I don't think he's serious at all. Also, I don't think president Obama have any idea about the physical description of the two states solution. The Israeli PM pretended to agree on a Palestinian state but without any definition. That makes his statement another trick to fool around and waste more time while the illegal settlements are spreading like cancer all over the Palestinian's land.
Why don't Obama or the UNSC declare it without reservation that a suviving Palestinian state will be recognised on the land occupied in 1967 by the Israeli offensive, 100% free of any Israeli Jew settler ?. Absolutely no State can survive as long as a single settler enjoys a dwelling over others land. That's illigitimate.
The friends of Israel in the US and Europe and the UNSC should make it clear that peace and justice are a twin , the UN charter must be respected. All Jew settlers must return to Israel of June 4th. 1967. Anything less than that is just more fooling around with more misery and suffering on the Palestinian people.

This statment is unequivocally false:"Netanyahu Answers 'Yes' on Palestine."

the writer is squarely dishonest and he know it.

People just don't get the basic reality. There are three choices for the region. Exclusively Palestine, exclusively Israel, or some kind of shared solution. The Jews have made the choice of rejecting exclusively Palestine. That choice will happen only if they are forced into the sea.
The choice for a shared solution has been up to the Palestinians. Over the past sixty years, they have continually rejected it. They have insisted that armed combat to regain their homeland is their only choice. As a consequence of losing that combat, in practice, their share of the land has become continually smaller. One, of the last two major events was the last major attempt at a peace deal. After it had been practially reached, Arafat could not bring himself to go through with it. The second was the outcome of the election when the Palestinians had the chance to chose their government. The chose Hamas, a group committed to war with Israel at all costs. Hamas has had no concern with the cost that a war with little chance of near term success would have to the general population. In fact, part of their strategy has been exploiting the effect that poulation's pain has on world opinion. The only real question at this time is whether the Palestinians can chose a very imperfect life over a holy death. Effective control over Gaza and much of the West Bank has been on offer for a while. The Palestinians just need to decide that they are going to focus their energies on making a life for the people who are living there. Their first major goal needs to be to end their own divisions. They also need to understand that their most promising path to a larger share of control over the land is forgetting about war and engaging in non violent protest that confronts the Israeli's with the injustice of their actions. Given the likely reality that the Palestinians are not up to making this choice, the land is likely to continue to drift towards an exclusive Israel solution. Unfortunately this solution is likely to prove unacceptable to the world and a disaster for everyone. But, only the Palestinians can make the choice for a different course.

ALL CONDITIONS PLACE ON A PALESTINE STATE MUST APPLY THE SAME TO THE ISRALE STATE. IT IS TIME TO BE JUST TO BOTH EQUAL.

Well, let's be clear -- he said "yes" on Palestine with conditions that preclude any possibility of agreement by the other side and with no cessation of further settlements. You CAN call that "yes," but that's a stretch. What he said was far better than another invasion or bombing run, but it won't lead to anything resembling a peace settlement.

I don't think it was a good faith attempt to reach peace, but rather just an attempt at saving political face. I doubt if there will be any peace agreement with him as the Israeli leader. I'm not even saying that he is wrong -- when Hammas still denies Israel's right to exist and poses constant terrorist and rocket threats to Israeli citizens, it's not clear that there is any way to deal with them rationally. I'm just saying that what he said is no big deal if you are talking about actually achieving peace instead of just achieving some political relief.

Reality 101 - Part 1, Judaism (for those eyes that have not seen)

Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a
mythical character as was mythical Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

Many of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and many of their rabbis to include the On Faith panelist, Rabbi David Wolpe, have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

Current crisis:

Realization that the Jews are not god's chosen people.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

Analogous flaws in the history and theology of the other major religions are presented in Parts 2 and 3 (Christianity), 4 ( Islam) , 5 (Hinduism) and 6 (Buddhism) of the six part Religion Reality series.

Remember that Israel has governed the Gaza and the West Bank for over 50 years now -- and it has been a diaster for everyone. The Palestinians are more radicalized now then ever. Israel cannot rule over the territories forever. Fifty years is enough.

Also remember that Israel cannot be both Jewish and democratic if it continues to govern the West Bank and Gaza since the population of Jews and Arabs in all areas under Israel rule (including Israel, West Bank and Gaza) are approximately even. A territory 50% Jewish and 50% Muslim will not succeed as a Jewish state.

