iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Benjamin Netanyahu Has Private Sit Down With Bipartisan Group Of Israel Advocates, Lawmakers

Bibi

First Posted: 05/23/11 05:29 PM ET Updated: 07/23/11 06:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- In a relatively rare sign of bipartisan collaboration on the Israel-Palestine conflict, a group of Democratic and Republican advocates and several lawmakers sat down with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday for a midday briefing.

The meeting -- which was planned nearly a week ago but remained unknown to the press -- featured officials with both the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) and the National Democratic Jewish Council (NJDC), two groups often at polar ends of the debate over U.S. policy in the the Middle East. Additionally, an aide familiar with the meeting told The Huffington Post that Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel -- two of the highest-ranking Jewish members of Congress -- were present. Wasserman Schultz's office confirmed her attendance.

"It's safe to say that the conversation taking place in the room is about the bi-partisan support for Israel," said the aide.

"While we don't see eye to eye with the leadership of the Republican Jewish Coalition on many domestic policies, when it comes to the need for a powerfully strong U.S.-Israel relationship, on this we agree," read a statement from Marc R. Stanley, chairman of the NJDC and David A. Harris, president and CEO of the NJDC. "We welcome this opportunity to place partisanship aside and discuss ways we can work together to help our close ally Israel -- just as we strive every day to keep Israel from being used as a partisan wedge issue in the political arena. As we've said repeatedly, the stakes are too high for such antics."

Coming amid a partisan flare-up over President Barack Obama's call for a two-state solution to be structured along the 1967 borders with negotiated land swaps, the meeting was pitched as a chance to emphasize consensus over disagreements. The RJC had issued a statement of concern about Obama's position on a peace settlement. The NJDC had defended it, going so far as to point out that a return to pre-Six-Day War borders with various alterations was the position of President George W. Bush.

Netanyahu had traveled to Washington, D.C., to appear Monday night before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobby at whose annual policy conference Obama delivered a keynote address this Sunday. The Israeli prime minister will also be speaking before a joint session of Congress on Tuesday.

Prior to the AIPAC conference, Netanyahu's office released a statement saying that he expected "to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress. Among other things, those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines."

The tone of that statement provided additional fodder to the notion -- based on fairly extensive reporting -- that the relationship between Obama and Netanyahu was frosty at best.

Despite it all, both leaders put on a good face during the AIPAC summit. During his speech, Obama repeated his position that a final settlement to the Israel-Palestine conflict had to be established by "mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."

"By definition, it means that the parties themselves -- Israelis and Palestinians -- will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967," Obama said. "It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years. It allows the parties themselves to take account of those changes, including the new demographic realities on the ground, and the needs of both sides."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

WASHINGTON -- In a relatively rare sign of bipartisan collaboration on the Israel-Palestine conflict, a group of Democratic and Republican advocates and several lawmakers sat down with Israeli Prime M...
WASHINGTON -- In a relatively rare sign of bipartisan collaboration on the Israel-Palestine conflict, a group of Democratic and Republican advocates and several lawmakers sat down with Israeli Prime M...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,113
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (17 total)
Rexter
Question everything.
01:00 PM on 05/24/2011
Benjamin Netanyahu Has Private Sit Down With Bipartisan Group Of Israel Advocates, Lawmakers to figure out new ways to bilk the U.S. taxpayers out of billions without conceding anything.

