17 oct 2013
US ambassador to the Israeli entity Dan Shapiro stressed his country's support to "Israel's right to defend itself against the Palestinian terrorist organizations in Gaza." The US ambassador's statement came during his visit to the tunnel discovered running from Gaza to the Palestinian territories occupied in 1948 to allegedly carry out resistance attacks.
The United States continues its double standards policy in total bias to the Israeli occupation at the expense of Palestinian rights.
The United States continues its double standards policy in total bias to the Israeli occupation at the expense of Palestinian rights.
5 oct 2013
President Hassan Rouhani
Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Saturday criticized some aspects of President Hassan Rouhani’s UN visit in which he spoke to his US counterpart but expressed broad backing.
“We support the diplomatic initiative of the government and attach importance to its activities in this trip,” Khamenei said in remarks reported by his website.
He added, however, that “some of what happened in the New York trip was not appropriate”.
“We are pessimistic towards the Americans and do not put any trust in them. The American government is untrustworthy, supercilious and unreasonable, and breaks its promises,” he said.
Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Saturday criticized some aspects of President Hassan Rouhani’s UN visit in which he spoke to his US counterpart but expressed broad backing.
“We support the diplomatic initiative of the government and attach importance to its activities in this trip,” Khamenei said in remarks reported by his website.
He added, however, that “some of what happened in the New York trip was not appropriate”.
“We are pessimistic towards the Americans and do not put any trust in them. The American government is untrustworthy, supercilious and unreasonable, and breaks its promises,” he said.
Israel is an integral element of the US imperialistic policy to reinforce Washington’s hegemonic agenda across the Middle East, a political analyst says, Press TV reports.
In a Friday article on Press TV, Finian Cunningham argued that Israel is not merely an entity that pressures Washington through Zionist lobby groups and bribes US Congress, “but, more fundamentally, Israel serves to project American imperialist interests and power in the Middle East.”
“The affront to international law and human rights that the Israeli regime incarnates, the conflict and wars that it fuels, all these violations are an integral part of how US imperialism asserts hegemony across the Middle East region and beyond,” Cunningham wrote.
He pointed to Saudi Arabia and other Arab authoritarian regimes as other parts of the US’ “anti-democratic architecture that guarantees Washington’s domination in the oil-rich Middle East.”
“That domination depends not just on the flow of oil and massive weapons sales from conflicts, but more crucially on the flow of petrodollars to prop up the bankrupt American Federal Reserve,” the analyst pointed out.
He also pointed to the decades-long US animosity toward Iran as part of Washington’s imperialistic agenda that serves the capitalistic interests of the White House, adding, “American imperialism is hostile to any nation that pursues a path of independent economic and political development. Iran is top of that list.”
Cunningham also referred to the recent signs of an improvement in the Iran-US relationship and noted, “The ignominious history of American aggression towards Iran will require some earnest practical measures to build confidence in Washington’s purported sincerity. The immediate canceling of illegal US sanctions would be a good place to start, one where the onus is firmly on Washington, not Tehran.”
On September 26, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and his American counterpart John Kerry held a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the 68th meeting of the UN General Assembly in New York.
A day later, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and his American counterpart held a landmark phone conversation mainly focusing on Iran’s nuclear energy program. It was the first direct communication between an Iranian and a US president since the victory of Iran’s Islamic Revolution more than three decades ago.
In a Friday article on Press TV, Finian Cunningham argued that Israel is not merely an entity that pressures Washington through Zionist lobby groups and bribes US Congress, “but, more fundamentally, Israel serves to project American imperialist interests and power in the Middle East.”
“The affront to international law and human rights that the Israeli regime incarnates, the conflict and wars that it fuels, all these violations are an integral part of how US imperialism asserts hegemony across the Middle East region and beyond,” Cunningham wrote.
He pointed to Saudi Arabia and other Arab authoritarian regimes as other parts of the US’ “anti-democratic architecture that guarantees Washington’s domination in the oil-rich Middle East.”
“That domination depends not just on the flow of oil and massive weapons sales from conflicts, but more crucially on the flow of petrodollars to prop up the bankrupt American Federal Reserve,” the analyst pointed out.
