WASHINGTON -- The White House is raising the stakes with Israel, calling it an "insult" and an "affront" that the Jewish nation would continue plans to build 1,600 new apartments during a construction freeze aimed at re-igniting peace talks with Palestinians.

Palestinians have not sought as part of their capital the area of northeast Jerusalem where the Jewish settlement of Ramat Shlomo resides, but the decision to announce construction plans just as Vice President Joe Biden was visiting the region led to strained meetings that continues past his return.

Biden expressed his displeasure by showing up late to a dinner with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in order to issue a statement of condemnation.

On Sunday, President Obama's chief political adviser David Axelrod told ABC's "This Week" that the move undermines the fragile effort to bring peace to the troubled region and called the timing of the announcement "very destructive."

Axelrod would not say what has been discussed in diplomatic talks but suggested the decision by Israel was "calculated to undermine" peace talks with the Palestinians. He added that because Israel is a special ally to the United States "for just that very reason that was not the right way to behave."

But White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Netanyahu's apology on Sunday was a "good start" to rebuild trust, but more needs to be done.

"I think what would be an even better start is coming to the table with constructive ideas for constructive and trustful dialogue about moving the peace process forward," Gibbs said.

"There's no doubt that events like last week weaken the trust that's needed for both sides to come together and have honest discussions about peace in the Middle East. So there's no doubt that that was not a bright spot for the Israeli government."

The State Department on Friday outlined what was described as a stern 45-minute call by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to the prime minister. The unusually tough dressing down reportedly took Netanyahu by surprise. On Sunday he announced plans to set up a committee to review processes to ensure an embarrassment like the one with Biden doesn't happen again.

Though Netanyahu had not included East Jerusalem in an earlier decision to halt construction for 10 months, the Jerusalem District Planning and Building committee canceled two meetings scheduled for this week after Clinton's call, Haaretz newspaper reported Sunday.

Full Story.............
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/14/white-house-ups-ante-new-criticism-israel/

This is wrong on so many levels. One Israel is one of our major allies. This President has made it a point to piss off most of our allies since taking office. Israel is in a shitty situation. They are on a continent where no one wants them there and are constantly under threat of attack from the many Islamic countries that border them and even by countries that doin't like Iran.

Then to keep a fellow head of state waiting out of protest shows exactly the lack of class and the extreme arrogance that this administration has. They should be ashamed of themselves.

if it wasn't for america giving egypt and probably syria money to not invade israel, egypt and syria would be fighting over the land....funny thing i think most of the wars that happened with israel and other arabic countries is cause they wanted more money from the US or they just hate jews

We should stop all aid to Isreal. Our biggest trouble in the middle east is we support them when they are WRONG. With all the defecit spending we have its time to pull the plug on all the aid we give them.

hating jews nor religion has nothing to do with anything..it's justice. Israel has committed atrocities and violates laws constantly and is building on lands illegally occupied. people like this poster blindly supports this drinking the koolaid of the right wing's propaganda. even some israelis see through their govt's corruption and what do they get in return?? they get locked up..some allie.

i'm not saying israel is a saint i'm just stating facts,really we do give egypt money not to mess with israel,so i guess our diplomacy is rather out of the ordinary

What is going on is that the Palestinians are trying to pre-judge the talks before they ever begin towards a pre-1967 border particularly in Jerusalem. Israel on the other hand sees Jerusalem as their undividable capital which they can develop as it best suits the population. In any case, it would be astounding if anyone (let alone a U.S. official) was surprised that Israel was planning to allow some more construction in Jerusalem!

The Palestinians need to cease all violence and return to the negotiating table unconditionally. The Israelis have already stopped virtually all real settlement activity years ago and have been pulling back unilaterally from Gaza and areas of the West Bank. So all the the crying about "settlements" borders on frivolous. The Israelis are not colonizing the West Bank and Gaza. They are merely working towards defensible borders at this point.

If the Palestinians don't wish to negotiate then we should just leave them alone and wait until the violence completely stops and both sides are eagerly willing to participate. But no one in the U.S. government was even the slightest bit surprised that Israel announced they were planning to continue development and construction in neighborhoods of Jersusalem. So their outrage rightfully appears fake.

People still get their news from Fox?

your spin is amazing...i'm sure you have talked to the PA right? oh wait that's right you just visit jewish sites and run with it. sad

I am well aware of the PA points of view. That is why I am skeptical.
I don't think that the time is right for a resolution to the issue.
The Hamas-Fatah rift and violence from Gaza means there is no one to
give the Israelis a real commitment to peace and security - even
if they wanted to - and it does not appear that they want to.