I am including Gaza since Israel effectively governs Gaza by controlling its borders, airspace, imports and exports, etc.

Diana10: You can look over most of the globe, particularly the Americas and Europe and you will find land all over that used to belong to someone else. That argument has no power. To say that "God" gave the Jews the land has no legal force in any court, UN, EU, USA. The only argument that works is--who can take and hold the land. The Jews are doing it only because the US has pumped in billions in aid over the decades. If the US quite supporting Israel, the Jews would lose their reason for sovereignty. They would use their nuclear weapons to keep the land and all hell would break loose.

Looks like Obama's pressure is working. One more squeeze and Zionists will let it go even more. The only thing that is growing in Israel is military. Why even talk to Israel or accept anything from their goverment if only good they have is good for the war. I think its time we finaly tell them to get off our backs and deal with their problems on their own or do whatever we tell them to do. The main problem is; why is USA supporting Israel so much, when Israel is not even close to some democratic country. (OR MAYBE IT IS SOME PEOPLE FROM OUR GOVERNMENT ARE WORKING FOR ISRAEL, NOT FOR US)

A truly courageous stand would be to insist on Democracy that included all those who felt they had a right to part of a unified nation state called Israel. Just imagine it, Palestinians and Israelis fighting it out in within the best traditions of a Democracy-at the ballot box! Most people who have weighted in on this don't seem keenly interesting in any notions of a ballot box that includes the preferences of all the people who have a right to call Israel their home. A single State cast in the mold of every other modern State (with the exception of Israel) where someone's religion isn't the beginning and sadly the end of the discussion about their citzenship should be what we are all praying for.

Diana said;
“The Israelis have shown themselves to be the best guardians of the city. They don't deny access to people of other faiths, or desecrate any other faith's holy things”.

They (Israelis) do not deny access unless you are an Arab or a Jerusalemite Arab younger than 50.
The Jordanians had at one time (1948-67) prevented Jews from entering East Jerusalem. Therefore it is incumbent on the United Nations to have sovereignity over this metropolis and maybe let the Israelis run the municipality of West Jerusalem and the Palestinians run the municipality of East Jerusalem.

former_omnisavant:

By your reasoning, America should give everything back to the American Indians. In all the posts I've read that mention the American Indians, that one point has been conveniently forgotten.

To the Jews, the land was given to them by God. You believe that's a fantasy, but you have no more proof of that then the Jews have of their belief. Certainly since the Diaspora, Jews have continued to consider Israel their homeland, and themselves a people in exile.

The land was stolen from them, whatever happened after that, it was stolen land that changed hands. Now Israel has much of it back. I find that in itself to be amazing. Their continued existence even more so. Maybe they're right, and God has decided it's finally time?

Isralestine is coming and its coming soon. War will settle all these territorial questions now perplexing the middle east. God's promise to Abraham will be fulfilled no matter how the rest of the world rants and raves.

I think the plethora of comments and vitriol supports Rabbi HIrschfield's thesis- the people on this blog actually don't want to start NEGOTIATING, but would rather throw epithets. Negotiating means painful choices- about jurisdiction in Hebron, Jerusalem, refugees, etc.- that BOTH sides will have to perform. So it's easier to be a bunch of rejectionists and say that Bibi did nothing, rather than CALLING HIS BLUFF. Man, if I was a Palestinian negotiatior, I would say, OK, give me the state that Barak offerred Arafat at Camp David, TODAY. Then you will see the truth. But to decry yesterday's speech is simple fear-mongering

This article is not about the rights of either the Israelis or the Palestinians.
It is about the speech given by Netanyahu.
Netanyaho did NOT 'answer yes' to a Palestinian state by any reasonable definition of what a state is.
The article's headline is at best misleading, and most would say outright dishonest (as the comments suggest).

To Diane10:
I looked at several sources, including official Isreali sources. So, Jews are entitled to the land because God gave it to them? This assumes that there IS this deity called God by Jews and many Americans. The entire case is built on a fantasy, extended from the guilt of the Holocaust. As I said in my article, the Palestinians were never consulted throughout the entire process. The British just ceded the land to the Jews without ever being involved in a reconciliation process. The Jews may have been there 4,000 years ago, but for the last 400 years the land and the people were part of the Ottoman Empire. If WWI had not happened and the OE hadn't been broken up, the land would still be 100% Palestinian.