He also pointed to the decades-long US animosity toward Iran as part of Washington’s imperialistic agenda that serves the capitalistic interests of the White House, adding, “American imperialism is hostile to any nation that pursues a path of independent economic and political development. Iran is top of that list.”
Cunningham also referred to the recent signs of an improvement in the Iran-US relationship and noted, “The ignominious history of American aggression towards Iran will require some earnest practical measures to build confidence in Washington’s purported sincerity. The immediate canceling of illegal US sanctions would be a good place to start, one where the onus is firmly on Washington, not Tehran.”
On September 26, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and his American counterpart John Kerry held a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the 68th meeting of the UN General Assembly in New York.
A day later, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and his American counterpart held a landmark phone conversation mainly focusing on Iran’s nuclear energy program. It was the first direct communication between an Iranian and a US president since the victory of Iran’s Islamic Revolution more than three decades ago.
2 oct 2013
A US political commentator says it is a disgrace for the United States that a mass murderer like Benjamin Netanyahu can come to Washington and dictate the American president what to do.
Dr. Kevin Barrett, who is one of the renowned US critics of Washington’s so-called war on terror, made the remarks in an interview with Press TV on Tuesday, a day after the Israeli prime minister met with US President Barack Obama and asked him to toughen sanctions against Iran over its nuclear energy program.
After meeting Netanyahu, Obama repeated his war rhetoric against the Islamic Republic, saying, “We take no options off the table, including military options, in terms of making sure that we do not have nuclear weapons in Iran."
The Israeli regime is widely believed to be the sole possessor of a nuclear arsenal in the Middle East with more than 200 undeclared nuclear warheads. Tel Aviv has rejected global calls to join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and does not allow international inspectors to observe its controversial nuclear program.
The US, Israel, and some of their allies have repeatedly accused Iran of pursuing non-civilian objectives in its nuclear energy program and have used the unfounded accusation as a pretext to impose illegal sanctions on the Islamic Republic.
Barrett said that a US president in his second term, such as Obama, should be able to resist Tel Aviv’s pressure and stand up for American benefit rather than Israeli interest.
“I would hope that these words of Obama’s are really just sort of empty words that he is feeding the Zionist lobby to try to keep them happy,” the political commentator stated.
“I think it is a disgrace to the presidency and to the United States of America that a criminal against humanity on the scale of Netanyahu, who has blood all over his hands in so many ways, who is actually a prime suspect in the controlled demolition of World Trade Center in September 11, 2001… he immediately went on television and said that… it is very good. That was his reaction to September 11… and then he caught himself and said well actually I meant it was just good for Israel,” he said.
“But he was basically celebrating 9/11 just like the dancing Israelis who were caught at celebrating the success of the demolition of the Twin Towers in New York.
“Now it is just a disgrace that somebody like that can come to the United States and try to dictate to the American president how he should conduct his foreign policy. And more and more Americans are being outraged by this and were hoping that some day we will have a president with the intestinal fortitude to stand up against these Israeli mass murderers and big liars.”
Elsewhere in his remarks, Barrett said, “The Israeli lobby does not just have a lot of clout in Congress. It owns Congress. It’s outright and about half of the money that is contributed to federal candidates in the US comes from Zionists and it has very strong strings attached.”
“This has been going on ever since we heard from President John F. Kennedy who confided to his close friend Gore Vidal that he had been approached by Israeli lobby people who told him that if he would let them run his foreign policy, they would take care of all of his financial needs from then on. And the same thing has been going on ever since. Kennedy rejected the deal and that's one of the reasons he was killed.”(Video on the link)
Dr. Kevin Barrett, who is one of the renowned US critics of Washington’s so-called war on terror, made the remarks in an interview with Press TV on Tuesday, a day after the Israeli prime minister met with US President Barack Obama and asked him to toughen sanctions against Iran over its nuclear energy program.
After meeting Netanyahu, Obama repeated his war rhetoric against the Islamic Republic, saying, “We take no options off the table, including military options, in terms of making sure that we do not have nuclear weapons in Iran."
The Israeli regime is widely believed to be the sole possessor of a nuclear arsenal in the Middle East with more than 200 undeclared nuclear warheads. Tel Aviv has rejected global calls to join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and does not allow international inspectors to observe its controversial nuclear program.