It's just a mess. The current brouhaha appears to be some kind of
U.S. versus Israel ego thing having little or nothing to do with the
Palestinians actually. That is why there is all the jabbering about
"insults". I have no trouble believing that Netanyahu did not know
about the announcement, that there are right-wing elements in Israel
who didn't mind insulting the Americans, that the U.S. is showing
all this irritation and bluster more to appease the "insulted" U.S.
diplomats and to try to look outraged for the Saudis than anything else...

Sure, call me cynical. Jaded even.

There just isn't much interest on either side for negotiations right
now. If there were - they'd be pursuing negotiations on their own.

Right wing propaganda? American Jews are so far left they make you look like Reagan.. Get a clue..

yeah so why are zionists right wingers? get a clue

Hallelujah, amen! Why don't more people think this way? We have a target painted on our backs because we have an "unbreakable-bond" with Israel. Time to break the bond. Sink or swim, Israel!

Your comments are most subjective and unilaterally defend a failing minority position carried by far right Isreali fundamentalists, and defended by 'Bibi' in the Knesset, whom will never accept any compromise such as the 'two-state solution' which is now the only 'good faith' attitude, for any possible peace talks in town!!!

Free world allies , including the USA and Canada, along with B'Tselem: 'The Israeli information center for human rights in the occupied territories', and a majority of Israelis, denounce this dogmatic position held by the dogmatic far right, and which you express in your posts.

Without saying so honestly, a far right fringe of the Israeli camp, is dead set against a two-state solution, which comprises an Israeli Jerusalem, and a Palestinian Jerusalem, among other fundamental factors, and is doing everything it can to undermine and derail any talks which carries at its core, a two-state solution.

This latest 'surprise announce' of Jerusalem settlements expansion, is nothing other than a premeditated act, and a serious 'bad faith' move on the part of the annoying far right camp.

It succeeded AGAIN, in derailing planned peace talks, which George Mitchell, the President's special envoy, had been planning for months.

This 'territory expansion announcement' tactic from the far right Israeli camp is the farthest thing from surprising, as Nathanyaou allegedly claimed (didn't know!!! is a blatant lie!). It is has been a trademark signature of the Israel's far right for the past two decades.

The hypocritical 'coup' has been perpetrated to Secretary of State Jim Baker, under Bush sr, Madeleine Albright, under Bill Clinton, and again under Condoleeza rice, under Bush son, coincidentally occurring on the eve of resuming peace talks every single time.

Much like the christian fundamentalist fringe is representing a serious liability to the GOP in particular, and the USA as a whole, the fundamentalist (uncompromising) far right and dogmatic minority in Israel has most definitely become a serious liability to Israel as whole.

It's high time that the Knesset realize that the USA, and a 'two-state' nation peace agreement, are far more important to the safe and prosperous future of Israeli people, than the religiously dogmatic and delusional positions of its far right fringes.




'frivolous'!!! The far right fringe is most dishonestly toying with the most sensitive settlement, at the heart of any possible peace agreement.

'... The Israelis are not colonizing the West Bank and Gaza...', they're doing far worse than that, THEY'RE COLONIZING THE PROPOSED SECTION OF PALESTINIAN JERUSALEM, AT THE CORE OF A TWO-STATE PEACE SOLUTION !!!



The above paragraph is totally unfounded. As we stand, and for the past couple decades, it is the Israeli government (through its far right fringes) whom have clearly demonstrated their refusal to 'negotiate'!!!

As long as Nathanyaou or any other leading coalition of the Knesset, keep supporting the religiously dogmatic and delusional positions of its far right fringes, it is Israel as whole that is persistently showing bad faith by derailing and refusing to come back to a 'two-state' peace talk process.

i couldn't have said it any better thanks

Give me ONE reason why Israel should negotiate with people whose only definition of 'peace' is 'the peace of the grave'. Israel made the mistake after winning the Six-Day War of GIVING BACK the territory they won. 'Land for 'peace'' has never been a bargain the Muzzies made in good faith. No matter what Israel has done, no matter what Israel has given up, it has NEVER been enough. Two words: Never Again.

As I said before, Israel has already made several completely viable
and U.S./Quartet supported Two-State solution proposals. These real
efforts have been rejected by the Palestinians. Their inexplicable
and self-defeating rejection of the incredibly generous offers at
Camp David and Taba were the most egregious and revealing missed
opportunities according to U.S. chief negotiator David Ross.

http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000555.html

=-=-=-=-= snippet =-=-=-=-=

"ROSS: The ideas were presented on December 23 by the president, and they basically said the following: On borders, there would be about a 5 percent annexation in the West Bank for the Israelis and a 2 percent swap. So there would be a net 97 percent of the territory that would go to the Palestinians.

