Has the USA finally had enough of Israel's foot dragging and obstruction?

[Flash Walken]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7076431.ece

Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner'


After failing to extract a written promise of concessions on settlements, Mr Obama walked out of his meeting with Mr Netanyahu but invited him to stay at the White House, consult with advisers and “let me know if there is anything new”, a US congressman, who spoke to the Prime Minister, said.

“It was awful,” the congressman said. One Israeli newspaper called the meeting “a hazing in stages”, poisoned by such mistrust that the Israeli delegation eventually left rather than risk being eavesdropped on a White House telephone line. Another said that the Prime Minister had received “the treatment reserved for the President of Equatorial Guinea”.


Left to talk among themselves Mr Netanyahu and his aides retreated to the Roosevelt Room. He spent a further half-hour with Mr Obama and extended his stay for a day of emergency talks to try to restart peace negotiations. However, he left last night with no official statement from either side. He returned to Israel yesterday isolated after what Israeli media have called a White House ambush for which he is largely to blame.

Sources said that Mr Netanyahu failed to impress Mr Obama with a flow chart purporting to show that he was not responsible for the timing of announcements of new settlement projects in east Jerusalem. Mr Obama was said to be livid when such an announcement derailed the visit to Israel by Joe Biden, the Vice-President, this month and his anger towards Israel does not appear to have cooled.

...

With the atmosphere so soured by the end of the evening, the Israelis decided that they could not trust the telephone line they had been lent for their consultations. Mr Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, his Defence Minister, went to the Israeli Embassy to ensure that the Americans were not listening in.



The meeting came barely a day after Mr Obama’s health reform victory. Israel had calculated that he would be too tied up with domestic issues to focus seriously on the Middle East.

[amorak]

I am glad the Americans are finally taking the kid gloves off, with respect to Israel.

[PyramidsofMars]

Originally Posted by amorak

I am glad the Americans are finally taking the kid gloves off, with respect to Israel.

Regardless of one's political views on Israel and the Palestinian territories, I think this is best for everyone.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by PyramidsofMars

Regardless of one's political views on Israel and the Palestinian territories, I think this is best for everyone.

One things for sure.... we know that "business as usual" just ain't working and hasn't worked for decades. This is a dirty little "war" where everybody fights dirty.

[blankall]

I still think it's all a sham.

The only thing that has changed is that Israel is doing a better job of manipulating the media than they have in the past few years.

What exactly is being protested here? Plans to build houses that are set to occur in several years. The actual buidling wouldn't have occured until after the peace talks anyway. If the peace talks fall apart that is probably what will happen in the end.

This whole song and dance just give Obama a chance to look like he is being tough and a fair mediator. It gives Israel a chance to look like they are being fair, even though nothing has changed.

Essentially what Netanyahu has done is create a throw in, that didn't exist before. Now he can say look I've stopped construction, so I'm clearly giving something up in the name of peace. Where in reality he is giving up nothing.

It's a classic way of increasing bargaining position by the Israelis.

[Pastiche]

You don't go forging multi-party security-related foreign policy based on elaborate public ruses between allies blankall.

There is no way this is a sham. Obama is legitimately passed off.

In international policy and negotiations your integrity as a major power is the most important bargaining chip you have. You would never think of compromising it under a complicated, orchestrated and public con.

Essentially what Netanyahu has done is create a throw in, that didn't exist before. Now he can say look I've stopped construction, so I'm clearly giving something up in the name of peace. Where in reality he is giving up nothing.

It's a classic way of increasing bargaining position by the Israelis.

That has been Israeli policy since 1967, why the need for the cooked up acrimony between its main ally now other than any other time? The reason? The bell has finally tolled.

[CaptainCrunch]

Its been a rough week for Israel, first their ambassedor gets tossed out of England. then this.

The only hope is that Obama comes down equally as harshly on the other side of this conflict.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

You don't go forging multi-party security-related foreign policy based on elaborate public ruses between allies blankall.

There is no way this is a sham. Obama is legitimately passed off.

In international policy and negotiations your integrity as a major power is the most important bargaining chip you have. You would never think of compromising it under a complicated, orchestrated and public con.

That's the whole point. It comes across as increasing Obama's integrity. I really don't see where this risk of compromise is coming from? In case people find out? How is that ever goign to happen? This isn't the kind of thing that takes an eleborate conspiracy to pull off. It takes two people in a backroom agreeing.

The kind of things Obama is currently demanding from the Israelis are the kind of things the Iraelis offered to both Bush and Clinton unconditionally.

The idea of political fronting and blustering is hardly something new. It's done all the time and allows politicians to bend while saving face.

Your proposition that politician's acts should be accepted for face value is pretty naive.

Israel is diong this to increase their negotiating power before the next round of talks. People are buying it, so it's clearly working.

Suppose you are right that Obama is not explicitely in on it, it doesn't really change what is going on. It's called a throw away.

That has been Israeli policy since 1967, why the need for the cooked up acrimony between its main ally now other than any other time? The reason? The bell has finally tolled.

The bell has finally tolled my ass. Israel will use this throw away to negotiate them getting to hang onto the Jewish parts of east jerusalem. Which is what they have always intended to hold onto.

In the Taba summit Israel offered the arab parts of east jerusalem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_summit

Now they come back to the table offering the same thing and it looks likes like a compromise and Obama looks like a hero and an even bargainer to the arab world.