I am glad to hear Netanyahu say these words, but this article is a silly example of the same old that will not work.

He went on to say that it must be a disarmed state (no plans for Israel to disarm, apparently), and that 'natural growth of settlements' to accomodate growing families must be allowed. (Nothing said about the natural growth of the Palestinian families they will displace. I guess their families don't count.)

One commentator said Netanyahu had said enough to keep Obama from getting angry, and that that was his goal. Sounds about right.

I don't think these people are serious enough yet, on both sides. Neither have the stones to stand up to their own hardliners. Everybody else gets to pay for them.

Israel- Its formation was approved by the UN in 1948. It should honor the original UN agreement and live within the described borders. Considering the hate generated by passages in the koran and OT, erecting more dividing walls between Muslims and Jews is highly recommended. UN forces should control these walls.

And Jerusalem should be made into an international city under the control and protection of the UN.

And I agree, Netanyahu's conditions are so severe, no one to include the US and the UN will accept them.

With respect to the "historical" ownership of Israel, Rabbi Wolpe and most of his Conservative Jews would give the land back to the Hittites and the Philistines if they are any still around. DNA analyses might be even able to track the original owners who were in the first migration wave from mid-Africa some ~60,000 years ago.

To wit:

"ARTS & IDEAS/CULTURAL DESK | March 9, 2002
New Torah For Modern Minds
By MICHAEL MASSING (NYT)
origin: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

New Torah For Modern Minds

Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation. "

From National Geographic's Genographic project:

Jericho was in existence in pre-biblical times i.e. 10,000-11,500 years ago.

Hmmm... So if I decide that something that's been important to you for the longest time is also important to me, that automatically gives me rights to it?

Jerusalem has been the Jewish holy center for over four thousand years. It's the City of David. It's been destroyed and rebuilt seven times, each time it was rebuilt by Jews. It was holy to the Jewish people for two thousand years before Christians decided it was holy to them, and for two thousand six hundred years before Islam decided it was their holy place as well.

Besides, The Israelis have shown themselves to be the best guardians of the city. They don't deny access to people of other faiths, or desecrate any other faith's holy things. The Dome of the Rock sits on the cite of the Holy Temple, something the Jewish people long to rebuild. Yet I have never heard any thing about removing it so the Temple could be rebuilt.

Has everyone forgotten the desecration of the surrounding Jewish cemeteries and other atrocities done by Jordanian soldiers when they had control of the city?

Jerusalem is the THE Jewish holy place. To Christains amd Moslems, it is but one of their holy places.

It was the Jews who made Jerusalem holy, and between the Jews and the Palestinians, it's the Jews are are most willing and able to share. The care of Jerusalem belongs to the Israelis.

Why not ask a Palestinian instead of an Israel sycophant? I daresay Netanyahoo's "bold step towards peace" was hardly seen as anything more than forced posturing...

@Clebarron:" I just have on thing to ask from all of you claiming a Palestinian right to that land prove it back it up with hard concrete historical proof"

What exactly constitutes a right to live somewhere if not the centuries long occupation of the place?

I'm not sure what proof could be produced beyond the fact that these people have been living there for hundreds of years. What exactly would satisfy you?

Netanyahu chooses "Not Peace" once more. No one outside of the Israel Lobby and AIPAC really believes that anything meaningful was "offered".

It remains to be seen whether President Obama has the moral fiber to do what past Presidents have failed to do "Insist that the illegal Israeli settlements be stopped and the existing ones disbanded".

Enough cuddling of the Apartheid Israeli state.

Do as we say or we withold US funds!

Declaring Israel to be a "Jewish State" is absolutely no different from Hitler declaring Germany to be an "Aryan State."

Actually the Israeli PM was quite fair.
If David Ben Gurion the first PM of Israel was offered the same deal he would have grabbed it and the Israelis would have turned their land into an oasis (as they did)

A serious Palestinian leader would grab the opportunity, build a country and never look back. He would also build a psychological and political bridge to Israel allowing his people to prosper from trade with Israel who has a much better GDP per capita.