On Jerusalem, the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capitol of the Palestinian state.

On the issue of refugees, there would be a right of return for the refugees to their own state, not to Israel, but there would also be a fund of $30 billion internationally that would be put together for either compensation or to cover repatriation, resettlement, rehabilitation costs.

And when it came to security, there would be a international presence, in place of the Israelis, in the Jordan Valley.

These were ideas that were comprehensive, unprecedented, stretched very far, represented a culmination of an effort in our best judgment as to what each side could accept after thousands of hours of debate, discussion with each side.

BARNES: Now, Palestinian officials say to this day that Arafat said yes.

ROSS: Arafat came to the White House on January 2. Met with the president, and I was there in the Oval Office. He said yes, and then he added reservations that basically meant he rejected every single one of the things he was supposed to give.

HUME: What was he supposed to give?

ROSS: He supposed to give, on Jerusalem, the idea that there would be for the Israelis sovereignty over the Western Wall, which would cover the areas that are of religious significance to Israel. He rejected that."

=-=-=-=-= snippet =-=-=-=-=



Contrary to your assertion, it is currently the Palestinians who
are placing pre-conditions on returning to the bargaining table.
The Israelis have no such pre-conditions. They may never agree to
the Camp David 2000 offer anymore but certainly they will consider
a large part of it...

Unfortunately since Gaza has been taken over by Hamas and the PA
is unwilling to return unconditionally to the bargaining table,
the Israelis are put back in the position of having to negotiate
with themselves over what they can accept as a solution now after
they have already given up the West Bank and Gaza.



And, the PA has no ability to assure any security to Israel, Hamas
has no intention of assuring any security to Israel, the PA has a
long history of refusing outrageously generous offers, Hamas has a
long history of 911 style attacks as their method of dialogue.



Israel seems to be happy with a Two-State solution as long as the
new state is de-militarized and cannot attack Israel. They want to
keep a united Jerusalem as their capital - perhaps sharing some
limited sovereignty over Islamic religious sites. The Israelis also
want to not have rockets launched randomly at their towns or have
their buses, schools, cafes, marketplaces or gatherings bombed
- that should not be a deal breaker.

So I say, let the Palestinians start living their lives without
violence towards Israel (or each other) in 100% of Gaza and the 95%
of the West Bank that they already govern. This is essentially
already their state. Live peacefully and thrive and make it a place
where people will want to actually live and raise a family. Voila!
Instant state. Two-state solution accomplished. Don't attack Israel
and they won't attack you and checkpoints won't be needed anymore
after a while. Iran and Hezbollah won't like it but they don't live
there.

1. it's not their land
2. i've seen israel's idea of peace first hand when they murdered my aunt, uncle, and cousin.
3. when you use the term "muzzie" , you lose further credibility at having a rational unbiased opinion.

using your own logic, iran has a right to attack israel and take the land if it wins. you make me sick

You seem to unable to take into account that there are other versions of the C.D. 2000 and TABA rounds than that of your friend Ross.

Ross & Malley were part of the same negotiating team for the US. Their accounts of the situation io general and their conclusions in particular, are drastically different.

Ross concludes with little nuance, '...It's all Arafat's fault!!!...'

... while Malley, provides a much more nuanced account, concluding that the preparation leading up to C.D. 2000 and the talks themselves, were a comedy of errors on all sides.

Clinton's ego, on the eve of leaving office, just wanted an agreement such that history would remember HIM as the 'savior' who came to Jerusalem!!!

Barak too was at the end of his term, and was presssured by his buddy Clinton to make an offer, ... any offer!!! to Arafat.

Well, Barak not wanting to let his buddy down, made a unofficial 'ridiculous offer', cantons, checkpoints, fragmented territories, and and an Israel sovereign Palestinian Capital!!!

Arafat in the meantime, was never in the loop. True he didn't counter offer. As anyone with a brain whom hasn't been included in pre-negotiation; wasn't made privy to what was going to be served, knows better than to irresponsibly jump into hasty counter proposals.

If Arafat made a mistake, it was to present himself to what was is referred to as a negotiating trap!!! Elementary Watson.

I don't expect you 's1owhand', to agree to any of Malley's account. You're bias position is much too conveniently served by Ross's.

Beyond Ross's, Malley's, 's1owhand' and 'voileazur's opinions ans positions on the matter, it remains to be acknowledged, that two US negotiators prepare, attend and comment on exactly the same events, with radically different views.