That's new?
12:43 PM on 05/24/2011
Our entire middle east policy has been about protecting Israel and oil. I have no problem with playing hard ball with the Israelis. Obama stated the 67 lines are a starting point. Negotiate from there with both making concessions that make sense. Part of the answer may be UN troops occupying some areas and some areas ceded to the Israelis. Who would be the winners if we had peace..everyone. Perhaps we could save money, reduce Islamic extremism, and encourage a more democratic arab world.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SoquiliAsgaya
12:33 PM on 05/24/2011
The eyes reveils truths and lies and goes to the mouths. From experinces I have had from being DOA clinically dead to read through these sacrificial propagandistic self ordained, self ricthous burning on the alters and at the stakes to prove themselves. Send my your money so I can save you and allow you to go to the gates from haties lol.
12:27 PM on 05/24/2011
I just do not understand all the "flap" over the President's comments. He reiterates the position of previous Presidents, talks about the our commitment to Israel, it's need to be recognized and exist as a nation and confirms that peace rests on Israel working out a treaty directly with the Palastinians alone.
12:12 PM on 05/24/2011
I, for one, notice that Netanyahu has a more favorable view of the USA than does Obama.
12:02 PM on 05/24/2011
There is no way that an official from another country can tell the President of the United States What to do. Netanyahu is a joke. I think we should stop sending Israel aid and use this money for our citizens.
12:16 PM on 05/24/2011
Are you talking about the President that feel to bended knee to the leader of Saudi Arabia?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SoquiliAsgaya
12:40 PM on 05/24/2011
The US is infestced with fear moungrals and gipseys, tramps and theives from decades ago. The FAMED SHOW, "WIZARD of OZ is 1 of my DAUGHTERS AND MINE favorite shows. One must learn history from the past to understand where you are going.
11:51 AM on 05/24/2011
Will this administration stop with the Bush blame...this guy has been President for almost 3 years now... BE THE PRESIDENT, be your own man. Stand on your own record for a change.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SoquiliAsgaya
12:46 PM on 05/24/2011
Suck it up gopiggylett, BARACK OBAMA FOR ANOTHER 1YR. AND ANOTHER 1 YEAR AND ANOTHER 1 YEAR AND ANOTHER 1 YEAR. Dont blame me, I DID NOT VOTE FOR BUSH. And then you stooges come along with john mcsame/palin who has been an oral digester of gallons of gizims,
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
albalatrv
11:24 AM on 05/24/2011
If the spineless British had not closed the door to Jewish refugees trying to escape their eventual fate at the request of the Arab leaders during the horror of WW2 maybe those survivors would be a little more sympathtic. History tells them who they can count on, and it's only their coreligionists in the U.S.. American Jews are not affraid and feel no shame in supporting Israel were peace attempts are made on a daily basis and great achievements flow from their universities and industries. They feel only great pride.
11:13 AM on 05/24/2011
Can't believe PM Netanyahu isn't prepared to give up his country to please our President or Hamas. The destruction of Israel has become an unofficial goal of Muslims throughout the world and especially among Palestinians who heartily supported the 67 war. Peace is the last thing Hamas leaders want since it would take away their million dollar payoffs and eventually lead to them losing their positions of power.
11:57 AM on 05/24/2011
Not too bright .... are you ?
10:54 AM on 05/24/2011
Politicians feel it is political suicide to be truthful about Israel. They claim blind support, knowing our "media" is grossly biased in favor of Israel. The VAST majority of AMERICAN CITIZENS is against this welfare state our gov't has created. The "spin" is over. Print the truth. There will be an agreement in a month.
10:25 AM on 05/24/2011
let me ask you something. how come the palestian people do not come to washington and negociate. all they must do is drop terrorgroup running ocupied palestine. accept democracy and voala. washington will be showering billions of money on them forever just like they do israel. thank you
10:17 AM on 05/24/2011
In my opinion AOL's message board has lost all credibility. Israel has to be praised, otherwise your comment won't be posted. This is not a trusted news source any longer.
photo
rossjrmtholly
sermon on the mount liberal
10:48 AM on 05/24/2011
Amen!
10:51 AM on 05/24/2011
No they just filter out the Jew hate. Is that too hard for you to understand or do you need an interpreter?
Rexter
Question everything.
10:02 AM on 05/24/2011
Amrican jews represent about 2% of the U.S. population. There are 44 jews in the house and senate, which represents about 8% of that body. This small minority basically sets U.S. policy with Israel as they are flush with cash, and it's helpful that most of the media outlets are owned by members of that sect.

