources, that the material is being misused to benefit Hamas or its military strength, the supplies would be stopped.
The United States will proclaim that the alleged humanitarian crisis is over and the people of Gaza are doing just fine, ignoring their being subject to a terribly repressive dictatorship. Hamas will denounce the concessions as insufficient and continue efforts to smuggle in weapons, consolidate its rule, and turn Gaza's little children into terrorists. This is the contemporary Western idea of a diplomatic success.
(Here's a riddle for you. What's the difference between the Islamist and Western views of peace? The Islamists never lose a war because no matter how badly they are defeated they deem it a victory to survive and continue the battle. The West never loses a war because it defines the end of any war as a victory no matter what the result.)
But Israel's policy decision makes sense. As I’ve pointed out before, once Israel concluded that there will be no Western commitment for overthrowing the Hamas regime it might as well go to a containment strategy. This Western policy is terrible but Israel is merely recognizing the real situation and making the best of it.
There is the possibility of the U.S. government and other Western countries subverting Israel's position by engaging Hamas (as Russia did lately) but that line can probably be held for the next few years at least. Various Western media and activist groups can try to keep up the notion that the Gaza Strip is a hell on earth (because of Israel) and people are starving. There will be no truth to this, of course, but there was no truth to it before and that didn't stop them. But their task will be harder.
Regarding the “peace process,” Israel will extend its building freeze on the West Bank and east Jerusalem in exchange for an Obama Administration commitment to endorse its predecessor’s acceptance of Israel retaining “settlement blocs” as part of any peace agreement with the Palestinians.
In other words, if a diplomatic settlement were ever to be reached then borders would be shifted to allow Israel to annex some relatively small areas with a large number of settlers. This would not only improve Israel’s security situation in the event of a peace agreement (don’t hold your breath for that to happen) but also greatly increase support for a flexible policy within Israel. If there isn't going to be a peace treaty (due to the Palestinian Authority and Hamas) Israel isn't giving up anything.
Continuing to freeze construction on settlements will give Netanyahu a domestic problem but he can hold his coalition together, if necessary by adjusting it. Parties are constrained from walking out of the government because if elections were to be held Netanyahu would win in a landslide partly at their expense.
Another thing Netanyahu wants is for Obama to escalate pressure on Iran regarding that country’s nuclear weapons’ drive. The new sanctions, thanks to Congress, are going to hurt Iran and undermine support for the regime there. Not enough, of course, to stop the program. Still, when Iran does get nuclear weapons, Israel will need the United States to take a strong stand in containing Tehran.
Does Israel’s government trust Obama? Of course not. Israel’s government and Israelis in general are under no illusions about Obama’s view of their country, his willingness to battle revolutionary Islamists, or his general reliability and toughness.
For example, last October the Obama Administration, through the State Department, did endorse the “settlement bloc” commitment, but then appeared to have forgotten about it. The U.S. government also broke its promises over the settlement freeze (accepting Jerusalem’s exclusion and then howling about it a few months later) and regarding the nonproliferation conference (pledging to oppose any reference to Israel’s nuclear weapons and then going back on that point).
There is also clarity about the possibility of Obama turning to a much tougher stance on Israel after the congressional elections are over. Yet with a plummeting popularity at home and lots of domestic problems, perhaps Obama will have more on his mind than playing Middle East peacemaker.
The Palestinian Authority is so uneager for a peace agreement that anything said by Israel on the subject is most unlikely ever to be implemented. And it seems that the Obama Administration has at least some sense that it isn't going to get an Israel-Palestinian peace agreement so it doesn't want to look foolish in making this a high priority and then failing.
Thus, Israel’s strategy is as follows: try very hard to get along with the administration, seek to keep it happy, and avoid confrontation without making any major irreversible concessions or taking serious risks. Have no illusions, but keep the U.S. government focused on Iran as much as possible.
The next Congress will be more likely to constrain the president and who knows what will happen in future. A building freeze might be ended on strong grounds the next time. It is quite possible that Iran, Syria, and other radical forces will so assault the United States and trample on its interests that Obama will be forced to alter course. And there’s always the 2012 presidential election.
This, then, is the best policy for Israel to follow in comparison to more unattractive options. And for the foreseeable future, Obama will play along. It isn’t neat but it is real world international politic
Debkafile: Obama recognizes Israel's Nuclear stance as unique security needs with regard to NPT
(DEBKAfile).US President Barack Obama indicated this at the end of his White House conversation with Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu Tuesday, July 6, which both called "excellent." What he said was there had been "no change" in US policy in the wake of the Non-Proliferation Treaty conference in May, which called on Israel to join the treaty. The US president stressed that given its size, history and the levels of threat Israel faces: "We will not ask Israel to take steps that endanger its security."
DEBKAfile's Washington sources: This was taken to mean that the US policy of ambiguity regarding Israel's reported nuclear arsenal was unchanged and Israel would not be pressed to joint the NPT.
Netanyahu praised the latest round of UN sanctions against Iran and the new US measures. He urged other countries to follow the US president's lead and initiate much tougher sanctions. Only then will it be possible to tell if they are biting enough to prevent Iran attaining a nuclear weapon, said the Israeli prime minister.
The US president did not reply directly when asked if he had asked Israel to extend the 10-month settlement-Jerusalem construction freeze when it expires on September 26. He said he hoped the right climate would enable face-to-face talks to go forward by September and stressed he believes Israel and its prime minister are serious about peace and will take risks to achieve it.
He added that the Israeli people deserved a secure peace - not Iran's proxies next door or rockets falling on them and repeated his call for Palestinian sovereignty and two states living side by side in peace. Confidence-building steps on both sides were important, said Obama. He had discussed Mahmoud Abbas the need to stop "engaging in provocative language, incitement and looking for opportunities to embarrass Israel."
Warm meeting in the Oval office as both Leaders dismiss cool relationship
(Chicago Tribune-Christie Parsons).After the Obama/Netanyahu meeting, the two leaders sat in the Oval Office in the wing chairs by the Lincoln bust and spoke to the press. They each gave a statement, and then each took a question from the American press and the Israeli press.
President Obama laughed once or twice at things Netanyahu said, and each man initiated a protracted handshake in front of the television cameras.
Envoy George Mitchell was in the back of the room, near the president's desk, as the two talked.
Highlights:
* Both the president and Prime Minister praised the strength of the bond between the two countries. President Obama pushed back against a question from the Israeli press, when the reporter asked about Obama's "distancing" himself from Israel. "The premise of your question was wrong," Obama said. His public statements have all served as a "constant reaffirmation of the special relationship," he said, and the U.S. commitment to Israel's security have been "unwavering." The U.S. will "back that up, not just with words but with actions," Obama said.
* Netanyahu said the latest sanctions contribute to "delegitimization" of Iran's nuclear program . . . He also seemed to make an oblique reference abut the possibility of harsher consequences for Iran, when he said that the "question of how much you need to bite I cannot answer now." (This was hard to hear, check the transcript.)
* Netanyahu said he would paraphrase Mark Twain by saying that "reports of the demise of the special relationship" between the U.S. and Israel "are just flat wrong."
* Pool heard no talk of settlement freeze, apologies or upcoming trips to Israel, but parts of the remarks were very hard to hear.
The two are now supposed to share a meal together, and then Netanyahu's departure will be subject to pool spray.
Excellent meeting in the WH - Obama reafirms commitment to Israel's security, Netanyahu convinces he is serious about Peace
Netanyahu convinces Obama Israel is serious: Israel "wants peace" and is serious about its intentions to move forward to direct negotiations with the Palestinians, President Barack Obama said after meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Tuesday.
As Politico reports:
As Politico reports:
There were laughter and protracted handshakes at the Barack Obama-Benjamin Netanyahu press conference following their White House meeting today, as the American and Israeli leaders sought to use body language and warm words to demonstrate the strength of the American-Israeli relationship.