Moreover, the free world agrees with the Malley acount: enough with the under the table games, and let's settle this once and for all, in a fair, cards on the table manner!!!

By the way, 9 years later, Ross, in his latest book, claims that the Israelo-Palestinian crisis is no longer the most pressing issue facing that part of the world, that it is rather the Iranian crisis to which we should all pay attention!?!?!?

If Ross's bias isn't clear to you 's1lowhand', it is clear to the rest of the world. And that is the encouraging light at the end of the tunnel.

P.S.1:
For anyone interested in a US made, different angle on this discussion, do take the time to read the following article on the Malley account of the C.D. 2000.

P.S.2:
Excessive use of 'laughing emoticons' are an obvious metaphor for 'excessive sweat under the armpits' 's1lowhand'!!!
Maybe you are only interested in your position on this question, and of course, we are all entitled to that.
But a question remains:

'... isn't your position, and that shared by Israel's far right, the exact element that is in the way of any possible peace in this conflict!?!?! ...'

It is wisely said that true peace can only become possible when both sides stop making one another wrong!!!

You are the one who keeps saying that it was "Arafat's fault".

Ross makes an accurate description of the Israeli offer
and said that Arafat rejected that offer.

Malley seems to discuss a lot of his interpretations of the
reasoning behind the parties positions which is fine but that
is largely speculation and can never be determined as it relates
to what might have been in the mind of the parties - or not.

Ross states clearly the offer and the response.

I don't see any big disagreement between Malley and Ross.
Malley just omits some discussion of various PA mistakes.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14529

As I recall, you did not like my quote from Malley either.



"On June 15, during his final meeting with Clinton before Camp David, Arafat set forth his case: Barak had not implemented prior agreements, there had been no progress in the negotiations, and the prime minister was holding all the cards. The only conceivable outcome of going to a summit, he told Secretary Albright, was to have everything explode in the President's face. If there is no summit, at least there will still be hope. The summit is our last card, Arafat said—do you really want to burn it? In the end, Arafat went to Camp David, for not to do so would have been to incur America's anger; but he went intent more on surviving than on benefiting from it."

- Hussein Agha and Robert Malley

In other words, Arafat was unable to see the forest for the trees
and make the leap to the end game....or he just didn't like the end
game. Either way ultimately he was unable to benefit from CD 2000
opportunities and this is why other participants like Dennis Ross
(The Missing Peace) and Clinton among many other have said that
Arafat just wasn't up to it.

Two could play this misleading game of 'out-of-context' quotes, though I as a rule, I choose to refrain from it. Malley reports reports what was said without filters.

If you enjoy picking from the buffet, only that which you like, don't come with your 'editorial spins' expecting to be taken seriously. Heck , Ross is still spinning the 9 year old story today. That is a serious biased agenda. Imagine, He too would have been quoted in history books as Savior Clinton's right hand man!!!

I twice provided the link to the Malley/Agha article. For anyone in good faith, the important differences in accounts and conclusions of the event, between Ross's and Malley/Agha do not require your's or Ross's, or anyone else bias editorial spinning. It generously stands on its own merit.

I said that the Malley/Agha's view was nuanced where Ross's isn't. I also said that the Malley/Agha perspective point to a solution, which helps orient today's talks, whereas the Ross account simple isolated a culprit of the C.D. 2000 talks.

We can all learn something from the progress and failures listed in Malley/Agha's account to build peace today, unlike Ross's account, which simply would have us all believe that it was useless to deal with Arafat.
Well, god or Allah bless his soul, Arafat is no longer with us. Ross's biased account was irrelevant then, and is 'dead' today.

The Malley/Agha's account on the other hand is still very much, in its nuanced wisdom, very pertinent in understanding the far right abortion tactic of the current aborted round of 'Mitchell' talks, which were planned to take place this week.

Now, I said that I clearly didn't expect you would agree with the more nuanced and objective Malley/Agha account and conclusion. But this exchange doesn't only concern you 's1owhand'!!!

Let the unbiased read the Malley/Agha and Ross articles, and let the verdict fall.

The whole free world has spoken against Israel's handful of hardliners (Not Israel as whole, just their far right fundamentalist hardliners).
I have a feeling unbiased posters here would end up reflecting the same overwhelming proportion of people finding that there is
'... quite a bit of sand in the hardliners gears...'

Again 's1owhand', I am definitely not trying to sway you. I am very clear you have your personal view on this matter,

... and that you ABSOLUTELY agree with yourself!!! :)