Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
April 24, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Truthdig Bazaar more items

Ear to the Ground
Email this item Print this item

Obama Urges Abbas to Negotiate With Israel

Posted on May 11, 2010
Obama on the phone
Flickr / The White House

On Tuesday, the third day of new peace talks between Palestinian and Israeli leaders, President Barack Obama had a phone chat (so retro!) with Palestinian Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in which he voiced his support for the two-state solution and urged both parties to refrain from stirring up discord as the delicate negotiations took place.  —KA


The U.S. leader also urged both parties to “negotiate seriously and in good faith and to move from proximity talks to direct negotiations as soon as possible,” the White House said.

Obama expressed during the conversation his appreciation for Abbas’ recent outreach to the Israeli people by appearing on Israeli television, and urged Abbas do prevent any acts of incitement or de-legitimization of Israel from the Palestinian people.

Read more

Lockerdome Below Article
Get a book from one of our contributors in the Truthdig Bazaar.

Related Entries

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every day.

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By abu arab, August 20, 2010 at 1:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The reasons for Arab-Israeli conflict is the occupation of Palestine in 1948.
Palestine Arab Islamic state like the rest of the Arab and Islamic states surrounding
Them. Means that there are Jews and Zionists in Palestine a big mistake, because this entity
Zionist is not consistent with the surrounding area (such as language, customs, traditions and religion)
The only solution to end the Arab-Israeli conflict is the expulsion of Jews from Palestine
All of Palestine. The Jewish people will not rest and will not feel comfortable and stability
But if it gets out of Palestine and the Middle East completely. If people continue to
Jews in Palestine and the Middle East, the death and destruction will continue.
Palestine Arab Islamic state and will remain

Report this

By Trisha, May 12, 2010 at 8:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If Obama were to tell me it was raining, I’d look out the window. If Netandyahoo told me it was raining, I’d go up to the roof and make sure it wasn’t a member of the Knesset emptying a watering can. Of course Abbas should steer clear of these liars. In fact, I thought he’d resigned his position.

Report this

By Jimnp72, May 12, 2010 at 1:47 pm Link to this comment

I think maybe those who question Obam’a citizenship are right.

I think he might he from another planet.

He sure is a damn country mile smarter than most people here.

Report this

By omop, May 12, 2010 at 8:52 am Link to this comment

Dershowitz on all them fri^^en antisemites.,7340,L-3888025,00.html

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, May 12, 2010 at 8:45 am Link to this comment

By Howard, May 12 at 11:27 am #

“With the Israeli’s in charge ALL religions can come and visit and live in Jerusalem.  When the Jordanians had control no Jewish people could enter and desecrations against synagogues and cemetaries was constant.


Spring 2009,

The Mamilla Cemetery; A Buried History

“Karen Armstrong, however, in her book, Jerusalem – One City, Three Faiths, gives meticulous details of many of the very important historical events that the city went through in its long history. In chapter 14 of her book she described Saladin’s first day of business in Jerusalem after he recaptured the city from the Crusaders in 1187. She wrote:

“…Saladin also invited the Jews to come back to Jerusalem, from which they had been almost entirely excluded by the Crusaders. He was hailed through the Jewish world as a new Cyrus. …”

It is a very well known fact that hundreds of Saladin’s soldiers and many of his senior generals and administrators who died in the battle for Jerusalem and those who chose to take Jerusalem as their permanent home were buried in Mamilla. What is saddening these days is that while Israeli bulldozers dig out graves of Saladin’s men and those of other Jerusalemites buried there afterwards, Israeli leaders and Supreme Court judges together with their American Wiesenthal Center partners applaud the construction of their so called Center for Human Dignity – Museum of Tolerance Jerusalem. Shouldn’t those people owe Saladin some apology.

The cemetery was full of thousands of grave markers in 1948 when it came under the guardianship of the so called Israeli Department of Absentee Landholders. Of those grave markers a handful of broken ones were found in 1967 when the whole city of Jerusalem was occupied by Israel. Now almost none of them exists.

In most countries there are laws that protect historic cemeteries against vandalism and destruction. In Israel, however, these laws do not seem to apply to Moslem cemeteries. To the contrary, Moslem cemeteries all over the country have suffered the constant obliteration of tombs and the Mamilla cemetery is no exception with only 5% of the tombs left. Tomb markers and grave stones were constantly removed from their original locations and many were broken for the purpose of wiping out any Moslem trace in downtown Jerusalem. Now with only 8% of the cemetery area left, new Israeli plans are being designed to eliminate this Moslem historical site once and for all.”


Hey Howard…your zionist Israeli “hasbara” hasn’t changed…your lies & and deceptive ways are “constant”.