Netanyahu told his hard liners yesterday their dream of Great Israel from the Mediteranean to the Jordan River isn't going to happen. Are Abbas and Henya willing to do the same and tell the Palestinians worldwide that they are not coming back to Jaffa? Can Arab leaders worldwide sit near the table and provide help instead of hiding behind their contempt to the concept of a Jewish State in their region? What is so offensive behind a Jewish state? Don't we already have Muslim state? (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt)

The United States will be a target of terrorism until Palestinians have a sovereign nation of their own with the capital in East Jerusalem. Because we taxpayers in the US supply Israel's financial life-blood, and the terrorists know it.

DO NOT TRUST THE WORDS OF THE EXTREME FUNDAMENTALIST DOMINATED LIKUD PARTY.

SIMPLY WATCH THEIR ACTIONS.

We can no longer afford to support Israel if Israel's behavior is going to cost us $$ trillions more than we've already spent fighting terrorism.

It is time for Israel to end the occupation, end 100% of the settlements, and allow a Palestinian State.

It is long overdue for Palestinians to REJECT HAMAS if they really do want their own nation. You can't have both hate and freedom in the same government.

Rabbibrad: Please post a link to the official translation that accords with your understanding of the talk in Hebrew. Thank you.

former_omnisavant:
So your condemnation of the Jewish people is that throughout history, they remained Jews? Judaism is somewhat unique in that it's both a national identity and a religion, with the national identity bound up with the religion. For centuries, Jews have wanted to return to the land God gave them. I wonder though if that longing would have remained so strong if the rest of the world hadn't continually persecuted them. Here you come to say all this is their fault because they chose to remain Jews. Would that be your answer to any religious group that is persecuted by the people around them? Convert?

Your article is missing some important information:

1) We already have a two state solution. The same mandate that created Israel also created Jordan as the Palestinian state.

2) Israel didn't kick out her Palestinian citizens prior to the first war. The Arab nations told the Palestinians living in Israel to leave, that they would destroy Israel, and would treat any Arabs they found still in Israel as traitors.

3) The above threat continued as the attacks on Israel did, keeping the refugees from going back.

4) In 60+ years, the neighboring oil rich Arab nations who created the refugee camps (#2) never made any effort to assimilate the refugees. I'm not suggesting the Palestinians give up their identity, only that they should have received help with education, job training, and in finding housing. Instead, they were kept in the most inhumane conditions, just so that they could be held up to the world as those poor Palestinians who suffer so. They may get little help from the Arab nations, but they are told that Israel is the reason for their suffering, and they do get plenty of guns, ammunition and explosives, are taught that suicide is their contribution to the effort and set against civilian targets. They send pregnant women and children out as suicide bombers and even use their own people as human shields. This is what the Arab nations have done for these people.

Could you imagine a refugee camp inside the US remaining in existence for 60 years? From the beginning, teachers and medical professionals would find their way to the camp or camps. Medical supplies would be donated. Money would be made available for education, job training and housing. Withing a few years, the camp would be gone.

Maybe you need to do some more research, and this time, try looking beyond a single, slanted source.

What other proposal was Netanyahu supposed to give to the Palestinians other than the one he gave? How many times has Israel turned over territory only to see the Palestinians replace order with chaos and violence directed at Israel. This is no longer about who is right or who is wrong. Israel is the dominant power that is holding all the good cards. If the Palestinians want a state, they need to take the Israeli proposal and go from there. They turned down 95% of what they wanted when Clinton tried to arrange a peace settlement. The sticking point was and and will always be Jerusalem - the Jews are not going to give it up or share. Good thing Arafat turned down the last plan under Clinton; if they had accepted it, Israel might have been destroyed by now.

all it takes to stop the violence and have peace is to....
stop the violence and have peace!

Lots of squawkers above want to blame Israel for all, yet can't acknowledge that the genocidal policies of arafat and hamas, seeking the total destruction of Israel and all its Jews, might have anything to do with the failure to obtain peace.

The key to peace will always remain the same: renounce violence (again, but stick with it this time). So long as palestinians seek to murder Jews they will remain deservedly stateless. No amount of propaganda will obscure that fact from honest observers.

Someone needs to ask Carter: No Jewish state?; are you against all islamic states? Why the double-standard?

the ones seeking REAL apartheid in the middle east are the islamists who insist that no jews can live in islamic territory. No Hebrews allowed in Hebron? Who's racist now...