Obama objected to an Israeli reporter's characterization that Obama had previously distanced himself from Israel.
"The premise of your question was wrong," Obama said, saying he has constantly reaffirmed the special relationship and that the U.S. commitment to Israel's security is "unwavering."
The U.S. will "back that up, not just with words but with actions," Obama said.
Netanyahu added that, paraphrasing Mark Twain, "reports of the demise of the special relationship" between the U.S. and Israel "are just flat wrong."
We're committed to peace, I'm committed to peace," Netanyahu said. However, the Prime Minister pointed out that Israel wants security after a peace agreement, saying that the withdrawal from Gaza did not bring that.
"Peace is the best option," Netanyahu declared.
Netanyahu said that, in order to accomplish this goal, "Abbas and I need to move to direct talks."
Obama expressed support for Netanyahu, saying "he's dealing with a complex situation in a tough neighborhood."
"I believe the prime minister wants peace, two states living side-by-side in peace and security" Obama said. "We expect the proximity talks to lead to direct talks, and there will be a set of confidence-building measures."
"It's important that the Palestinians don't look for excuses for incitment," Obama pointed out. "Abbas and Fayyad have done significant things for security in the West Bank - we should extend their powers there. The Palestinian people will appreciate that."
Obama also asked Iran to "cease its provocative behavior," and said that "as a consequence of hard work, internationally the toughest sanctions ever have been put on Iran, in addition to [the US's] robust sanctions."
"We will continue to pressure Iran," Obama added.
In connection to the Non-Proliferation Conference, Obama said "we believe that given its size and the threats against it, Israel has unique security requirements."
"The US will never ask Israel to take steps to undermine its security interests," the US president declared. "We are committed to Israel's security."
"We discussed Gaza," Obama said. "I congratulated Prime Minister Netanyahu on the progress that's been made more quickly and more effectively than many thought."
Netanyahu brought a detailed list of goods Israel will not allow into the Gaza Strip. The "negative" list, defines what is prohibited rather than what is permitted, thus allowing more goods in.
Obama also sought to dispel rumors of a worsening US-Israel relationship, saying "our relationship continues to improve in great part because of Netanyahu."
The US president called the meeting "one more step in the extraordinary friendship between the US and Israel, which has grown closer and closer as time goes on."
"I've trusted Netanyahu since the first time I met him, before I was elected president" Obama said. "The press in Israel and the US like to make a storm."
Dan Senor: Importance of meeting - Obama must cement his Mutual trust partnership with Netanyahu
(Dan Senor-The DailyBeast)...With all the complexities converging between now and September, the most important thing Obama could do Tuesday is to project in both symbolic and substantive ways the durability of the U.S.-Israel alliance, and express his commitment to Israel’s security and to his personal partnership with Netanyahu. Right now, most Israelis have serious doubts.
Obama must reassure Netanyahu. If the past couple decades of Middle East history are any guide, one necessary, but not sufficient, factor for a real peace process is a strong relationship between the Israeli prime minister and his American counterpart, based on mutual trust.
Yitzhak Rabin would never have taken the risks he took in the 1990s for the Oslo process if he did not trust President Clinton. Ariel Sharon would never have unilaterally withdrawn from the Gaza Strip in 2005 were it not for his personal bond with President Bush.
If Obama wants to head off what could be a September train wreck for Middle East diplomacy, he must first cement his partnership with Netanyahu today, and explain it in no uncertain terms to Israel’s friends and adversaries around the world.
Obama must reassure Netanyahu. If the past couple decades of Middle East history are any guide, one necessary, but not sufficient, factor for a real peace process is a strong relationship between the Israeli prime minister and his American counterpart, based on mutual trust.
Yitzhak Rabin would never have taken the risks he took in the 1990s for the Oslo process if he did not trust President Clinton. Ariel Sharon would never have unilaterally withdrawn from the Gaza Strip in 2005 were it not for his personal bond with President Bush.
If Obama wants to head off what could be a September train wreck for Middle East diplomacy, he must first cement his partnership with Netanyahu today, and explain it in no uncertain terms to Israel’s friends and adversaries around the world.
Strategist Frank Luntz urges Netanyahu to copy positive visual style at UN last year in Washington visit
(Jpost).American political strategist Frank Luntz is urging Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to replicate during his US visit this week the kind of “innovative, creative, visual approach” he adopted at the UN General Assembly last year, to convey to Americans the challenges Israel faces in its peacemaking efforts.
Luntz, who discussed communications strategies and tactics with a series of leading Israeli politicians during a visit here organized by the Israel Project last week, praised Netanyahu’s UN address last September – during which the prime minister held up a copy of the minutes of the Wannsee Conference, at which the Nazis planned the Final Solution, and the blueprints of the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camps – as “one of the great leadership speeches ever made by an Israeli.”
Netanyahu was speaking a day after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had addressed the General Assembly, and his approach “challenged the world community” in its attitude to the Holocaust- denying Iranian leader, said Luntz.
It was vital, Luntz went on, that Netanyahu made plain Israel’s “positive intent” as regarded peacemaking, and its “commitment to progress… The more empathetic the communication,” he said, “the more effective the communication.”
“I really hope that the Israeli leadership realizes that the American political situation is not the same today as it was two years or four years or six years ago,” said Luntz. “And just as leaders have changed, the communication should change. What worked for Israel 10 years ago would not work today.”
Specifically, he noted that in his research with focus groups, nothing had produced as much support for Israel’s position as when President Shimon Peres read from the text of the Hamas charter at the Davos World Economic Forum in January 2009, at a panel debate which saw Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan storm angrily off the stage.
Peres quoted lines from the Hamas charter branding peace efforts “a waste of time” and relating to the imperative for Muslims to “kill the Jews” in order to hasten the day of judgment.
“Nothing that we have ever tested has done better than Shimon Peres quoting from the Hamas charter,” said Luntz, a prominent political consultant who has worked in the US, UK, Australia and elsewhere. “Here is the epitome of a great elder statesman reading from the epitome of hate and loathing. The two of them together is communication perfection.”
Added Luntz, “If Israeli leaders would carry a copy of the Hamas charter with them, I’d say to you that is game set and match... If every American were to learn what was in the Hamas charter, Israel would never have to worry about public support ever again. That’s how important it is.”
Luntz, who has been conducting research for the Israel Project on the American public’s response to Israeli leaders’ speeches and to the language in official Israeli government statements, cited a recent Wall Street Journal poll showing support for Israel is “as high today as it ever has been – with 61 percent identified with Israel, and only 10% identified with the Palestinians.”
But, he went on, “only 34% support what Israel did with the flotilla, which is a record low for an Israeli policy. So at some point, if [Americans] don’t support the individual actions, it will have an impact on overall support.”
Luntz, who discussed communications strategies and tactics with a series of leading Israeli politicians during a visit here organized by the Israel Project last week, praised Netanyahu’s UN address last September – during which the prime minister held up a copy of the minutes of the Wannsee Conference, at which the Nazis planned the Final Solution, and the blueprints of the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camps – as “one of the great leadership speeches ever made by an Israeli.”
Netanyahu was speaking a day after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had addressed the General Assembly, and his approach “challenged the world community” in its attitude to the Holocaust- denying Iranian leader, said Luntz.
It was vital, Luntz went on, that Netanyahu made plain Israel’s “positive intent” as regarded peacemaking, and its “commitment to progress… The more empathetic the communication,” he said, “the more effective the communication.”
“I really hope that the Israeli leadership realizes that the American political situation is not the same today as it was two years or four years or six years ago,” said Luntz. “And just as leaders have changed, the communication should change. What worked for Israel 10 years ago would not work today.”
Specifically, he noted that in his research with focus groups, nothing had produced as much support for Israel’s position as when President Shimon Peres read from the text of the Hamas charter at the Davos World Economic Forum in January 2009, at a panel debate which saw Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan storm angrily off the stage.
