Bama and Bibi
It sounds good, really it does. That is what one would expect from an intelligent, reasonable man or woman.
I think he's forgotten one minor thing, though: reasoning has a smidgen of a chance of working only if both sides use reasoning towards conflict resolution.
The so-called Palestinians don't.
So at the first meeting between President Obama and Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu in Washington D.C., there was a slight difference of opinion: Bama thinks Israel should stop the Judaisizing of the "occupied territories" (read: Yehudah & Shomron=Judea and Samaria) by stopping and dismantling settlements, Israel should promote a two-state solution towards the (G-d forbid) creation of a Palestinian State in the "West Bank" (read: Yehudah & Shomron=Judea and Samaria), and Bama thinks that we should use diplomacy (read that word s-l-o-w-l-y, with a slightly sarcastic draaawwwl, like Michael Savage would) and n-e-g-o-t-i-a-t-i-o-n-s (ditto) with Iran to sweet-talk them into cancelling their nuclear weapons building program which they (nah, ya think?) might attempt to use to fulfill
Bama also thinks that the so-called Palestinian issue is tied in with the Iran issue. How in heck does an educated, intelligent leader of a world power such as the United States, get so confused? I'm being polite. He has no comprehension of historical events and of causal relationships, and of the character of nations and their cultures: some are peace-loving, others are war-mongering. Just listen to the music, as the song goes--listen to their music--and you see the difference immediately. If you want to, that is.
That's what Bama thinks; Bibi has disagreed: He told Senator Kerry that Iran and the so-called Palestinian issue are not related. Meanwhile, Hamas and Fatah are at each other's throats, neither one willing to relinquish power or form a coalition (same old same old), and most of the security in the West Bank (read: Yehudah and Shomron=Judea and Samaria) is maintained because the IDF is there, not because Fatah is combating terrorism in the area, because it isn't.
Oh, and Hamas is still not willing to recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel and its right to exist, let alone "renounce violence" (-excuse me for a minute. I am still choking from that last one).
From the quote in Micheal Goodwin's great article in the Daily News, it's clear how President Obama feels. Or is it:
there is a recognition that the Palestinians are going to have to do a better job providing the kinds of security assurances that Israelis would need to achieve a two-state solution; that, you know, the leadership of the Palestinians will have to gain additional legitimacy and credibility with their own people, and delivering services."Uh, that sounds a bit like double-speak to me. What are "security assurances?"(=renounce violence, recognize the State of Israel). What is "additional legitimacy and credibility, etc.?" (=become a real government of their own people, and plan a social system and superstructure to improve their people's future, instead of behaving like little 4-year old boys in play group).
Meanwhile, Bibi (-we know, we know; I think...) is opposed to a two-state solution. And will continue to encourage Jewish settlements (remember Tel-Aviv? That was a Jewish settlement too) in Judea and Samaria, historically a Jewish area, never having ever been a sovereign Arab state, and he will not capitulate.
Bibi disagrees with Bama. We-and Tzipi Hotobeli-hope so.