Click on link for the rest of the facts:

Report this

By call me roy, May 12, 2010 at 8:00 am Link to this comment

Obama using Connecticut Soc. Sec. Number say Investigators
3 experts insist White House answer new questions about documentation
Posted: May 11, 2010

Two private investigators working independently are asking why President Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state. In addition, the records indicate the number was issued between 1977 and 1979, yet Obama’s earliest employment reportedly was in 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins ice-cream shop in Oahu, Hawaii. The press has copies of affidavits filed separately in a presidential eligibility lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia by Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels and Colorado private investigator John N. Sampson. The investigators believe Obama needs to explain why he is using a Social Security number reserved for Connecticut applicants that was issued at a date later than he is known to have held employment. The Social Security website confirms the first three numbers in his ID are reserved for applicants with Connecticut addresses, 040-049. “Since 1973, Social Security numbers have been issued by our central office,” the Social Security website explains. “The first three (3) digits of a person’s social security number are determined by the ZIP code of the mailing address shown on the application for a social security number.”
The question is being raised amid speculation about the president’s history fueled by an extraordinary lack of public documentation. Along with his original birth certificate, Obama also has not released educational records, scholarly articles, passport documents, medical records, papers from his service in the Illinois state Senate, Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and adoption papers.

Report this

By call me roy, May 12, 2010 at 7:54 am Link to this comment

Two-thirds of American Jews disapprove of Obama’s dealings with Israel.
CNN Political Ticker reported, via Israel Matsav: Only a third of Americans approve of the way President Obama’s handling the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, according to a new national poll. A Quinnipiac University survey released Thursday morning indicates that 35 percent of the public gives the president a thumbs up on how he’s dealing with the situation between Israel and the Palestinians, with 44 percent saying they disapprove, and just over one in five unsure.This stands in contrast with how Americans feel about Obama’s overall handling of foreign policy, with 48 percent approving and 42 percent saying they disapprove. According to the poll, two-thirds of Jewish voters disapprove of how the president’s handling Israeli-Palestinian relations, with 28 percent saying they approve. Jewish voters were big backers of Obama in the 2008 presidential election, with exit polls indicating that nearly eight of ten backed the Democratic candidate. Two-thirds of people questioned in the survey say that the president should be a strong supporter of Israel but, by a 42 percent to 34 percent margin, voters say Obama’s not a strong supporter of Israel.

Report this

By call me roy, May 12, 2010 at 7:51 am Link to this comment

Sympathy for Israel at 20 year high

Although Jewish organizations have been strongly critical of the administration’s stance in recent days and some of the lawmakers who have spoken out are Jewish too, support for Israel among Americans goes well beyond the Jewish community.

In a Gallup poll of American opinions released three weeks ago, 63 percent of respondents said their sympathies in the Middle East situation lay more with the Israelis than with the Palestinians. Gallup said it was the highest number to take that position in its polling since 1991, shortly after Saddam Hussein fired missiles at Israel during the Gulf War.

Fifteen percent of respondents in the new poll sided more with the Palestinians, a result that was down slightly from the figure recorded in the past three years but roughly average over the longer period. A further 23 percent favored either both sides, neither side, or had no opinion.

Among Republican respondents, sympathies for Israel rather the Palestinians stood at 85 percent, having climbed steadily climb since 2001, when 60 percent held that position.

Forty-eight percent of Democrats sympathized with Israel rather the Palestinians. The Democratic trend since 2001 has been somewhat less marked than the GOP one, fluctuating between a low of 41 percent (2005) and a high of 54 percent (2009).

The Gallup poll also asked Americans to rate 20 nations figuring prominently in the news. Israel received a 67 percent favorable opinion, coming in at number five (after Canada, Britain, Germany and Japan.)

The Palestinian Authority – not a nation, but included in the 20 listed – received a 20 percent favorability rating, fourth from the bottom (with only Afghanistan, North Korea and Iran scoring worse.)

Report this

By omop, May 12, 2010 at 7:42 am Link to this comment

All them Arabs/Palestenains never had it so good living among the chosen
people from Moldavia, Poland, Lituania, Estonia, Roumania, Russia, Georgia, the
Bronx, Florida, Beverly Hills,

WTF*ck now they want a state of their own and they have the chutzpah to take
the land from those chosen ones that came from all over the planet?

Nuking is de only answer.

Report this

By Howard, May 12, 2010 at 7:27 am Link to this comment

With the Israeli’s in charge ALL religions can come and visit and live in Jerusalem.  When the Jordanians had control no Jewish people could enter and desecrations against synagogues and cemetaries was constant.
  no one in Israel is opposed to 2 state solution. But Jerusalem will stay in its control for the benefit of all.