Peres quoted lines from the Hamas charter branding peace efforts “a waste of time” and relating to the imperative for Muslims to “kill the Jews” in order to hasten the day of judgment.
“Nothing that we have ever tested has done better than Shimon Peres quoting from the Hamas charter,” said Luntz, a prominent political consultant who has worked in the US, UK, Australia and elsewhere. “Here is the epitome of a great elder statesman reading from the epitome of hate and loathing. The two of them together is communication perfection.”
Added Luntz, “If Israeli leaders would carry a copy of the Hamas charter with them, I’d say to you that is game set and match... If every American were to learn what was in the Hamas charter, Israel would never have to worry about public support ever again. That’s how important it is.”
Luntz, who has been conducting research for the Israel Project on the American public’s response to Israeli leaders’ speeches and to the language in official Israeli government statements, cited a recent Wall Street Journal poll showing support for Israel is “as high today as it ever has been – with 61 percent identified with Israel, and only 10% identified with the Palestinians.”
But, he went on, “only 34% support what Israel did with the flotilla, which is a record low for an Israeli policy. So at some point, if [Americans] don’t support the individual actions, it will have an impact on overall support.”
Monday, July 5, 2010
WH spreads out red carpet for Netnayahu, Obama 'Make up' meeting - as midterm candidates focus on Israel
(Anne E. Kornblut-Washington Post).Two months after a tense meeting at the White House, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and President Obama are set to meet on Tuesday with a deceptively simple mission: getting their picture taken together.
The public show of unity matters both for the delicate Middle East peace process and for domestic political consumption on both sides. Of immediate concern to the Democratic party is the effect a perceived rift could have on the midterm elections, as Republicans angle to use any perceived rupture with Netanyahu to argue that Obama is insufficiently committed to Israel.
Obama was cool toward Netanyahu during their last meeting, leaving the Israeli leader in the West Wing alone for hours as a subtle rebuke over Israeli settlement policies. The two were never photographed, which in diplomatic code sent a chilly message.
That encounter followed Israel's announcement, during a visit to the country by Vice President Biden, of a plan to construct 1,600 Jewish homes in a part of East Jerusalem that Palestinians view as their future capital.
This next meeting has been promised as "a makeup visit," one senior Democratic lawmaker said, giving the two leaders a chance to demonstrate at least some degree of solidarity.
Already, from Illinois to Florida, Republican candidates have been raising Israel as part of a broader critique of Obama's foreign policy, seeking to chip away at national security-minded Independents and Jewish voters who traditionally support Democrats. After Obama made statements of measured support for Israel following a raid on a Turkish flotilla carrying aid to Gaza last month, Marco Rubio, a Republican nominee in Florida's Senate race, delivered a speech sharply criticizing Obama's Israel policy. "There is the emerging sense that this long-standing relationship isn't what it used to be," Rubio said.
Robert Dold, a Republican running for an open seat in the 10th Congressional District of Illinois, has accused the administration of an "alarming pattern" in the Middle East. In Ohio's 15th District, Republican Steve Stivers questioned incumbent Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D) for her criticism of Israel's Gaza blockade, with his campaign saying, "the contrast is very sharp on this issue." And Allen West, a Republican running against Democratic Rep. Ron Klein in Florida's 22nd District, accused Obama of "browbeating" Israel.
ad_icon
"Republicans are accusing the administration of not being strong enough on flotilla incident," acknowledged Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.), himself a critic of some elements of Obama's approach. "I think the president has made some unfortunate statements, there's no doubt about it, in terms of appearing to put public pressure on Israel while appearing not to put the same type of intense pressure on Palestinians. And that has caused a lot of angst among lots of people."
Whether such angst could become politically potent enough to tip scales in the November midterms is up for debate. Although some Jewish leaders are wary of his policies toward Israel, Obama enjoys support from Jewish voters; he won 78 percent of the Jewish vote in 2008, nearly as much as any Democratic nominee in recent history, and his approval rating among U.S. Jews has hovered in the 60s for much of his presidency so far, higher than approval ratings in the rest of the country.
But Israelis are much more skeptical of Obama, with one widely quoted poll last year putting his popularity in Israel in the single digits. That, in turn, has had a ripple effect on Jews in the United States, giving Republicans an opening to appeal to a natural Democratic constituency and creating distance between the White House and congressional Democrats.
Several lawmakers said the White House position -- and that of some more-liberal Democrats in Congress -- is far more nuanced than Republicans give credit for. Far from being anti-Israel or unwilling to back the Jewish state, they say, they are exerting pressure on the country to take steps that would ensure its long-term existence, and peace. They spoke on condition of anonymity to speak freely about sensitive deliberations.
But that is not always how Democratic criticism is perceived. Israeli Ambassador Michael B. Oren said that some partisan moves in recent months, including a letter critical of the Gaza blockade signed by 54 congressional Democrats earlier this year, have left the impression that Israel is "becoming a partisan issue," with Republicans being uniformly supportive where Democrats are not.
Obama administration officials say they are not looking at the matter through a narrow political prism. Instead, they said, the goal is to move the Middle East peace process forward, as well as to pursue goals the United States has in common with Israel, such as Iran.
Israel's concerns over whether Iran is secretly attempting to build a nuclear weapon are strong enough that its officials have said military action against Iran remains open; the Obama administration remains committed to a strategy of using sanctions to compel Iran to enter into negotiations over its program. Iran says its program is entirely peaceful.
The meeting on Tuesday will focus on broad subjects rather than specific goals, White House officials said. The main item on the agenda will be to move toward direct talks between the Israelis and Palestinians, who have been conducting remote "proximity talks" in order to lay the groundwork for meeting face-to-face, senior administration officials said. Netanyahu has said he is willing to hold talks with the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, at any time; Abbas has set out preconditions for any talks.
The White House meeting will not dwell on some of the most difficult time-sensitive issues, including the expiration of a moratorium on Israeli settlement construction in September. "I think our focus, and the focus of this meeting, is very much going to be on making that transition into direct talks," said Daniel Shapiro, senior Middle East director at the National Security Council.
Shapiro also denied there was any conflict between the two leaders. "In no way do we perceive a rift," he told reporters on a conference call.
The word "rift" has become a sensitive one in recent weeks after a report that Oren, the Israeli ambassador, had said a "tectonic rift" between the two countries was underway. Oren quickly said that the quote, which was reported secondhand from a closed-door meeting in Hebrew with diplomats, was incorrect and that he had been describing the Obama administration's "shift" toward Israel.
Oren also denied that photographers had been kept away from the meeting between Netanyahu and Obama in March intentionally. "There was no photograph last time because it was thrown together at the last minute," Oren said. A senior U.S. official, however, said it had been part of a clear effort to put Netanyahu on notice that the announcement of new construction days earlier was not acceptable. The official also asked to remain anonymous because of the issue's sensitivity.
Whether a shift or a rift, both sides agree that the goal for Netanyahu and Obama this week is to display neither. "Both of them, for their own reasons, want to try to end the recent ugliness," said Bruce Riedel of the Brookings Institution. "But the fundamentals that led to that haven't changed. The United States has a big interest in advancing the peace process, in Gaza not dominating headlines in the Muslim world and radicalizing people from Morocco to Indonesia. And [Netanyahu] is not really very prepared to be flexible on those issues."
David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy said the differences between Democrats and Republicans is closing for domestic U.S. political reasons. "As we get closer to the midterm elections, if there was a gap, it's narrowing," he said. "I think the blowup in March between Obama and Netanyahu has led each side to realize that they've gone too far, and they've got to dial it down. Because there's too much at stake." Democrats, Makovsky said, have put added pressure on the White House because it is "becoming a campaign issue with some of their constituents."
And thus, Oren predicted, this week's meeting will have different optics than in March. "We are going to have a lot of photographers," Oren said. Laughing, he added: "There are going to be more photographers there than at the Academy Awards."
