Israeli right cuts Biden's legs away

[Ed Jewett]

March 25, 2010
Silence that speaks volumes: blackout as Israel’s leader leaves White House


Two separate meetings between President Obama and Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, failed to produce so much as an official photograph as a chill settled over US-Israeli relations and secrecy shrouded any efforts to repair them.
The Israeli Prime Minister was due to fly home from Washington after three days marked by Israeli defiance on the issue of settlements and an extraordinary silence maintained by both sides after his three-and-a-half-hour visit to the White House.
The meeting was overshadowed by Israeli approval for 20 homes built for Jews in Arab east Jerusalem — a move denounced by one senior US official as “exactly what we expect Prime Minister Netanyahu to get control of”.
White House staff denied Mr Netanyahu the usual photo opportunities afforded to a visiting leader, issued only the vaguest summary of their talks — let alone a joint statement — and reversed a decision to release an official photo of their meetings.
Related Links

• Wrong fight, wrong time
  

• Israel fears others may follow Britain's lead
  

• New Israeli construction plan undermines talks
  

It was speculated that the talks may have moved beyond the quarrel over Israeli construction in east Jerusalem to final status issues such as the borders of a Palestinian state, as well as Iran and its nuclear programme. However, Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, would say only that Mr Obama had asked Mr Netanyahu for confidence-building gestures and clarification of his position on settlements. He described the talks as “honest and straightforward”.
Mr Obama also held telephone talks yesterday with Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel and President Sarkozy on Iran, the Middle East peace process and global economic issues, Mr Gibbs said.
Before departing, Mr Netanyahu met with Mr Obama’s envoy George Mitchell, who worked for months to get the Palestinians to take part in indirect negotiations with Israel, only to see them balk when Israel revealed plans for 1,600 new homes in east Jerusalem. The announcement came on March 9, during Vice-President Joe Biden’s latest trip to Jerusalem.
The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said she wanted peace talks to resume as soon as possible, a sentiment echoed by the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki Moon, who said he will urge Arab leaders to support indirect talks.
In Jerusalem the government press office issued a terse statement saying that the talks had been held in a good atmosphere. They went on longer than expected with the leaders meeting for 90 minutes, then again for half an hour after a long private discussion between Mr Netanyahu and his advisers in the White House Roosevelt Room. The choreography of the evening suggested that the talks covered substantive proposals, possibly including an undertaking from Mr Netanyahu to prevent ill-timed announcements of Israeli construction. Yet there is little doubt that Mr Netanyahu’s stance on settlements has left him struggling to persuade a newly confident US President of his willingness to compromise for peace.
White House sources said that observers were right to infer from the news blackout that relations between the two sides were not good but later hinted that some Israeli proposals had been favourably received. Direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians have been shelved since 2008.
Palestinian leaders have said that they will not join any peace talks unless all Israeli construction east of the 1949 armistice line is stopped. Before Tuesday’s meeting Israeli experts expected Mr Netanyahu to agree to a secret freeze on building. However, the announcement of new apartments in a development funded by Irving Moskowitz, the Jewish-American billionaire, raised tempers again.
“Israel is digging itself into a hole that it will have to climb out of if it is serious about peace,” Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said. “There is overwhelming international consensus on the illegality of Israel’s settlements, including in east Jerusalem, and the damage they are doing to the two-state solution.”
Mr Netanyahu’s efforts to persuade Congress that his office had no oversight of the many construction projects in east Jerusalem were greeted with scepticism even within the Prime Minister’s coalition. “Netanyahu decided to spit into Obama’s eye, this time from up close,” said Eitan Cabel, an MP from the Labour Party, a coalition ally of Mr Netanyahu’s Likud party. “He and his pyromaniac ministers insist on setting the Middle East ablaze.”

[David Guyatt]

He described the talks as “honest and straightforward”.

Oh dear. That is pol-speak for shouting, biting and kicking.

[Jan Klimkowski]

It's akin to the flickering oriental shadow puppets in the opium den scenes in Once Upon A Time In America.

It is an illusion of light and movement where nothing is as it seems.

I see no reason to change my judgement.

Israel has continued to kill Palestinians.

Israel has announced the building of more "settlements".

Britain has expelled London's Mossad station chief. Israel has sent over a new chief, and did not expel a British diplomat from Tel Aviv (as is usual in these circumstances). Effectively, the Mossad station chief has simply been posted to a new assignment.

Obama and Bibi didn't pose for an official photo. Boo hoo hoo.....

This is most likely the creation of a faux narrative of America and Britain "talking tough" to Israel so that any hugely destructive attack on Iran by Israel or the US can be framed as "the last resort".

We're being played.

[Ed Jewett]

[quote=Jan Klimkowski]

We're being played.

Does the Sabrosky claim fall under that theory?

Is there a portion of the US military that would just as soon not participate in -- and even perhaps work to prevent-- any aggressive military action toward Iran? Or are they aligned and restrained until the stage is set and proper provocation "evident"?

In my estimation, any "war" short of cyber-tweeting and the typical attempts at Gladiation-through-street-dissidence is foolhardy, perhaps even a sign of desperation, and has negative consequences which will tsunami aside any positive ones.

