1. first, the issue here is the safety and survival of one of Americas most reliable allies in the world. Those are not issues to be trifled with.

2. second, the elites in Washington cannot dictate a timetable for a stable settlement in the Middle East. It must come from the parties. Currently, the people in Israel and Palestine do not want an agreement.

3. third, Israel is willing to enter into negotiations to seek a stable agreement. But Abbas has thrown down the gauntlet.

4. fourth, if you want an agreement, you do not give the other side an ultimatim prior to negotiation which leaves them no face saving way out–as Abbas has done.

5. fifth, if you want an agreement, you do not tell the world that your goal is to use friends of your opponent pressure him into submission or force him out of office–as Abbas has done.

6. sixth, if you want an agreement, and you want a concession from your opponent you offer one of your own: recognition of Israel contingent upon the conclusion of a satisfactory agreement.

7. seventh, in that case you go with the flow, and have the greatest leverage with the world behind you to get the two state solution you want, and Israel gets recognition and security it deserves.

8. eighth, under this approach, nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to–and everyone knows what the deal is.

9. ninth, it fully appears from Abbas’s actions that he does not want to negotiate. For him it is my way or the highway.

Fri May 29, 2009
By Ulf Laessing – Analysis

RIYADH (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama is likely to hear Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah air his worries about the festering Arab-Israeli conflict and rising Iranian influence when he visits Riyadh next week. Obama, who meets King Abdullah on June 3, added a surprise Saudi leg to his trip to Europe and Egypt, where he plans to deliver a much-anticipated speech to the Muslim world. The decision reflects the enduring importance of a bilateral bond based on guaranteed oil supplies in return for U.S. protection for the Saudi monarchy that was sealed in the 1940s.

Washington is keen to prevent any spike in oil prices that might threaten economic recovery — U.S. crude hit a year-high on Tuesday. For their part, Saudi officials fret that Obama’s diplomatic overtures to Iran might rejig regional relationships at Riyadh’s expense.

They also want him to get tough with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has balked at Palestinian statehood. “Saudi Arabia wants reassurances that Obama is rejecting Netanyahu’s statements,” said Mustafa Alani, at Dubai’s Gulf Research Center, who is close to Saudi policymakers. The Saudis can take heart from Obama’s stern line against any expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.

But Alani said they would make no concessions beyond a 2002 Arab peace plan promoted by King Abdullah offering Israel recognition in return for withdrawal from Arab land occupied in 1967 and a just solution to the issue of Palestinian refugees.
Saudi rulers believe the collapse of Middle East peacemaking has given Iran opportunities to expand its regional reach via Sunni Islamist groups such as the Palestinian Hamas, as well as its traditional Shi’ite Hezbollah allies in Lebanon. The kingdom, which sees itself as the bastion of majority Sunni Islam, fears an eventual U.S. deal with Iran would make the Shi’ite power part of a new political and security order. But with no clear strategy on how to tackle Iran, the Saudis can only rely on the United States to halt Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, analysts and Riyadh-based diplomats say.

“The Saudis are in a very, very tough spot,” said Rochdi Younsi at political risk consultant Eurasia Group. “They don’t know what they want. On one hand they want the U.S. to pursue a policy of strict containment of Iran. At the same time, they don’t want the situation to escalate to an armed conflict.”

AFGHAN ROLE

The United States itself might appreciate a Saudi role in countering Taliban insurgencies in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Saudis hosted talks in September between pro-government Afghan representatives and ex-Taliban officials on how to end a conflict which also involves the Taliban’s al Qaeda allies. “The Saudis have developed some influence that might come in handy for the Obama administration that is trying to refocus its efforts in Afghanistan,” said Younsi.

Diplomats in Riyadh said the kingdom would have to weigh the benefits of such a role against possible damage to its campaign to improve its image in the West after the September 11 attacks of 2001, in which 15 of the 19 al Qaeda hijackers were Saudis.
“They might do it, but would be also a bit worried at being perceived as having close Taliban links, while trying to present themselves in a new light,” said a Western diplomat. Saudi Arabia is often criticized abroad for its human rights record, but Younsi said Obama was unlikely to raise unwelcome questions about political reforms, despite the government’s decision this month to delay municipal elections for two years.

The United States needs Saudi Arabia, which has over a fifth of global oil reserves, to play its customary moderating role in the OPEC cartel against price hawks such as Iran and Venezuela. “The Saudis are the only ones who have spare capacity,” said Alani, the Dubai-based analyst. They will be able to pump even more crude to brake prices when the 1.2 million barrel per day Khurais field opens in June.

Saudi Arabia is among America’s top 15 trading partners, with two-way trade worth $67.3 billion last year. The kingdom, whose currency is pegged to the dollar, has expanded trade with Asia in recent years, but still needs high-tech U.S. goods. “The United States will remain the biggest individual country trade partner for Saudi Arabia, although its role is likely weaken a bit due to increased trade volumes with Asia,” said Monica Malik, a regional economist at EFG-Hermes.

reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE54S1DB20090529

———————————

So oil is more important than the survival of Israel.