The public show of unity matters both for the delicate Middle East peace process and for domestic political consumption on both sides. Of immediate concern to the Democratic party is the effect a perceived rift could have on the midterm elections, as Republicans angle to use any perceived rupture with Netanyahu to argue that Obama is insufficiently committed to Israel.
Obama was cool toward Netanyahu during their last meeting, leaving the Israeli leader in the West Wing alone for hours as a subtle rebuke over Israeli settlement policies. The two were never photographed, which in diplomatic code sent a chilly message.
That encounter followed Israel's announcement, during a visit to the country by Vice President Biden, of a plan to construct 1,600 Jewish homes in a part of East Jerusalem that Palestinians view as their future capital.
This next meeting has been promised as "a makeup visit," one senior Democratic lawmaker said, giving the two leaders a chance to demonstrate at least some degree of solidarity.
Already, from Illinois to Florida, Republican candidates have been raising Israel as part of a broader critique of Obama's foreign policy, seeking to chip away at national security-minded Independents and Jewish voters who traditionally support Democrats. After Obama made statements of measured support for Israel following a raid on a Turkish flotilla carrying aid to Gaza last month, Marco Rubio, a Republican nominee in Florida's Senate race, delivered a speech sharply criticizing Obama's Israel policy. "There is the emerging sense that this long-standing relationship isn't what it used to be," Rubio said.
Robert Dold, a Republican running for an open seat in the 10th Congressional District of Illinois, has accused the administration of an "alarming pattern" in the Middle East. In Ohio's 15th District, Republican Steve Stivers questioned incumbent Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D) for her criticism of Israel's Gaza blockade, with his campaign saying, "the contrast is very sharp on this issue." And Allen West, a Republican running against Democratic Rep. Ron Klein in Florida's 22nd District, accused Obama of "browbeating" Israel.
ad_icon
"Republicans are accusing the administration of not being strong enough on flotilla incident," acknowledged Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.), himself a critic of some elements of Obama's approach. "I think the president has made some unfortunate statements, there's no doubt about it, in terms of appearing to put public pressure on Israel while appearing not to put the same type of intense pressure on Palestinians. And that has caused a lot of angst among lots of people."
Whether such angst could become politically potent enough to tip scales in the November midterms is up for debate. Although some Jewish leaders are wary of his policies toward Israel, Obama enjoys support from Jewish voters; he won 78 percent of the Jewish vote in 2008, nearly as much as any Democratic nominee in recent history, and his approval rating among U.S. Jews has hovered in the 60s for much of his presidency so far, higher than approval ratings in the rest of the country.
But Israelis are much more skeptical of Obama, with one widely quoted poll last year putting his popularity in Israel in the single digits. That, in turn, has had a ripple effect on Jews in the United States, giving Republicans an opening to appeal to a natural Democratic constituency and creating distance between the White House and congressional Democrats.
Several lawmakers said the White House position -- and that of some more-liberal Democrats in Congress -- is far more nuanced than Republicans give credit for. Far from being anti-Israel or unwilling to back the Jewish state, they say, they are exerting pressure on the country to take steps that would ensure its long-term existence, and peace. They spoke on condition of anonymity to speak freely about sensitive deliberations.
But that is not always how Democratic criticism is perceived. Israeli Ambassador Michael B. Oren said that some partisan moves in recent months, including a letter critical of the Gaza blockade signed by 54 congressional Democrats earlier this year, have left the impression that Israel is "becoming a partisan issue," with Republicans being uniformly supportive where Democrats are not.
Obama administration officials say they are not looking at the matter through a narrow political prism. Instead, they said, the goal is to move the Middle East peace process forward, as well as to pursue goals the United States has in common with Israel, such as Iran.
Israel's concerns over whether Iran is secretly attempting to build a nuclear weapon are strong enough that its officials have said military action against Iran remains open; the Obama administration remains committed to a strategy of using sanctions to compel Iran to enter into negotiations over its program. Iran says its program is entirely peaceful.
The meeting on Tuesday will focus on broad subjects rather than specific goals, White House officials said. The main item on the agenda will be to move toward direct talks between the Israelis and Palestinians, who have been conducting remote "proximity talks" in order to lay the groundwork for meeting face-to-face, senior administration officials said. Netanyahu has said he is willing to hold talks with the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, at any time; Abbas has set out preconditions for any talks.
The White House meeting will not dwell on some of the most difficult time-sensitive issues, including the expiration of a moratorium on Israeli settlement construction in September. "I think our focus, and the focus of this meeting, is very much going to be on making that transition into direct talks," said Daniel Shapiro, senior Middle East director at the National Security Council.
Shapiro also denied there was any conflict between the two leaders. "In no way do we perceive a rift," he told reporters on a conference call.
The word "rift" has become a sensitive one in recent weeks after a report that Oren, the Israeli ambassador, had said a "tectonic rift" between the two countries was underway. Oren quickly said that the quote, which was reported secondhand from a closed-door meeting in Hebrew with diplomats, was incorrect and that he had been describing the Obama administration's "shift" toward Israel.
Oren also denied that photographers had been kept away from the meeting between Netanyahu and Obama in March intentionally. "There was no photograph last time because it was thrown together at the last minute," Oren said. A senior U.S. official, however, said it had been part of a clear effort to put Netanyahu on notice that the announcement of new construction days earlier was not acceptable. The official also asked to remain anonymous because of the issue's sensitivity.
Whether a shift or a rift, both sides agree that the goal for Netanyahu and Obama this week is to display neither. "Both of them, for their own reasons, want to try to end the recent ugliness," said Bruce Riedel of the Brookings Institution. "But the fundamentals that led to that haven't changed. The United States has a big interest in advancing the peace process, in Gaza not dominating headlines in the Muslim world and radicalizing people from Morocco to Indonesia. And [Netanyahu] is not really very prepared to be flexible on those issues."
David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy said the differences between Democrats and Republicans is closing for domestic U.S. political reasons. "As we get closer to the midterm elections, if there was a gap, it's narrowing," he said. "I think the blowup in March between Obama and Netanyahu has led each side to realize that they've gone too far, and they've got to dial it down. Because there's too much at stake." Democrats, Makovsky said, have put added pressure on the White House because it is "becoming a campaign issue with some of their constituents."
And thus, Oren predicted, this week's meeting will have different optics than in March. "We are going to have a lot of photographers," Oren said. Laughing, he added: "There are going to be more photographers there than at the Academy Awards."
Netanyahu's finest Hour - Friendly meeting with Obama gives Netanyahu a second chance to please Washington
(Orly Azoulay-Ynet).President Obama is well familiar with the meaning of a second chance: He got some himself time after time during his life. Without a second chance, he would not have turned from a Hawaiian beach boy to a distinguished student at Harvard’s law school. Without a second chance he would have been able to trade the whiskey and marijuana for the life of a political star with a bright future.
Yet on Tuesday, Obama will open the Oval Office’s door in order to grant a second chance to Israel’s prime minister.
PM Netanyahu is considered to be a man who is well familiar with America. He grew up there and attended one of its best universities. He would not be saying what a senior minister in his government told a group of Israelis, with utter seriousness, when he arrived in Washington a few months before the elections: “Say, does this black guy even have the right to be elected?” Yet despite this, Netanyahu was unable to connect to the new spirit introduced by Obama.
In Israel, we saw the emergence of a stereotype whereby Obama is a weak and naïve president who curries favor with the Arabs, has no understanding of foreign policy, and makes rookie mistakes. Officials were so preoccupied with the above that they failed to notice how Obama quietly led revolutions in almost every area: He put the military in order, enlisted China and Russia to the front against Iran, hit the banks that robbed citizens, and turned a new leaf in the ties with Russia.
Last week, Obama approved severe sanctions imposed by Congress against Iran on top of those set by the Security Council. President George W. Bush, Israel’s good friend, did nothing like that during his eight-year term.