What's fascinating, is how the anti-Israel crowd will NEVER give credit to Israel, when it is due.
The truth is that Israel was all for a two-State solution, at its founding back in '48. The Arabs & Palestinians said *no,* & chose war. Eventually, in 1967, Israel won a war, and Jerusalem, Gaza, the West Bank, & the Sinai.
They gave back the Sinai to Egypt, when Egypt was a willing Peace partner. Made peace with Jordan... both have lasted for 30+ years. They left Gaza, which turned into a militant Hamas entity.
The point is that BOTH parties share blame.
And BOTH parties need to make concessions, for there to be peace. Netanyahu did say something new for him, about the two States. That IS progress. Now it's up to the Palestinians to stop whining, and start negotiating.

This amazes me I hear a lot of equating Palestinians to the Indians, and how awful it would be if they lived under the Israeli gov.. I just have on thing to ask from all of you claiming a Palestinian right to that land prove it back it up with hard concrete historical proof or stop with the Indian analogy..give me a break

Sorry 'sayhuuraw', Netanyahu may not have said what you want, or you may be upset that he did (we do love to have well-defined enemies, don't we?), but nothing was misquoted.

I listened to the talk in Hebrew and my own understanding accords with the official translation of the text.

I watched Netanyahu's entire speech twice. I see both sides of the argument... Netanyahu made some progress by accepting the possibility of an independent state, but really the entire peace process has taken a huge step backwards because of Netanyahu's more radical position. We are still a very long way off from peace. The possibility of a Palestinian state is good, but Netanyahu's conditions were so strict that it simply won't happen. I believe his demands are reasonable (Palestinians accept Israel as a Jewish state, stop firing rockets...), but he promises too little in return (no Jerusalem, a demilitarized state, supervised control of airspace...) He tried to put the pressure back on the Palestinians to make the first move, but really it is him that needs to consider his position more thoroughly. All settlement growth must stop completely. I don't understand why this has been made such a complex issue when it is really quite simple. The settlements are illegal by international law. If anything should be done with them, it should be to gradually re-integrate the population into Israel! If there is to ever be a peace deal, it will most likely use the 1967 borders, so both sides should be preparing for that. Netanyahu made a small step by acknowledging the legitimacy of a Palestinian state, but he has a lot more work to do before real progress can begin.

Mr. Hirschfied: You have misquoted Netanyahu. He did not say that Israel "would refrain from expanding existing Israeli communities in the West Bank." Check your source for the text of the speech.

Denying them the right to a defense force is more symbolic than anything, probably to placate the Israeli right wing. They would still be able to run their own internal security. And they could not withstand an Israeli attack in any case. So who else would they defend against? Jordan?

Neti's comments are a lie. Israel is not going to give up the West Bank to a neutered Palestinian State or even to a Palestinian Bantustan because the West Bank is more important to Zionists than what is Israel today. In 2000 years it will never happen.
Zionists may be willing to accept a Palestinian state, but not in the land they claim. They would prefer it to be in Jordan and are willing to push every Palestinian there inch by inch for the next couple of hundred years until it is true.

What a scam. Netanyahoo is brilliant at determining what rights others are not allowed to have. Like the right to self defense, any of the ancient shrines (Jerusalem) or anything that might be unmanageable by Israel. Palestine gets a state, but they lose any rights associated with having a state. This is a big step. Backwards. I hope Americans aren't dumb enough to buy it. And I hope Obama doesn't cave to Jewish pressure like America always does.

A "state" must have the following or it is not a "state"
Political Center: Palestine's claim to East Jeruselum as their capital is being refused
Armed Forces: Netanyaho's Palestine would not be allowed to have a military
Borders: Netanyaho's Palestine would have neither control of its bolders nor of its airspace. A "state" cannot be a "state" without borders.
Economy: A Palestine with no control over its land, borders, airspace, resources, roads or passages is not economically viable.
My question to Mr Hirschfield is this:
What single element in Netanyahu's speach led you to believe that he supports a two-state solution? Was it merely the use of the word "state". If so, I implore you to read further into speeches before commenting on them, especially when your comments can potentially make it to the front page of Google and the eyes of millions.

You people are pathetic. This is not a major concession at all. It's not any concession whatsoever. He knows damn well that calls for a demilitarized Palestine will be rejected - so there's no political risk for him at all.

He might as well have said that they can have independence, but they have to change the name of Palestine to Allah Stinks.

Obama has already gotten the peace process started in earnest, not just giving bad advice on how to fight wars as the last administration did. He has also gotten the Iranians fighting among themselves on the way to something approaching real democracy, not just spending $3T enhancing Iranian influence in the Mideast. And he has only been at it 5 months (whereas the last guy spent 8 years running us into the ground). The man is amazing.