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, May 12, 2010 at 6:32 am Link to this comment

Jerusalem building ‘will continue’

“Construction on the 1,600 new homes announced in March is not expected to start for years [Reuters]

The mayor of Jerusalem has said that construction will continue in the occupied east of the city, despite a US statement that Israel had given assurances that building would halt at a key East Jerusalem settlement.

Indirect talks between Israel and the Palestinians resumed over the weekend after the US state department said Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, had agreed to stop development at the Ramat Shlomo project for two years.

But the office of the Jersualem mayor released a statement early on Monday morning saying that construction would continue “in all parts of the city.

“We expect the interior ministry and the housing ministry to approve the plans and assist in the effort to preserve the young population and the hold on Jerusalem, which suffers from lack of housing, to stop the emigration from the city,” Nir Barkat said.

“We trust the prime minister not to approve a freeze in Jerusalem, not in words and not in deeds.”

No new Israeli housing projects in East Jerusalem have been approved since March, raising speculation that Netanyahu had imposed a de facto moratorium; that would allow the talks to proceed, while simultaneously avoiding a showdown with his far-right coalition partners.

Ramat Shlomo development

The Israeli government gave preliminary approval in Marchfor 1,600 new homes in the Ramat Shlomo neighbourhood.

But Netanyahu’s announcement is unlikely to affect those homes: Construction in Jerusalem is a lengthy process, and the Ramat Shlomo project still has to receive several additional approvals before construction can begin, despite the preliminary approval.

“The final approval process will in all likelihood take more than a year and the beginning of actual construction would likely take several years,” Netanyahu’s office said in March.

Actual construction, in other words, was never expected to start until after Netanyahu’s two-year freeze ends.

Nonetheless, Netanyahu’s announcement still prompted outrage from Israeli conservatives.

Uzi Landau, the infrastructure minister and a member of the right-wing Yisrael Beiteinu party, called Netanyahu’s announcementa “serious error,” according to Israel’s Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.

Politicians from other nationalist parties, including Habayit Hayehudi and National Union, also released statements condemning Netanyahu’s decision.

Conservative parties have threatened to withdraw from Netanyahu’s governing coalition if he approves a settlement freeze in East Jerusalem.”


Click on link for the rest:

Report this

By Howard, May 11, 2010 at 8:27 pm Link to this comment

  Pal’s could have had a state(never have ever had one yet, as they are mainly of Egyptian heritage) over 60 years ago.  but they have refused many times since.  they don’t want a state if it means Israel would continue to exist.

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, May 11, 2010 at 6:47 pm Link to this comment

May 7 - 9, 2010

How the US and Israel Draw Ever Closer Together
Cementing Relationships


“Following Israel’s deliberate insult to the United States of America on March 9 some people thought there would be action taken by Washington to make it clear that in future it would be unwise to make a fool of the US Vice President.

No chance. You can humiliate the Vice President of the United States of America any time you want – if you’re the Israeli government.

To recap on what happened : in March Vice President Biden went to Israel, supposedly in an attempt to persuade the Israelis and Palestinians to at least begin to start to engage in talks. He didn’t have a hope of succeeding, but he did what vice presidents are designed for : he sought to convey the impression that the US Administration is serious about an international problem that it has no intention of fixing. And while he was in Tel Aviv the Israelis announced that they were going to build yet more settlements on Arab lands, in defiance of international law, human decency, and everything else associated with civilized behavior.

Nothing new about that – but it does raise the matter of a calculated insult to the United States, because Israel yet again defied a Security Council ruling that the construction of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land is illegal.

The official policy of the United States is to encourage adherence to UN Security Council resolutions. Washington, after all, refers to them repeatedly in regard to alleged violations by North Korea and Iran. So perish the thought that the President of the United States should deem some resolutions less relevant or operative than others.

In his speech to the UN about his war on Iraq George W Bush told lies, naturally, but he did let slip one gem of sense. He declared that “We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world’s most important multilateral body to be enforced.”

He did not mean what he said, of course. But many of us had hopes that his successor would pay attention to UN Security Council resolutions, even to the extent of insisting on their enforcement.

After all, in his address to the UN General Assembly last September Mr Obama declared that “The United Nations was born of the belief that the people of the world can live their lives, raise their families, and resolve their differences peacefully,” and that there must be “an unshakeable determination that the murder of innocent men, women and children will never be tolerated.” Above all, in the context of the Palestinian nation, he said that “we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”

Fine words. And they would be even finer if they were acted on.

But they were just words.