With all these assets in his possession, Obama will open the door to Netanyahu and invite him to a one-on-one meeting, to be followed by lunch. The president and his people will go out of their way in order to make Netanyahu feel good. For several hours, he will become Washington’s beloved son.
This won’t happen because they fell in love with him suddenly. Rather, the White House decided to change the tone because officials there realized that by embracing Netanyahu they will be able to get more out of him than through pressure and humiliation.
The PM will be pampered, yet the pressure won’t be lifted. The smiles will be broader and the compliments more stylish, yet the message will not change; it will be clarified even. Obama wants quiet in the Middle East and a state for the Palestinians, because for him this is a clear American interest.
This could be Netanyahu’s finest hour, should he have the inner strength to take advantage of it. Israel’s prime minister knows that our greatest defense asset is our good relationship with the US – a relationship that even during the vocal crisis did not undermine the defense cooperation channels meant to protect Israel openly, and mostly secretly.
Instead of quarreling with Washington, Netanyahu should reach out his hand and walk with it, because this is both his and our interest.
In order to connect to the new spirit in a tired world, Netanyahu needs to sit with Obama as a leader, rather than as a man who is being led; as one who has solutions rather than one who hinders them. Netanyahu will be given a second chance tomorrow. He must prove that this time he has no intention of missing out on it.
As FOX news reports:
Jerusalem is making great efforts to ensure that the visit will go smoothly this time, especially in light of the "cold shoulder" Netanyahu received during his previous visit to the White House.
It seems like Israel has learned its lesson and is now doing its best to portray itself as the "good boy" who's making efforts to move forward into direct negotiations with the Palestinians, which is what the American administration is pushing for.
In a very timely fashion, Israel has introduced today the easing of the heavily criticized Gaza blockade and declared that from now on consumer goods will be allowed into the Gaza Strip. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak met with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad earlier today, for the first time since the beginning of the indirect talks, to discuss the changes in Israel's policy.
In addition, Netanyahu succeeded yesterday in pressuring his ministers to defeat the bill that would have required the Knesset’s (Israel’s legislature) approval for any extension of the settlements construction freeze in the West Bank, which is due to end September 26. This paves the way for Netanyahu to extend the freeze, at least partially, if Obama pushes the Prime Minister's back to the wall.
Yet on Tuesday, Obama will open the Oval Office’s door in order to grant a second chance to Israel’s prime minister.
PM Netanyahu is considered to be a man who is well familiar with America. He grew up there and attended one of its best universities. He would not be saying what a senior minister in his government told a group of Israelis, with utter seriousness, when he arrived in Washington a few months before the elections: “Say, does this black guy even have the right to be elected?” Yet despite this, Netanyahu was unable to connect to the new spirit introduced by Obama.
In Israel, we saw the emergence of a stereotype whereby Obama is a weak and naïve president who curries favor with the Arabs, has no understanding of foreign policy, and makes rookie mistakes. Officials were so preoccupied with the above that they failed to notice how Obama quietly led revolutions in almost every area: He put the military in order, enlisted China and Russia to the front against Iran, hit the banks that robbed citizens, and turned a new leaf in the ties with Russia.
Last week, Obama approved severe sanctions imposed by Congress against Iran on top of those set by the Security Council. President George W. Bush, Israel’s good friend, did nothing like that during his eight-year term.
With all these assets in his possession, Obama will open the door to Netanyahu and invite him to a one-on-one meeting, to be followed by lunch. The president and his people will go out of their way in order to make Netanyahu feel good. For several hours, he will become Washington’s beloved son.
This won’t happen because they fell in love with him suddenly. Rather, the White House decided to change the tone because officials there realized that by embracing Netanyahu they will be able to get more out of him than through pressure and humiliation.
The PM will be pampered, yet the pressure won’t be lifted. The smiles will be broader and the compliments more stylish, yet the message will not change; it will be clarified even. Obama wants quiet in the Middle East and a state for the Palestinians, because for him this is a clear American interest.
This could be Netanyahu’s finest hour, should he have the inner strength to take advantage of it. Israel’s prime minister knows that our greatest defense asset is our good relationship with the US – a relationship that even during the vocal crisis did not undermine the defense cooperation channels meant to protect Israel openly, and mostly secretly.
Instead of quarreling with Washington, Netanyahu should reach out his hand and walk with it, because this is both his and our interest.
In order to connect to the new spirit in a tired world, Netanyahu needs to sit with Obama as a leader, rather than as a man who is being led; as one who has solutions rather than one who hinders them. Netanyahu will be given a second chance tomorrow. He must prove that this time he has no intention of missing out on it.
As FOX news reports:
Jerusalem is making great efforts to ensure that the visit will go smoothly this time, especially in light of the "cold shoulder" Netanyahu received during his previous visit to the White House.
It seems like Israel has learned its lesson and is now doing its best to portray itself as the "good boy" who's making efforts to move forward into direct negotiations with the Palestinians, which is what the American administration is pushing for.
In a very timely fashion, Israel has introduced today the easing of the heavily criticized Gaza blockade and declared that from now on consumer goods will be allowed into the Gaza Strip. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak met with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad earlier today, for the first time since the beginning of the indirect talks, to discuss the changes in Israel's policy.
In addition, Netanyahu succeeded yesterday in pressuring his ministers to defeat the bill that would have required the Knesset’s (Israel’s legislature) approval for any extension of the settlements construction freeze in the West Bank, which is due to end September 26. This paves the way for Netanyahu to extend the freeze, at least partially, if Obama pushes the Prime Minister's back to the wall.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
As America celebrates Independence - NBC poll shows Strong majority rates Israel ‘important’ to U.S. interest
(JTA) -- A strong majority of Americans views relations with Israel as extremely or fairly important to the U.S. national interest, a poll showed.
The Wall Street Journal/NBC poll published June 23 showed 39 percent of respondents said relations with Israel were "extremely important" and 26 percent said they were "fairly important" -- a total of 65 percent.
Those answering "just somewhat important" counted for 25 percent of respondents and those responding "not important at all" were 7 percent, with 3 percent not sure.
Asked "Are your sympathies more with Israel or more with Arab nations?" 61 percent of respondents chose Israel, 12 percent chose Arab nations, 5 percent said both, 11 percent said neither and 11 percent were not sure.
Respondents also were asked about Israel's deadly raid last month on a flotilla attempting to breach its embargo on the Gaza Strip, which is controlled by the Hamas terrorist group. They were given a choice between two statements, and told they could say they didn't know enough to render an opinion.
Those agreeing with the statement, "Israel was defending its interests in Gaza and their military actions were justified," came to 34 percent, and those agreeing that "Israel went too far and their military actions were NOT justified" accounted for 29 percent. Those responding "don't know enough" accounted for 32 percent, while those saying "a little of both" came to just 1 percent. Four percent were not sure.
The Wall Street Journal/NBC poll published June 23 showed 39 percent of respondents said relations with Israel were "extremely important" and 26 percent said they were "fairly important" -- a total of 65 percent.
Those answering "just somewhat important" counted for 25 percent of respondents and those responding "not important at all" were 7 percent, with 3 percent not sure.
Asked "Are your sympathies more with Israel or more with Arab nations?" 61 percent of respondents chose Israel, 12 percent chose Arab nations, 5 percent said both, 11 percent said neither and 11 percent were not sure.
Respondents also were asked about Israel's deadly raid last month on a flotilla attempting to breach its embargo on the Gaza Strip, which is controlled by the Hamas terrorist group. They were given a choice between two statements, and told they could say they didn't know enough to render an opinion.
Those agreeing with the statement, "Israel was defending its interests in Gaza and their military actions were justified," came to 34 percent, and those agreeing that "Israel went too far and their military actions were NOT justified" accounted for 29 percent. Those responding "don't know enough" accounted for 32 percent, while those saying "a little of both" came to just 1 percent. Four percent were not sure.
PM Netanyahu's July 4th greeting - The Jewish state, in particular, owes a great debt of gratitude to America
Americans
and Israelis alike, on the 4th of July, the American people celebrate their independence. They celebrate the wondrous gift of liberty which they so rightly cherish.
But America’s independence is something all free nations can and should celebrate. Because all free nations are indebted to the United States.
Time after time, the United States has been called on to defend liberty around the globe. And time after time, the United States has met this enormous responsibility.
Ambassador Cunningham said that the 20th century was an American century – the American century, that's right. But only the half-century – the second half-century America was the predominant power in the world. Our tragedy – the tragedy of the world and specifically the tragedy of the Jewish people – is that it did not dominate the first half of the twentieth century. And what a difference the rise of America has made in rolling back totalitarian forces and standing up for liberty. And now we're at the first half of the twenty-first century and the United States is still entrusted with the difficult task of defending freedom and of defending peace. American power still ultimately keeps the enemies of freedom at bay.
And whether the United States is welcoming the world’s downtrodden to its shores under that fantastic poem of Emma Lazarus, an American and a proto-Zionist, on the Statue of Liberty, whether it is welcoming the downtrodden of the world to its shores or inspiring those who live under tyranny in distant lands, the United States still echoes and holds true to the words, the immortal words of Abraham Lincoln about a century and a half ago – he said the United States is the last, best hope on earth. That's what Lincoln said. And the intervening century and a half has confirmed that analysis.
The Jewish state, in particular, owes a great debt of gratitude to America. For decades, the United States has helped Israel meet the enormous challenges it confronts. It has helped us bear the heavy burden of our defense. It has helped us feel secure enough to take risks for peace.
The Jewish State in particular owes a great debt of appreciation and gratitude to the United States. For decades, the United States has helped Israel meet the enormous challenges we face. It has helped us bear the heavy burdens if our defense. It has helped us feel secure enough to take risks for peace. It has helped us negotiate that peace and then make practical arrangements to cement it on the ground. And Israel, in turn, has proved to be America's steadfast ally – a friend and an ally. We fight common enemies. We uphold common values deeply shared by our peoples, by our societies.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Netanyahu does not rule out extension of Freeze if circumstances change - as Direct talks or US recognizing Settlement Blocs
In an interview with Channel 1 on Friday, Netanyahu refrained from commenting directly on the possibility that his government might extend the moratorium on new construction in the settlements beyond its end date of September 26.
He reference the November decision to implement the moratorium for only 10 months and said: "We made a decision; it has not changed".
"We made the decision [to implement the moratorium] to help facilitate the start of direct talks with the Palestinians, but they refused",€ he continued.
"Anyone who weighs the words and deeds of this government will see that it is one that wants peace, We walked towards peace and they distanced themselves from it".
"If they can't sit with us, how can we achieve peace? It is impossible to have peace without speaking directly with the Palestinians". he said. He noted that he sits only 10 minutes away from Abbas’s Ramallah office, and yet he and Abbas do not speak directly with each other.
Addressing Abbas, he said: "€œI will go to Ramallah. You should come to Jerusalem. We must resume the negotiations so we can finish them".
Netanyahu also sought in the interview to downplay accounts of increased pressure from Obama regarding Israel’s stance towards the Palestinians and talk of poor relations between the White House and the current Israeli government. He emphasized that Israel and the US continue to share a strong connection despite the perceived differences with the Obama administration.
The prime minister admitted that while Obama administration's approach towards Israel may be different from that of past US administrations, the US and Israel still share the same goals of preventing a nuclear Iran as well as achieving peace between Palestinians and Israelis.
"There is a fundamental connection in basic interests between the US and Israel in two areas. One, to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. And two, to achieve an immediate peace between the Palestinians and Israel".
Understanding from Netanyahu's words is, that if the PA leadership agrees to start Direct talks or if Obama commits himself to President Bush's letter to PM Sharon to recognize the Large Settlement Blocs as part of Israel in any Peace settlement, that would make it easier for Netanyahu to pass a extension of the Freeze to the more smaller settlements, while resuming construction in the Large Blocs, and not lose his coalition partners or his base support.
Obama Signs Into Law Congress bill of Tighter Sanctions on Iran
(NYtimes, Whitehouse).President Obama on Thursday signed into law new unilateral American sanctions on Iran that go beyond the penalties imposed by the United Nations last month as he tries to escalate the pressure on Tehran to halt its nuclear enrichment program.
The new law, passed by Congress on overwhelmingly bipartisan votes last week, tries to further restrict investment in Iran’s energy sector and cut off financing for the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps that oversees nuclear and missile programs. It also cracks down on federal contractors that do business with Iran.
“With these sanctions, along with others, we are striking at the heart of the Iranian government’s ability to fund and develop its nuclear program,” Mr. Obama said at a bill-signing ceremony in the East Room. “We’re showing the Iranian government that its actions have consequences. And if it persists, the pressure will continue to mount, and its isolation will continue to deepen.”
The law signed by Mr. Obama imposes penalties on foreign entities that sell refined petroleum to Iran or assist Iran with its domestic refining capacity. It also requires that American and foreign businesses that seek contracts with the United States government certify that they do not engage in prohibited business with Iran.
Mr. Berman, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he hoped that the law would “provide the president with the tools he needs to persuade Tehran to permanently abandon its nuclear weapons program.”
The law produced one of the few moments of consensus in Washington. Joining Mr. Obama on stage at the White House was Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the second-ranking House Republican.
“The president has bipartisan support to carry out his authority to sanction those international entities who serve as enablers of the Iranian nuclear program,” Mr. Cantor said
As President, one of my highest national security priorities is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. That’s why my administration has aggressively pursued a comprehensive agenda of non-proliferation and nuclear security.Leading by example, we agreed with Russia to reduce our nuclear arsenals through the New START Treaty —- and I’ve urged the Senate to move forward with ratification this year. And with allies and partners, we’ve strengthened the global non-proliferation regime, including the cornerstone of our efforts -—the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.Now, in the entire world, there is only one signatory to the NPT -— only one -— that has been unable to convince the International Atomic Energy Agency that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. One nation. And that nation is Iran. For years, the Iranian government has violated its commitments, defied United Nations Security Council resolutions, and forged ahead with its nuclear program —- all while supporting terrorist groups and suppressing the aspirations of the Iranian people.Since taking office, I’ve made it clear that the United States was prepared to begin a new chapter of engagement with the Islamic Republic of Iran. We offered the Iranian government a clear choice. It could fulfill its international obligations and realize greater security, deeper economic and political integration with the world, and a better future for all Iranians. Or it could continue to flout its responsibilities and face even more pressure and isolation.To date, Iran has chosen the path of defiance. That’s why we have steadily built a broader and deeper coalition of nations to pressure the Iranian government. Last month, we joined with our partners at the U.N. Security Council to pass the toughest and most comprehensive multilateral sanctions that the Iranian government has ever faced. (Applause.) And I want to specifically single out our tireless -- and I mean tireless -- Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, for her terrific -- (applause.)As I said last month, we are going to make sure that these sanctions are vigorously enforced. At the same time, we’ll work with our allies and friends to refine and enforce our own sanctions on Iran. And that’s exactly what we’ve been doing. Here in the United States —- thanks to the efforts of my Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, and Under Secretary Stuart Levey —- (applause) -- they have been terrific on this effort; Stuart has been just outstanding -- we have imposed sanctions against more institutions, more individuals involved with Iran’s nuclear and missile programs.Other nations are now acting alongside us -- nations like Australia, which announced new sanctions, including those against a major Iranian bank and Iran’s shipping company. The European Union is moving ahead with additional strong measures against Iran’s financial, banking, insurance, transportation, and energy sectors, as well as Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. Other countries, like Canada, have indicated they will also be taking action. In other words, we are ratcheting up the pressure on the Iranian government for its failure to meet its obligations.And today, we’re taking another step —- a step that demonstrates the broad and bipartisan support for holding Iran accountable. I’m pleased to sign into law the toughest sanctions against Iran ever passed by the United States Congress -— the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act. (Applause.)I want to thank all the members of Congress who worked on behalf of this legislation, including another tireless person, but who never seems to break a sweat -- the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. (Applause.) I want to thank Representatives Steny Hoyer and Eric Cantor for doing outstanding work. (Applause.) Although they weren’t able to join us, I want to acknowledge Senators Harry Reid, Jon Kyl and Richard Shelby. And I want to thank those who led the effort to forge a final bill that received overwhelming bipartisan support —- Senator Chris Dodd and Representative Howard Berman. Thank you for your good work. (Applause.)Consistent with the Security Council mandate, this legislation strengthens existing sanctions, authorizes new ones and supports our multilateral diplomatic strategy to address Iran’s nuclear program. It makes it harder for the Iranian government to purchase refined petroleum and the goods, services and materials to modernize Iran’s oil and natural gas sector. It makes it harder for the Revolutionary Guards and banks that support Iran’s nuclear programs and terrorism to engage in international finance. It says to companies seeking procurement contracts with the United States government -— if you want to do business with us, you first have to certify that you’re not doing prohibited business with Iran.In short, with these sanctions -— along with others —- we are striking at the heart of the Iranian government’s ability to fund and develop its nuclear program. We’re showing the Iranian government that its actions have consequences. And if it persists, the pressure will continue to mount, and its isolation will continue to deepen. There should be no doubt —- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.Finally, even as we increase pressure on the Iranian government, we’re sending an unmistakable message that the United States stands with the Iranian people as they seek to exercise their universal rights. This legislation imposes sanctions on individuals who commit serious human rights abuses. And it exempts from our trade embargo technologies that allow the Iranian people to access information and communicate freely. In Iran and around the world, the United States of America will continue to stand with those who seek justice and progress and the human rights and dignity of all people.So, again, this is not a day that we sought -— but it is an outcome that was chosen by the Iranian government when it repeatedly failed to meet its responsibilities. And the government of Iran still has a choice. The door to diplomacy remains open. Iran can prove that its intentions are peaceful. It can meet its obligations under the NPT and achieve the security and prosperity worthy of a great nation.It can have confidence in the Iranian people and allow their rights to flourish. For Iranians are heirs to a remarkable history. They are renowned for their talents and their contributions to humanity. Here in the United States, Iranian-Americans have thrived. And within Iran, there’s great potential for the Iranian people to forge greater prosperity through deeper integration with the international community, including with the United States.That’s the future we do seek -– one where Iran’s leaders do not hold their own people back by failing to live up to Iran’s international obligations, and where Iran can reclaim its place in the community of nations and find greater peace and prosperity.That is the Iranian government’s choice. And it remains our hope that they choose this path, even as we are clear-eyed and vigilant about the difficult challenges ahead.
Obama Signs Into Law Congress bill of Tighter Sanctions on Iran
(NYtimes, Whitehouse).President Obama on Thursday signed into law new unilateral American sanctions on Iran that go beyond the penalties imposed by the United Nations last month as he tries to escalate the pressure on Tehran to halt its nuclear enrichment program.
The new law, passed by Congress on overwhelmingly bipartisan votes last week, tries to further restrict investment in Iran’s energy sector and cut off financing for the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps that oversees nuclear and missile programs. It also cracks down on federal contractors that do business with Iran.
“With these sanctions, along with others, we are striking at the heart of the Iranian government’s ability to fund and develop its nuclear program,” Mr. Obama said at a bill-signing ceremony in the East Room. “We’re showing the Iranian government that its actions have consequences. And if it persists, the pressure will continue to mount, and its isolation will continue to deepen.”
The law signed by Mr. Obama imposes penalties on foreign entities that sell refined petroleum to Iran or assist Iran with its domestic refining capacity. It also requires that American and foreign businesses that seek contracts with the United States government certify that they do not engage in prohibited business with Iran.
Mr. Berman, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he hoped that the law would “provide the president with the tools he needs to persuade Tehran to permanently abandon its nuclear weapons program.”
The law produced one of the few moments of consensus in Washington. Joining Mr. Obama on stage at the White House was Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the second-ranking House Republican.
“The president has bipartisan support to carry out his authority to sanction those international entities who serve as enablers of the Iranian nuclear program,” Mr. Cantor said
As President, one of my highest national security priorities is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. That’s why my administration has aggressively pursued a comprehensive agenda of non-proliferation and nuclear security.Leading by example, we agreed with Russia to reduce our nuclear arsenals through the New START Treaty —- and I’ve urged the Senate to move forward with ratification this year. And with allies and partners, we’ve strengthened the global non-proliferation regime, including the cornerstone of our efforts -—the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.Now, in the entire world, there is only one signatory to the NPT -— only one -— that has been unable to convince the International Atomic Energy Agency that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. One nation. And that nation is Iran. For years, the Iranian government has violated its commitments, defied United Nations Security Council resolutions, and forged ahead with its nuclear program —- all while supporting terrorist groups and suppressing the aspirations of the Iranian people.Since taking office, I’ve made it clear that the United States was prepared to begin a new chapter of engagement with the Islamic Republic of Iran. We offered the Iranian government a clear choice. It could fulfill its international obligations and realize greater security, deeper economic and political integration with the world, and a better future for all Iranians. Or it could continue to flout its responsibilities and face even more pressure and isolation.To date, Iran has chosen the path of defiance. That’s why we have steadily built a broader and deeper coalition of nations to pressure the Iranian government. Last month, we joined with our partners at the U.N. Security Council to pass the toughest and most comprehensive multilateral sanctions that the Iranian government has ever faced. (Applause.) And I want to specifically single out our tireless -- and I mean tireless -- Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, for her terrific -- (applause.)As I said last month, we are going to make sure that these sanctions are vigorously enforced. At the same time, we’ll work with our allies and friends to refine and enforce our own sanctions on Iran. And that’s exactly what we’ve been doing. Here in the United States —- thanks to the efforts of my Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, and Under Secretary Stuart Levey —- (applause) -- they have been terrific on this effort; Stuart has been just outstanding -- we have imposed sanctions against more institutions, more individuals involved with Iran’s nuclear and missile programs.Other nations are now acting alongside us -- nations like Australia, which announced new sanctions, including those against a major Iranian bank and Iran’s shipping company. The European Union is moving ahead with additional strong measures against Iran’s financial, banking, insurance, transportation, and energy sectors, as well as Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. Other countries, like Canada, have indicated they will also be taking action. In other words, we are ratcheting up the pressure on the Iranian government for its failure to meet its obligations.And today, we’re taking another step —- a step that demonstrates the broad and bipartisan support for holding Iran accountable. I’m pleased to sign into law the toughest sanctions against Iran ever passed by the United States Congress -— the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act. (Applause.)I want to thank all the members of Congress who worked on behalf of this legislation, including another tireless person, but who never seems to break a sweat -- the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. (Applause.) I want to thank Representatives Steny Hoyer and Eric Cantor for doing outstanding work. (Applause.) Although they weren’t able to join us, I want to acknowledge Senators Harry Reid, Jon Kyl and Richard Shelby. And I want to thank those who led the effort to forge a final bill that received overwhelming bipartisan support —- Senator Chris Dodd and Representative Howard Berman. Thank you for your good work. (Applause.)Consistent with the Security Council mandate, this legislation strengthens existing sanctions, authorizes new ones and supports our multilateral diplomatic strategy to address Iran’s nuclear program. It makes it harder for the Iranian government to purchase refined petroleum and the goods, services and materials to modernize Iran’s oil and natural gas sector. It makes it harder for the Revolutionary Guards and banks that support Iran’s nuclear programs and terrorism to engage in international finance. It says to companies seeking procurement contracts with the United States government -— if you want to do business with us, you first have to certify that you’re not doing prohibited business with Iran.In short, with these sanctions -— along with others —- we are striking at the heart of the Iranian government’s ability to fund and develop its nuclear program. We’re showing the Iranian government that its actions have consequences. And if it persists, the pressure will continue to mount, and its isolation will continue to deepen. There should be no doubt —- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.Finally, even as we increase pressure on the Iranian government, we’re sending an unmistakable message that the United States stands with the Iranian people as they seek to exercise their universal rights. This legislation imposes sanctions on individuals who commit serious human rights abuses. And it exempts from our trade embargo technologies that allow the Iranian people to access information and communicate freely. In Iran and around the world, the United States of America will continue to stand with those who seek justice and progress and the human rights and dignity of all people.So, again, this is not a day that we sought -— but it is an outcome that was chosen by the Iranian government when it repeatedly failed to meet its responsibilities. And the government of Iran still has a choice. The door to diplomacy remains open. Iran can prove that its intentions are peaceful. It can meet its obligations under the NPT and achieve the security and prosperity worthy of a great nation.It can have confidence in the Iranian people and allow their rights to flourish. For Iranians are heirs to a remarkable history. They are renowned for their talents and their contributions to humanity. Here in the United States, Iranian-Americans have thrived. And within Iran, there’s great potential for the Iranian people to forge greater prosperity through deeper integration with the international community, including with the United States.That’s the future we do seek -– one where Iran’s leaders do not hold their own people back by failing to live up to Iran’s international obligations, and where Iran can reclaim its place in the community of nations and find greater peace and prosperity.That is the Iranian government’s choice. And it remains our hope that they choose this path, even as we are clear-eyed and vigilant about the difficult challenges ahead.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Netanyahu at July 4th Celebration: All free nations are indebted to the United States
Prime Minister Netanyahu called on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to meet him for direct, face-to-face peace talks during a speech Thursday at the American embassy.