[Pastiche]

But Mr Obama’s team may no longer be willing to accept that as a reason. Some observers in Washington felt in his speech to AIPAC Mr Netanyahu gave unduly short shrift to Mr Obama and ignored the president’s insistence that fresh talks between Israel and the Palestinians should go straight to the big issues, such as adjusting borders. “Of course the United States can help the parties solve their problems,” said the prime minister. “But it cannot solve the problems for the parties. Peace cannot be imposed from the outside.”


It was even suggested that Mr Netanyahu’s speech may have been written before Mr Obama’s health-care triumph in the House of Representatives the night before. It was said that people in the White House had been brooding with resentment over Mr Netanyahu’s ill-disguised pleasure when Mr Obama’s political fortunes seemed earlier to be sliding.

http://www.economist.com/world/middl...ry_id=15770905


More fodder that this is a real breakdown in relations.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

http://www.economist.com/world/middl...ry_id=15770905


More fodder that this is a real breakdown in relations.

How about instead of speculation from collumists you provide examples of actual change in policy.

I'll agree with you when I see actual cuts in funds to Israel. I'll agree with you when I see Jewish heavy states like New York vote against Obama. I'll agree with you when I see Israel give up anything that hasn't already been offered.

Until that happens anything else is just posteuring. Maybe my perspective is skewed because I negotiate for living, but I really don't see any actual change in policy from the Israelie side going on here.

[amorak]

Originally Posted by blankall

How about instead of speculation from collumists you provide examples of actual change in policy.

I'll agree with you when I see actual cuts in funds to Israel. I'll agree with you when I see Jewish heavy states like New York vote against Obama. I'll agree with you when I see Israel give up anything that hasn't already been offered.

Until that happens anything else is just posteuring. Maybe my perspective is skewed because I negotiate for living, but I really don't see any actual change in policy from the Israelie side going on here.

Are you a car salesman?

[Pastiche]

The kind of things Obama is currently demanding from the Israelis are the kind of things the Iraelis offered to both Bush and Clinton unconditionally.

LOL, don't try to pass one off on me. I know you're knowledgeable enough about Israel to know that this statement is bogus. The shape of the Israeli coalition during the peace talks between Bush and Clinton were significantly different.

Your proposition that politician's acts should be accepted for face value is pretty naive.

I know that in the delicate world of foreign policy face value is usually all you have. Public statements are essentially tantamount to any other agreement because it's on record and those are the only forms of accountability in an international arena where leaders have no other checks. Your word is your word and if you deviate or misconstrue you are nothing among the rest of negotiators.

Israel is diong this to increase their negotiating power before the next round of talks. People are buying it, so it's clearly working.

Totally agree. Everyone knows this.

Suppose you are right that Obama is not explicitely in on it, it doesn't really change what is going on. It's called a throw away.

I am supposing, that's the whole point of my argument. Obama is legitimately angry and that this isn't a ruse. Great powers walk a fine line. If they are perceived as the boy who cried wolf they lose their heavy soft power which is invaluable. If this was concocted it's increadibly risky for both sides. Historically, public break downs in relations between these countries have always been for real. It just doesn't make sense of why you'd want to appear like you have bad relations goign into a negotiation almost pre-emptively poisoning the well.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

LOL, don't try to pass one off on me. I know you're knowledgeable enough about Israel to know that this statement is bogus. The shape of the Israeli coalition during the peace talks between Bush and Clinton were significantly different.

At the Taba summit, the Palestinians were offered:

1) East Jerusalem
2) A land area equivalent to 97% of the West Bank.

What new is going to be offered?

Edit: what new is being asked of the Israelis?

[Pastiche]

Not my point. My point is what governments are willing to do changes as the shape of the governments themselves change.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

\

Totally agree. Everyone knows this.
I am supposing, that's the whole point of my argument. Obama is legitimately angry and that this isn't a ruse. Great powers walk a fine line. If they are perceived as the boy who cried wolf they lose their heavy soft power which is invaluable. If this was concocted it's increadibly risky for both sides. Historically, public break downs in relations between these countries have always been for real. It just doesn't make sense of why you'd want to appear like you have bad relations goign into a negotiation almost pre-emptively poisoning the well.

Historically break downs have not been for real. There has never been a true breakdown in relations between the countries since the alliance began. One of two countries always ends up "caving" and all of a sudden relations are stronger than ever.

Why would you want to look like you have bad relations? because the US is not seen as a fair negotiator. Bad relations means they are.

I also don't see what the risk of crying wolf here is? When Israel does back down, it makes both countries look better off than before. Israel acted tough but was reasonable in the end. Obama acted tough and got Israel to cave. If the peace deal doesn't go through, it was the Palestinians who refursed to cooperate. If the peace deal does go through.... well who cares how obama is perceived he'll win a nobel peace prize.

We are talking about houses that aren't planned to be bult for several years. If Israel postpones the building for talks, what have they really given up?

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by blankall

How about instead of speculation from collumists you provide examples of actual change in policy.

I'll agree with you when I see actual cuts in funds to Israel. I'll agree with you when I see Jewish heavy states like New York vote against Obama. I'll agree with you when I see Israel give up anything that hasn't already been offered.

Until that happens anything else is just posteuring. Maybe my perspective is skewed because I negotiate for living, but I really don't see any actual change in policy from the Israelie side going on here.

You're right. What was I thinking?

OBVIOUSLY you would have a better idea of what's going on than ANYONE from The Economist.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

You're right. What was I thinking?

OBVIOUSLY you would have a better idea of what's going on than ANYONE from The Economist.

Maybe not.

But I don't see how using someone else's speculation back up your argument in any way.

Especially when part of my point is that Israel and Obama are manipulating the media.