Mr Obama’s pronouncement that “the United States of America will never waver in our efforts to stand up for the right of people everywhere to determine their own destiny” was only speechifying baloney. Washington doesn’t stand up for Palestinians; and their rights are debased and doomed by the barbaric, racist state of Israel. Washington tolerated “the murder of innocent men, women and children” by Israel in Gaza in 2008-2009, and is content to let Israel continue its illegal blockade of the region.


Click on link for the rest:

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, May 11, 2010 at 6:29 pm Link to this comment

Israel’s Fated Bleak Future

By John J. Mearsheimer

“May 9, 2010 “Chicago Tribune”—President Barack Obama has finally coaxed Israel and the Palestinians back to the negotiating table. He and most Americans hope that the talks will lead to the creation of a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank. Regrettably, that is not going to happen. Instead, those territories are almost certain to be incorporated into a “Greater Israel,” which will then be an apartheid state bearing a marked resemblance to white-ruled South Africa.

There are four possible futures regarding Israel and the occupied territories. The outcome that gets the most attention is the two-state solution, where a Palestinian state would control 95 percent or more of the West Bank and all of Gaza, and territorial swaps would compensate the Palestinians for those small pieces of the West Bank that Israel would keep. East Jerusalem would be its capital.

The alternatives to a two-state solution all involve creating a Greater Israel — an Israel that effectively controls Gaza and the West Bank. In the first scenario, it would become a democratic binational state in which Palestinians and Jews enjoy equal political rights. This solution would mean abandoning the original Zionist vision of a Jewish state, since Palestinians would eventually outnumber Jews.

Israel could also expel most of the Palestinians from Greater Israel, preserving its Jewish character through ethnic cleansing. Something similar happened in 1948, when the Zionists drove 700,000 Palestinians out of the territory that became Israel. The final alternative is some form of apartheid, whereby Israel increases its control over the occupied territories, but allows the Palestinians to exercise limited autonomy in a set of disconnected and economically crippled enclaves.

The two-state solution is the best of these alternatives, but most Israelis are opposed to making the sacrifices that would be necessary to create a viable Palestinian state. There are about 480,000 settlers in the occupied territories and an extensive infrastructure of connector and bypass roads, not to mention the settlements themselves. A Hebrew University Truman Institute poll in March of West Bank settlers found that 21 percent believe that “all means must be employed to resist the evacuation of most West Bank settlements, including the use of arms.” They needn’t worry, however, because Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is committed to expanding the settlements throughout the occupied territories.

Of course, there are prominent Israelis like former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert who do favor a two-state solution. But that does not mean that they would be willing or able to make the concessions necessary to create a legitimate Palestinian state. Olmert did not do so when he was prime minister, and it is unlikely that he or Livni could get enough of their fellow citizens to back a genuine two-state solution. The political center of gravity in Israel has shifted sharply to the right over the past decade, and there is no sizable pro-peace political party or movement they could turn to for help.

Some advocates of a two-state solution believe the Obama administration can compel Israel to accept a two-state outcome. The United States, after all, is the most powerful country in the world and should have great leverage over Israel, because it gives the Jewish state so much diplomatic and material support.

But no American president can pressure Israel to change its policies toward the Palestinians. The main reason is the Israel lobby, a powerful coalition of American Jews and Christian evangelicals that has a profound influence on U.S. Middle East policy.”


Click on link for the rest:

Report this
skulz fontaine's avatar

By skulz fontaine, May 11, 2010 at 3:42 pm Link to this comment

One thing you can say about the Obama, he is disingenuous. “...negotiate
seriously and in good faith…”? With Israel? Yeah, the Obama reportedly was
referring to “both parties.” Yeah, whatever. So the Obama would “urge” Abbas
to “prevent any acts of incitement or de-legitimization of Israel” from the
Palestinian people? Are you freaking serious? The Obama’s utter galling
hypocrisy is staggering if not comprehensively stupid.
The Palestinian people should NOT now nor ever “negotiate” with Bibi. Why in
hell would they? So the Palestinian people can lose more of Palestine? Lose
Jerusalem completely? By the by, Jerusalem is NOT property of Israel. The
Obama would chide Palestinians and slap the Israelis on the back and offer up
an ‘atta boy’! Frustrating if not out-and-out outrageous. Palestinians should
declare their national sovereignty and by done with it. Declare Palestine as ‘the’
Palestinian State and claim ALL of Palestine as the “legitimate” right of
Palestinians. Israel can crawl back inside those pre-1967 borders and join the
civilized world. What in hell is Israel going to do, wage another war on
Palestine? Gaza?
Enough apartheid is enough. Well and that Obama hypocrisy which is shameful.

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook