Obama to Mideast leaders: Seize moment for peace

WASHINGTON Wed Sep 1, 2010 7:48pm EDT

1 of 4. President Barack Obama (2nd R) walks in with Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak (L), Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (R) before making a statement on Middle East Peace talks in the East Room of the White House in Washington September 1, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/Jason Reed

Related Video

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama urged Israeli and Palestinian leaders on Wednesday not to let the chance for peace slip away as he opened a Washington summit shadowed by Middle East violence.

But with a fresh West Bank shooting attack and a persistent deadlock over Jewish settlements, Obama acknowledged skepticism "in some quarters" about his prospects for succeeding where so many U.S. leaders have failed and said he was under no illusions about the challenges ahead.

Wading into peacemaking on the eve of the relaunch of face-to-face Israeli-Palestinian negotiations after a 20-month hiatus, Obama said leaders from both sides shared Washington's conviction that a deal on Palestinian statehood could be reached within a year.

"As I told each of them today, this moment of opportunity may not soon come again. They cannot afford to let it slip away," Obama said after one-on-one talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

But the talks already faced a major stumbling block with Israel resisting any formal extension of a partial freeze on construction in Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank. Abbas has threatened to pull out of the revived peace process if building resumes after the September 26 expiration of the moratorium.

Obama earlier condemned as "senseless slaughter" an attack on Tuesday by Islamist Palestinian group Hamas that killed four Jewish settlers in the occupied West Bank and vowed that "extremists and rejectionists" would not derail peace efforts.

"The message should go out to Hamas and everybody else who is taking credit for these heinous crimes that this is not going to stop us from not only ensuring a secure Israel but also securing a longer lasting peace," Obama told reporters.

But in an attack coinciding with Obama's inauguration of the summit, suspected Palestinian gunmen wounded two Israelis in the West Bank on Wednesday.


Obama was hosting Middle East leaders at a White House dinner before the formal start of direct Israeli-Palestinian talks at the State Department on Thursday.

The summit marks Obama's riskiest plunge into peacemaking, not least because he wants to forge a deal within 12 months, a timeframe considered a long shot by most analysts.

Striking a conciliatory tone, Netanyahu called Abbas "my partner in peace" and pledged to seek an end to the conflict "once and for all," according to excerpts of a speech he was due to deliver at the White House dinner.

But Netanyahu also underscored Israel's demands that any final peace deal include security arrangements to ensure a future Palestinian state, which he says must be demilitarized, would not become an "Iranian-sponsored terror enclave."

Deep distrust between the two sides is one of the biggest obstacles to Obama's quest for a two-state solution that has eluded so many of his predecessors.

There is also the danger that failure to achieve an accord could set back Obama's faltering attempts at winning over the Muslim world as he seeks solidarity against Iran.

Hamas militants declared war on the talks on Tuesday even before they began and warned of further attacks, underscoring the threat hard-liners pose to the fragile peace process.

The attack could make Netanyahu even less likely to accede to Palestinian demands to offer a further freeze in Jewish settlement-building on occupied land in the West Bank.

The looming expiration of Israel's 10-month partial moratorium on new housing construction in Jewish settlements could represent an early obstacle in the peace talks.

Abbas, politically weak because he governs only in the West Bank while Hamas controls Gaza, could suffer another blow to his prestige among his people if he sticks with the talks while Israel accelerates building on land captured in a 1967 war. Obama's aides have been scrambling for a compromise.

Netanyahu, who heads a government dominated by pro-settler parties like his own, has not given any definitive word on the issue. But his office said he told Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday night there was no change in his cabinet's decision to allow the freeze to lapse.

(Additional reporting by Ross Colvin, Steve Holland, Jeff Mason and Alister Bull in Washington and Allyn Fisher-Ilan in Jerusalem; Editing by Eric Beech)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (21)
Eric.Klein wrote:
My Dear Mr Mitchel there is no “window of opportunity” at this point, as the Palestinians have shown their house is not together enough to start talking peace.

When half the legislative body calls the other half “traitor” and out right opposes the talks how can there be a “window of opportunity?”

Sep 01, 2010 2:55am EDT  --  Report as abuse
wickii wrote:
I find my self in the position of despising booth sides, they neither want or desire to live together. this is the undying leagacy of Adolf Hitler..

Sep 01, 2010 5:22am EDT  --  Report as abuse
neilcadman wrote:
There are two principles in land ownership for nations. First the land belongs to those who will work it in obedience to the command “Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth, and subdue it and have dominion…” Gen.1:28 Second the land belongs to those whom God gives it, for God establishes the boundaries of the nations. How does he establish it? Both by settlement and war: if the land belongs to one people, God will defend that people’s boundaries. The practice should be, if one people attack another people and subsequently lose land, that land belongs to the nation that fought to defend their land. Get both parties to agree that if either one attacks the other the one attacked is free to counterattack until all threats are removed and they are free to keep all land gained in doing so. Let no one else interfere. For the fool is always meddling.
There is a biblical precedent, “And Israel sent messengers to Sihon king of the Amorites, the king of Heshbon; and Israel said to him, Let us pass, we pray thee, through thy land into my place. But Sihon trusted not Israel to pass through his coast: but Sihon gathered all his people together, and pitched in Jahaz, and fought against Israel. And the LORD God of Israel delivered Sihon and all his people into the hand of Israel, and they smote them: so Israel possessed all the land of the Amorites, the inhabitants of that country. And they possessed all the coasts of the Amorites, from Arnon even unto Jabbok, and from the wilderness even unto Jordan. J’g:11:19-22
There is another alternative. In the Middle East, Christian Palestinians and Christians Jews get along together and worship together for they are agreed. They prove that Jesus is the answer. But how can two walk together if they do not agree?

Sep 01, 2010 6:16am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.