Now that Netanyahu has made some concessions to Obama, let's see what the Palestinians will concede. Or perhaps you critics will argue that Israel has made no concessions at all, in which case you objectors will cry foul again if Mr. Netanyahu were to withdraw his concessions. I think this matter is a lose-lose situation for Israel as far at the Obama left is concerned.

The first step to success involves having a positive outlook.

Bibi's offer is merely yet another effort to palm off the creation of a Palestinian bantustan and call it a free and sovereign state. Only fools or knaves will fall for Bibi's proposal. Anyone with any sense or knowledge of history will appreciate it for what it is - a lie.

I've just recently learned some amazing stuff about the Israeli/Palestinian situation where I no longer take the assumed for granted. I've written it at:
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june082009/counter_holocaust_dj_6-8-09.php
I've changed my viewpoint.

I think it is clear Netanyahu is being disengenious. After all, he has prevented UN observers in occupied territories before. Just how would he expect a "demilitarized" Palistine to be verified? I see Netanyahu, like Ahmedinejad, seeking one thing while saying another.

The settlement creep has obvious goals, to eventually annex the West Bank as part of Israel. As long as evidence of this path exists the US should use its financial might and link funding for Israel with settlement removal. The goal needs to be a free Palistinian state in the entire West Bank with borders negotiated. The current patchwork created by settlements prevents this from happening, unless the settlers want to live within a Palistinian state. If you need a better explanation of the problem see the maps at this website:
http://www.firstpr.com.au/nations/

This wasn't a "yes" to Palestine, and you know it, Hirschfield. Bibi knows as well as everyone else that a disarmed Palestine is a Palestine at the complete mercy of Israel. Nobody in their right mind would accept such a proposal. And Bibi knows that as well as you do.

It's disgusting to see a grown man use a newspaper website to lie through his teeth and act as if his favorite country was being magnanimous. Try to learn some shame.

It sounds a little like someone moved into your house, punched you in the face repeatedly, locked you in the dog house in the yard for years, and then offered to let you continue to live in the dog house as long as you promised to stop complaining.

Good comparison Nikos,
It sounds like all he's offering them is currency and a national anthem. I guess Israel will demilitarize too? Give up control of its airspace, and forever block itself from receiving arms? Netanyahu's speech was about as depressing as Ahmedinejad's "win". To be honest, I was'nt expecting much. So sad.

For God's Sake, we don't live in the epoch
of George Armstrong Custer. Netanyahu's speech offering the acceptance of a unarmed Palestinian state, without any control of its borders, airspace, airwaves, and in which all of
its actions or laws will be subservient to Israel's sovereighty, is not an offer of Palestinian statehood. It is a blueprint akin to the Indian Appropriations Act of 1851 that established the Indian Reservations enclaves
as Indian "nations." But worse than that was the reaction of the U.S. the
E.U. that called Netanyahu's speech "a step in the right direction."

The Oslo Accords for peace in Palestine in 1993 were also called "a step in the right direction," and at that time it really was. But after 16 years of bloodshed, and endless negotiations at a "turtle pace," as Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat correctly scoffed, the Middle East peace process is
still frozen in the "first right direction step," and going nowhere! How long will it take for the powers that have a sway with Israel to say: "Enough" with "first steps" for 16 years; it's time for "second" and "third" steps now to achieve peace. Peace has never been achieved in history with empty promises that contain nothing more than negotiating clatter and a static diplomacy.

It is a shame for the U.S. and the E.U. to have received Netanyahu's speech as an acceptable "first step." We actually have had so many since 1993, such as Bush's "Road map" first step," and a host of other initiatives that were also called "firt steps," but the process has always fell quickly backwards. Now we have an "Indian Reservation enclaves model" by Netanyahu for Palestinians as a "first step," and the U.S. and the E.U. say they can live with - but the Palestinians certainly cannot.

Obama started a race for peace in the Middle East with a promise to Arabs and Muslims. Now comes Netanyahu and replaces Bush's "Road Map" with his Indian Reservations model for a free Palestine "Road Block." Now, let's all of us sit back and try to digest how the new "first step to nowhere" peace plan for Palestine will work where all similar past steps have failed! Nikos Retsos, retired professor