But then I' just a blooger in my jeans and T-shirt who watched a weekend's worth of contrails flowing south out of northern Maine -- massive military aviation fuel transfers out of Loring ? -- unlike anything I've ever seen short of similar activity in the run-up to the aerial pre-phases of both Desert Storm and the Second Gulf War.

If we take on Iran, what will they name it?

[Jan Klimkowski]

Is there a portion of the US military that would just as soon not participate in -- and even perhaps work to prevent-- any aggressive military action toward Iran?

Quite possibly.

I'd like to hope that for every William Calley giving orders and ensuring they are carried out, there's a Good Twin, a Hugh Thompson prepared to stand up and refuse.
http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/...ostcount=9

If we take on Iran, what will they name it?

It may need a false flag casus belli, a Gleiwitz incident, to psy op western populations into believing "There Is No Alternative":

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/...t=gleiwitz

[Magda Hassan]

US 'may not veto UN resolution on Jerusalem'


Israel considers areas within the Jerusalem municipality as its territory

The US is considering abstaining from a possible UN Security Council resolution against Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem, sources suggest to the BBC.
The possibility surfaced at talks in Paris last week between a senior US official and Qatar's foreign minister.
The official said the US would "seriously consider abstaining" if the issue of Israeli settlements was put to the vote, a diplomat told the BBC.
US officials in Washington have not confirmed the report.
There are no concrete plans at present to table such a resolution at the UN.
But it is likely that the US is considering how to maintain pressure, and a UN resolution would be one way, says BBC state department correspondent Kim Ghattas.
The US usually blocks Security Council resolutions criticising Israel.
But relations between the allies have been severely strained by the announcement of plans to build 1,600 homes in an East Jerusalem settlement during a recent visit to Israel by US Vice-President Joe Biden.
The move prompted the Palestinians to pull out of the US-brokered indirect "proximity talks" that had only just been agreed in a bid to revive the peace process, which has been stalled for more than a year.
Nearly half a million Jews live in more than 100 settlements built since Israel's 1967 occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They are held to be illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.
Guarantee sought
The reported exchange between the US official and Qatar's foreign minister came to light during a meeting at an Arab League summit in the Libyan town of Sirte.
A diplomatic source told the BBC that Qatar's Foreign Minister, Sheikh Hamad Bin Jasim Al Thani - who is also the prime minister - had recently met an official high up in the Obama administration during a visit to France.
Sheikh Hamad Al Thani was in Paris last week for an economic forum

During their talks, Sheikh Hamad asked the US official whether Washington would guarantee not to veto a UN Security Council resolution that was critical of Israel's ongoing settlement construction in East Jerusalem.
The diplomat said the US official had replied that the current feeling in Washington was that they would "seriously consider abstention".
An Egyptian official is said to have confirmed his knowledge of the US position during a meeting at the Arab League summit, which was held behind closed doors.
The US Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, was in Paris last week to hold talks with Israeli Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas.
The US is one of five permanent members of the Security Council with veto power and has a history of blocking any resolution condemning Israel.
The BBC's Rana Jawad, in Sirte, says that many people will see the comments as yet another sign of Washington's recent dispute with Israel.
In November, Israel announced a 10-month suspension of new building in the West Bank. But it considers areas within the Jerusalem municipality as its territory and thus not subject to the restrictions.
POINTS OF TENSION IN JERUSALEM

1 Gilo: 850 homes approved for publication and planning objections in Nov 2009
2 Pisgat Zeev: 600 homes approved for publication and planning objections in Jan 2010
3 Sheikh Jarrah: Municipality approves the building of 20 new apartments on the site of an old hotel
4 Ramat Shlomo: 1,600 homes approved for publication and planning objections in Mar 2010
5 Silwan: Demolition orders on 88 Palestinian homes built without difficult-to-get permits - Israel planning controversial renewal project
6. West Bank barrier: Making Palestinian movement between West Bank and Jerusalem harder - Israel says it is for security
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8591714.stm

[Magda Hassan]

Wow. The US is so pissed off with Israel they are going to sell them $3 billion worth of arms. That will teach them to be rude.

Exclusive / Despite row, U.S. and Israel sign massive arms deal
03.26.2010 | Haaretz
As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in Washington this week absorbing the full wrath of the Obama administration, the Pentagon and Israel’s defense establishment were in the process of sealing a large arms deal. According to the deal, Israel will purchase three new Hercules C-130J airplanes. The deal for the three aircrafts, designed by Lockheed Martin, is worth roughly a quarter billion dollars. Each aircraft costs $70 million.
The aircrafts were manufactured specifically for Israeli needs, and include a large number of systems produced by Israel’s defense industry.
The deal will be covered by American foreign assistance funds. The Pentagon will issue a formal announcement on the matter on Thursday evening.
America and Israel have still not reached an agreement regarding the purchase of the Lockheed F-35 war plane. It is still not clear when that deal, which is estimated to be worth more than $3 billion, will finally be sealed and carried out.
If that deal is signed in the near future, Israel will likely receive its first F-35 in 2014.

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/heres-h...-babble-a/