"I am ready to begin them any time," said Netanyahu. "I am ready to meet today, tomorrow, the next day. In any place."
The prime minister spoke at a fourth of July celebration at the American embassy in Tel Aviv Thursday evening.
Netanyahu praised the US during his speech, saying that "on the fourth of July, Americans celebrate their independence. But America's independence is something all free nations can and should celebrate, because all free nations are indebted to the United States."
After mentioning an upcoming meeting with US President Barack Obama next week and the pending round of sanctions against Iran, Netanyahu spoke about his willingness to pursue peace with the Palestinians.
"The only way to complete peace negotiations are to begin them. And the only way to begin them are to have the two parties sit across from one another and directly negotiate these complex issues together.
"Let's not wait 15 months before we sit down together. This is a great hope, and a great challenge."
In closing, Netanyahu wished a "Hag Sameach" on behalf of citizens of Israel to the American people for the fourth of July.
Netanyahu: Israel will not pay any price for Shalit; My mind is also on the future victims if these murderers will be released
(Ynet).Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday evening presented his position on the negotiations for the release of abducted IDF soldier Gilad Shalit, four days after the protest march for Shalit's release took to the road."We all want to bring Gilad back, but I bear general responsibility," he said.
Netanyahu, who will talk with US President Barack Obama about the issue on Monday, gave the soldier's family little reason for optimism, and explained why the decision is so complex.
"I look into the pained eyes of Shalit's family and feel the pain with them,I also look into the eyes of hundreds of families who have been hurt by terror and feel their pain. In the same breath, I think of all those whose loved ones will be murdered if Israel's principles are breached and murderers are released. As prime minister, I must take all this considerations into account."
"The call to pay any price is a natural cry from the hearts of his fathers, mothers, grandparents, brothers and sisters,As a brother, as a father, as a son, I understand this cry from the depths of my heart. But before me I see, as does every Israeli prime minister, the security of all the State's citizens. The State of Israel is willing to pay a heavy price for the release of Shalit, but it cannot say 'at any price.' This is the truth, and I am saying it now. We will continue to make every effort… to bring Gilad home quickly. But this will be done while maintaining the security of Israel's citizens."
"The people of Israel are united in their desire to bring Shalit home,There in nobody who has met the Shalit family who doesn't think to himself, 'Gilad could have been my son, or my brother, or my grandson.' Therefore the family's response is natural, and the desire to give them support is also natural."
Netanyahu, who said he had agreed to a deal which would involve the release of 1,000 Palestinians, also spoke about the dangers of releasing prisoners.
"Israel has decided a number of times to release terrorists and murders in return for the release of Israelis, The most famous case is the Jibril deal, in which 1,150 were released. Almost half went back to terror. They went back to murdering hundreds of Israelis and constituted the hard core of the second Intifada. And there were other cases, like the Tenenbaum deal, in which 400 were released, and murdered 26 Israelis since they were released in 2004."
"The decision to release terrorists is a difficult and complex decision for any government,Because of the complexity, as opposition leader I refused to criticize the Olmert government on this issue. The public pressure and demands should not be directed against the government, but against Hamas – a terror organization that does not even allow the Red Cross to visit Shalit."
"In the deal presented by the German mediator, to which I agreed, there were 1,000 terrorists – that's the price I am willing to face to bring Shalit home,I stick to two principles – the terrorists must not return to Judea and Samaria, and no arch-terrorists will be released. I agreed to the mediator's deal, but no response has yet been received from Hamas."
Maariv: Netanyahu won’t meet Clinton in Washington; ‘sources’ say she “isn’t relevant”
(Maariv).Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is to leave next week for Washington, where he will meet with US President Barack Obama. Rather curiously, he is not scheduled to meet with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the course of his visit to Washington.
Contrary to his previous visit in March, this time the US administration intends to create the impression, outwardly at least, that the severe crisis in the relationship has passed and that the relations between the two countries are as strong as ever. In order to bolster that impression, the two leaders will meet the media together and will be photographed. As opposed to the previous time, Netanyahu will also be put up at Blair House, the official White House guesthouse, and not at a hotel.
That said, officials in Washington are waiting apprehensively for the answers that Netanyahu will provide in the course of the meeting, which is expected to address the transition from the proximity talks that are at an impasse to direct negotiations. Obama, apparently, will demand that Netanyahu agree to extend the construction freeze in Judea and Samaria beyond the September 26 expiration date in hope of securing PA Chairman Abu Mazen’s consent to begin direct talks with Israel. For the time being, the forum of seven is divided over this issue.
Netanyahu will also meet with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and with Vice President Joe Biden. As noted, he is not scheduled to meet with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who will be leaving for a tour of Europe at the same time. Israeli diplomatic sources said: “Clinton isn’t relevant and is out of the circle of influence. Mitchell has taken over the peace process to a great extent and Obama, in any event, is the important person in this story because he is the one who decides.”
Contrary to his previous visit in March, this time the US administration intends to create the impression, outwardly at least, that the severe crisis in the relationship has passed and that the relations between the two countries are as strong as ever. In order to bolster that impression, the two leaders will meet the media together and will be photographed. As opposed to the previous time, Netanyahu will also be put up at Blair House, the official White House guesthouse, and not at a hotel.
That said, officials in Washington are waiting apprehensively for the answers that Netanyahu will provide in the course of the meeting, which is expected to address the transition from the proximity talks that are at an impasse to direct negotiations. Obama, apparently, will demand that Netanyahu agree to extend the construction freeze in Judea and Samaria beyond the September 26 expiration date in hope of securing PA Chairman Abu Mazen’s consent to begin direct talks with Israel. For the time being, the forum of seven is divided over this issue.
Netanyahu will also meet with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and with Vice President Joe Biden. As noted, he is not scheduled to meet with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who will be leaving for a tour of Europe at the same time. Israeli diplomatic sources said: “Clinton isn’t relevant and is out of the circle of influence. Mitchell has taken over the peace process to a great extent and Obama, in any event, is the important person in this story because he is the one who decides.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)