When it comes to mideast peace (oxymoron) talks and aid to Israel I often wonder how the other 98% of the voters would vote on the matter, if given the opportunity. They will never have that opportunity, they will continue to send billons of their tax dollars to this foriegn state, fight their wars for them, and sacrifice their children on the altar of the Israeli/Jewish agenda.

Some democracy we have going on here.
10:47 AM on 05/24/2011
I'd much rather see money going to Israel than to all these Arab countries which is the real joke here. Sending money to people that hate us and want to kill us. Makes total sense.
10:54 AM on 05/24/2011
The US has never sent in troops to fight alongside Israel. Now those other 98% of our population vote or had you not noticed? If they did not like the way their congressional representatives voted they would remove them. This is what democracy is all about, get it?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lowrodiay65
11:27 AM on 05/24/2011
The U.S. destroyed Iraq to remove as an enemy of Israel.
10:00 AM on 05/24/2011
This really is the most embarrasing failed policy after WWII when the USA & Britain voted for partician...then the US tax payers paid to kick out the Palistineans out of their homes to allow illegal settlemennts according to Internaltional law when the Arabs did nothing to the Jews, that would be the Euopeans so why didn't we give the best part of Germany to the Jews or New York? This is a complete fantasy that we can muscle in on 300 million Arabs just to give 2 million Jews a place to live and look at the cost and lost lives for 2 million people...please wake me up when this nightmare is over please! As far as I am consirnded the Arabs won when we decided to lie about the invasion of Iraq just to give Paul Woolfawitz a look out tower in Bahgdad.
We should cut off Israel from aid and give the 2 million Palistineans $1M a piece to relocate to Detroit and extend that Arab community from Dearborn. Doing nothing only makes the defense industry rich which in my opinion is the problem...there is no money in peace!
11:45 AM on 05/24/2011
TOTALLY AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAID. The Germans killed six million Jews. The Arabs did nothing to the Europeon Jews. Why were the Arab homes taken and given to Europeon Jews. In my opinion, Germany should have been designated as the Jewish homeland. Instead, Germany got away with the murder of six million Jews.
10:00 AM on 05/24/2011
We need a foreign policy based on American, not Israeli, national interest. AIPAC ought to be considered an agency of a foreign government.
10:09 AM on 05/24/2011
Ever occur to you that our foreign policy of cooperating with Israel is in our national interest or was that too hard to figure out? Israel as a democracy besides being an example to every repressive Arab regime is also a counterweight to Iran, Syria, Hizbollah and Hamas. If anything comes down, and it probably will, the US knows it can depend on Israel for help. Not only is the Israeli army powerful but they have a base that can be used by our troops, and I am not even talking about the vast amounts of intelligent that is shared by the two countries. So as for your post, try to do some real thinking without letting your bigotry get in the way.
11:27 AM on 05/24/2011
Our support for Israel is the reason that the Arabs are not our friends. When Truman had to decide the US vote in the UN regarding an Israeli state, the Secretary of State (George Marshall, our WWII military Chief of Staff, our Secretary of Defense, Robert Lovett, and virtually all of the US diplomatic and military establishment advised him against siding with the Zionists. They told him that the Arabs -- until then our friends -- would become our enemies. They were correc t. Truman made a big blunder which has cost America much blood and treasure. (BTW, you can find a more detailed, yet still compact, accounting of the 1948 decision in the entirety of Chapter 26 of Michael Oren's book, "Power, Faith and Fantasy: America in the Middle East 1776 to the Present." Oren is currently the Israeli ambasssador to the US, so it would be hard to call him biased towards the Arabs.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lowrodiay65
11:29 AM on 05/24/2011
Renaissance, not in our national interest to have the whole of the middle east hating us because of our policy in the area.