Thank you.

May. 29, 2009
THE JERUSALEM POST

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas will not resume negotiations with Israel unless the Netanyahu government agrees to a complete settlement freeze and publicly accepts a two-state solution, Abbas has told The Washington Post in an interview. And since he does not believe Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will lift his opposition on these issues, Abbas and his leadership expect American pressure to gradually force Netanyahu out of office, the paper reported on Friday. “It will take a couple of years,” it quoted one of Abbas’s officials as saying. Abbas was interviewed the day before his Thursday meeting at the White House with US President Barack Obama.

Setting out what the newspaper called “a hardline position,” the Palestinian leader conditioned a resumption of talks with Israel on Netanyahu’s agreement to a halt in all settlement building – a demand being repeatedly stressed by Obama, US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and other senior US officials – and formal Israeli government acceptance of Palestinian statehood. Abbas added that he would not even assist Obama’s special envoy, George Mitchell, in trying to encourage Arab states to begin warming relations with Israel until Israel accepted these conditions. “We can’t talk to the Arabs until Israel agrees to freeze settlements and recognizes the two-state solution,” Abbas was quoted saying. “Until then we can’t talk to anyone.”

However, The Washington Post went on, “Abbas and his team fully expect that Netanyahu will never agree to the full settlement freeze – if he did, his center-right coalition would almost certainly collapse. So they plan to sit back and watch while US pressure slowly squeezes the Israeli prime minister from office. ‘It will take a couple of years,’ one official breezily predicted.” Abbas, the article continued, “rejects the notion that he should make any comparable concession – such as recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, which would imply renunciation of any large-scale resettlement of refugees.”

Abbas intends to remain passive, he told the paper. “I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements… Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life.” Abbas also told The Washington Post that former prime minister Ehud Olmert accepted the principle of a “right of return” to Israel for Palestinian refugees and offered to resettle thousands of Palestinians in Israel. And he said Olmert proposed a Palestinian state on 97 percent of the West Bank, and showed him its contours on a map. Abbas said he turned down Olmert’s peace offer because “the gaps were too wide.”

“What’s interesting about Abbas’s hardline position,” wrote The Washington Post’s Jackson Diehl, who conducted the interview along with a colleague, “is what it says about the message that Obama’s first Middle East steps have sent to Palestinians and Arab governments.” While the Bush administration placed the onus for change in the Middle East on the Palestinians, Diehl wrote, the Obama administration had shifted the focus to Israel. The upshot, wrote Diehl, is that “in the Obama administration, so far, it’s easy being Palestinian.”

The Palestinians, under Bush, knew that “until they put an end to terrorism, established a democratic government and accepted the basic parameters for a settlement, the United States was not going to expect major concessions from Israel,” wrote Diehl. But Obama, with his repeated demands for a settlement freeze, “has revived a long-dormant Palestinian fantasy: that the United States will simply force Israel to make critical concessions, whether or not its democratic government agrees, while Arabs passively watch and applaud.”

As Abbas told his interviewers, “The Americans are the leaders of the world… They can use their weight with anyone around the world. Two years ago they used their weight on us. Now they should tell the Israelis, ‘You have to comply with the conditions.’”

Diehl wrote that Netanyahu and the Likud party had not reconciled themselves “to the idea that Israel will have to give up most of the West Bank and evacuate tens of thousands of settlers” for a permanent accord. “But Palestinians remain a long way from swallowing reality as well. Setting aside Hamas and its insistence that Israel must be liquidated, Abbas – usually described as the most moderate of Palestinian leaders – last year helped doom Netanyahu’s predecessor, Ehud Olmert, by rejecting a generous outline for Palestinian statehood.” Olmert’s offer “was more generous to the Palestinians than either that of Bush or Bill Clinton,” wrote Diehl. “It’s almost impossible to imagine Obama, or any Israeli government, going further.”

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1243346501041&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

———————————————-
“While the Bush administration placed the onus for change in the Middle East on the Palestinians, Diehl wrote, the Obama administration had shifted the focus to Israel”

So under this bastard (excuse the language) the terrorist issue as well as the recognition of Israel means absolutely nothing! Israel must prostrate itself and give everything up while the Palestinians and other Arab countries are laughing themselves all the way to the bank!

This turnabout in Israeli-U.S. relations makes me sick to my stomach!

Two strong and great people.

If you would remember the old saying, if you are caught with someone who does a crime you are just as guilty.

I wish Bill and Hillary would get as far away from Bambi as they can. The man is evil.

I guarantee you if Bambi goes down. It will be Bill and Hillary you will hear about. Not Bambi