Netanyahu and Obama long way apart over Middle East peace plans

US and Israeli leaders at odds over 1967 reference, leaving Obama to discuss issue with Cameron in London Barack Obama and the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, have publicly admitted to rifts over a Middle East peace process after lengthy talks at the White House. Although both sides adopted a conciliatory tone, both also acknowledged that differences remain over approaches to a peace deal. Netanyahu, speaking afterwards, stressed that Obama’s public backing for a deal based on the border that existed before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war was a major point of difference. The Israeli leader said he was prepared to make concessions but the 1967 border was “indefensible”. The talks, originally scheduled to last 50 minutes, ran over by 90 minutes. The two tend to be polite and diplomatic in public while keeping their disagreements private. Obama described the discussion as useful. “We agreed there is a moment of opportunity that could be seized as a result of the Arab Spring,” he said. Netanyahu said Palestinian leaders would have to choose between a pact with Hamas or peace with Israel. The meeting in the Oval Office came the day after Obama became the first president to endorse explicitly and in public the Palestinian demand for a state based on the border before Israel’s occupation in 1967 of East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank. This would be the starting point for negotiating a possible series of land swaps. Netanyahu, who replied to that by saying the 1967 border would make Israel indefensible, told reporters travelling with him to the US on Thursday night that he felt strongly about this. “There are things that can’t be swept under the carpet,” he said. His aides elaborated, saying that Obama did not fully understand Israel’s security predicament. “There is a feeling that Washington does not understand the reality, Washington does not understand what we face,” an official said. Washington has become increasingly frustrated at the failure of the Israelis and Palestinians to enter into serious negotiations. The lack of progress prompted the resignation last week of the US special envoy George Mitchell , who had become so disenchanted that he had not visited the region since December. The New York Times reported White House aides saying that Obama had concluded a peace deal is not possible with Netanyahu in power. Obama could have a difficult time when he speaks on Sunday morning to about 6,000 people expected to attend the annual conference in Washington of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the powerful Jewish lobbying organisation. Officials, without naming the president, have urged participants to treat all speakers with respect. A White House national security spokesman, Ben Rhodes, said Obama would discuss the Israeli-Palestinian issue with David Cameron in London next week. He expected the two to discuss the point that the “foundation for successful negotiations should begin with territorial security to include the 1967 borders plus swaps as a basis on territory, and to include affirmation and assurances related to Israel’s security”. The White House had been debating whether to include the reference to 1967 in the speech, with some saying it was an inopportune moment given the upheaval in the Middle East, and suggesting waiting until later in the year. But those arguing to do it now prevailed. Netanyahu was only told shortly before Obama spoke. Secretary of state Hillary Clinton informed him. He attempted to have the reference removed, according to US officials, but the White House ignored him. The Quartet Group, made up of the UN, the European Union, Russia and the US, issued a statement backing Obama’s speech and calling on the Israelis and Palestinians “to overcome the current obstacles and resume direct negotiations and mutual agreement on all core issues”. In an interview with the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, to be broadcast on Sunday, Obama elaborates on the 1967 statement. “The basis for negotiations will involve looking at that 1967 border, recognising that conditions on the ground have changed and there are going to need to be swaps to accommodate the interests of both sides,” he said. “So, our argument is, let’s get started on a conversation about territory and about security. That doesn’t resolve all the issues. You still end up having the problem of Jerusalem and you still end up having the problem of refugees. “But if we make progress on what two states would look like, and a reality sets in among the parties that this is how it’s going to end up, then it becomes easy for both sides to make difficult concessions to resolve those two other issues.” Binyamin Netanyahu Obama administration United States US politics Israel Middle East Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk

Posted by on May 20, 2011. Filed under News, Politics, World News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.