Middle East News
Netanyahu, Mitchell optimistic on chances for peace meeting (1st Lead)
Jul 28, 2009, 9:50 GMT
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (R) meets US Mideast peace envoy George Mitchell in Jerusalem, 28 July 2009. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. Mideast peace envoy George Mitchell are trying to resolve a public dispute over Jewish settlements in the West Bank. EPA/DAN BALILTY / POOL
Jerusalem - US special Middle East envoy George Mitchell met Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Tuesday morning, and both men emerged from the meeting expressing optimism that peace talks with the Palestinians would be renewed.
'We are progressing,' Netanyahu told reporters after the meeting. 'I think it was a very important and productive meeting and we will continue with the effort - which I believe will succeed in the end - to advance peace and security between us and our neighbours the Palestinians and in the region as a whole.'
Mitchell said that the sides had made 'good progress' and added that 'we look forward to continuing our discussions to reach the point that the prime minister described at which we can all move forward to achieve the comprehensive peace.'
The meeting between the two men comes amid sharp tensions over West Bank settlements, with the US demanding a total halt to all Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank, and Israel insisting that it be allowed to continue building inside existing settlements to accommodate population expansion - the so-called natural growth.
The envoy told Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah late Monday that gaps still existed and the US administration had as yet reached no compromise with Israel on its demand for a complete freeze.
Netanyahu, of the hardline Likud party, had been scheduled to meet Mitchell in Paris earlier this summer, but the parley had been postponed amid a lack of progress in attempts to reach an understanding on the settlement issue.
The Israeli premier instead sent his defence minister, Ehud Barak of the left-of-centre Labour Party, his most dovish coalition partner, to Washington in a bid to boost progress.
Mitchell told Israeli President Shimon Peres Monday regarding the settlement spat that 'these are not disputes among adversaries. They are discussions among friends who are trying to move forward to reach a common goal.'
He called on Arab states to take 'meaningful steps' toward normalizing relations with Israel,' on the Palestinians to continue security reforms and on Israel to ease restrictions on Palestinian movement and 'deal with' settlements and outposts.
He also reiterated the US commitment to Israel's security, calling it 'firm,' and 'unshakable.'
Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, after Mitchell's talks in Ramallah late Monday, slammed Israeli plans to relocate settlers from to-be-uprooted unauthorized settlers' outposts to formal settlements elsewhere in the West Bank.
'What is achieved from transferring a few settlers from one illegal settlement to another?' he told reporters.
COMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in Middle East
- 1. Jerusalem prelate tells Arab Spring youth to have confidence
- 2. More than 100 killed in Syria ahead of ceasefire deadline
- 3. At least 43 killed in Syria, despite UN criticism
- 4. 19 killed in Syria as ceasefire deadline approaches
- 5. Pilgrims flock to Jerusalem for Easter, Passover
Older Talkback
page: 1
''Iran’s likely response to an unprovoked attack, will be to close the Straits of Hormuz meaning the global price of oil will double or quadruple; stock markets around the world will crash; Iranian cells in the US and Europe will activate; Iran will fire long-range missiles at Israel who will then have no option but to escalate the conflict with a massive nuclear strike that will turn the entire Gulf region into a giant fireball.''
A wilder, funnier spasm of implausible speculation I've not read in a long time. Thanks for the laugh.
would more likely describe peace in the Middle East. Never was, isn't now, and won't be in the future.
...how your prose of mass assumption reads well, but misses the point that israel has no ICBM's whatsoever.
Curious though because one has to ask why GW Bush ever went into Iraq and what could motivate what is a risk-averse politician like him in the first place.
WMD's?
Who's!?
Israels?
Consider that, if Saddam HAD gassed Israel with WMD's, something he did to his own population, and israel responed, predictably, what the outcome would be.
moderate arab opinion disappearing?
world outrage?
Ponder that.
(_*_)
as long as Israel exists.
..because the Palestinians will never allow it.
Honestly, is anyone fooled by the content of this article? We have the same sad play i.e. the players walking around on stage, mouthing more of the 'progress' talk, while nothing actually transpires, Hamas waiting to sink anything that gets close, other players doing their yada yada yada until the news cycle goes away. The stage is reset, the players get a new script, and then next act appears.
page: 1
COLINDALEJul 28th, 2009 - 10:30:46
A decision by America to allow Israel to attack Iran could well prove to be the start of WWIII and the worst foreign policy error of the 21st century. Once ICBMs are fired from Israel, with or without nuclear warheads, then everyone living today could suffer the consequences.
Iran’s likely response to an unprovoked attack, will be to close the Straits of Hormuz meaning the global price of oil will double or quadruple; stock markets around the world will crash; Iranian cells in the US and Europe will activate; Iran will fire long-range missiles at Israel who will then have no option but to escalate the conflict with a massive nuclear strike that will turn the entire Gulf region into a giant fireball.
From Alaska to Mexico and from London to Oman and Karachi, the eventual consequences are unknown - but the world will have changed and we will all have to bear the cost of scarce oil, sky-high prices, falling investments and damaged economies.
To this scenario must be added the massive loss of life through the use of nuclear and chemical weapons of mass destruction with the resultant contaminating radiation and genetic damage.
All this because one single politician, from a country that hasn't initiated a war with anyone for hundreds of years, indulged in rhetorical hyperbole which has been used as an excuse by others to further a self-serving, nationalist agenda to retain hegemony in the region.
In the early 1960s, US Secretary of Defence, the late Robert McNamara made a similar foreign policy error of enormous magnitude which resulted in over 4 million deaths that included 58,000 Americans. It took him more than 20 years to admit to his catastrophic error. He died, racked with guilt and remorse.
However, in that terribly tragic and futile conflict, no nuclear WMD were deployed by either side. Today, would be very different.
We need to use our voice to prevent this so-called pre-emptive attack. We need to talk and negotiate – not to bomb, kill and terminate the lives of thousands of innocent men, woman and children.
Report this comment