The US, Israel, and some of their allies have repeatedly accused Iran of pursuing non-civilian objectives in its nuclear energy program and have used the unfounded accusation as a pretext to impose illegal sanctions on the Islamic Republic.
Barrett said that a US president in his second term, such as Obama, should be able to resist Tel Aviv’s pressure and stand up for American benefit rather than Israeli interest.
“I would hope that these words of Obama’s are really just sort of empty words that he is feeding the Zionist lobby to try to keep them happy,” the political commentator stated.
“I think it is a disgrace to the presidency and to the United States of America that a criminal against humanity on the scale of Netanyahu, who has blood all over his hands in so many ways, who is actually a prime suspect in the controlled demolition of World Trade Center in September 11, 2001… he immediately went on television and said that… it is very good. That was his reaction to September 11… and then he caught himself and said well actually I meant it was just good for Israel,” he said.
“But he was basically celebrating 9/11 just like the dancing Israelis who were caught at celebrating the success of the demolition of the Twin Towers in New York.
“Now it is just a disgrace that somebody like that can come to the United States and try to dictate to the American president how he should conduct his foreign policy. And more and more Americans are being outraged by this and were hoping that some day we will have a president with the intestinal fortitude to stand up against these Israeli mass murderers and big liars.”
Elsewhere in his remarks, Barrett said, “The Israeli lobby does not just have a lot of clout in Congress. It owns Congress. It’s outright and about half of the money that is contributed to federal candidates in the US comes from Zionists and it has very strong strings attached.”
“This has been going on ever since we heard from President John F. Kennedy who confided to his close friend Gore Vidal that he had been approached by Israeli lobby people who told him that if he would let them run his foreign policy, they would take care of all of his financial needs from then on. And the same thing has been going on ever since. Kennedy rejected the deal and that's one of the reasons he was killed.”(Video on the link)
1 oct 2013
The Israeli regime and its lobby in the United States are worried about the likelihood of normalization of ties between Tehran and Washington, a political analyst says.
“The Tel Aviv regime and the pro-Israel lobby in the United States are clearly worried about the diplomatic impact of [Iran President Hassan] Rouhani’s UN visit and the qualitative steps forward which were taken by both the US and Iran toward dialog and negotiation,” Kaveh L. Afrasiabi wrote in a Monday article for Press TV.
In his speech to the 68th session of the UN General Assembly on September 24, President Rouhani reaffirmed Iran’s determination to engage in transparent nuclear talks with world powers and interact with the international community based on mutual respect.
He also held numerous meetings with the heads of state and officials from different countries on the sidelines of the event.
Later on Friday, Rouhani and his US counterpart Barack Obama had a landmark phone conversation mainly focusing on Iran’s nuclear energy program. It was the first direct communication between an Iranian and a US president since the victory of Iran’s Islamic Revolution more than three decades ago.
The two presidents also tasked their foreign ministers to follow up the matters of mutual concern, including issues regarding Tehran’s nuclear energy program.
Afrasiabi pointed to Israel’s efforts to push the US to intensify pressure on Iran due to Tel Aviv’s repeated allegations against Tehran’s nuclear energy program.
“Such accusations have been circulating for over a decade and the world community is less and less inclined to give much credence to the incessant Israeli propaganda against Iran, which serves Israel’s twin objectives of sustaining generous Western financial and military support on the one hand, and, on the other, deflecting attention from the Palestinian issue,” the analyst pointed out.
In his Tuesday speech to the UN General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for a global action aimed at fully dismantling Tehran’s nuclear energy program.
The United States, Israel and some of their allies have repeatedly accused Iran of pursuing non-civilian objectives in its nuclear energy program, with the US and the European Union using the unsubstantiated claim as an excuse to impose illegal sanctions against Tehran.
The bans come on top of four rounds of US-instigated UN Security Council sanctions against Iran under the same pretext.
Iran has categorically rejected the allegation, stressing that as a committed member of the International Atomic Energy Agency and a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it is entitled to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
“The Tel Aviv regime and the pro-Israel lobby in the United States are clearly worried about the diplomatic impact of [Iran President Hassan] Rouhani’s UN visit and the qualitative steps forward which were taken by both the US and Iran toward dialog and negotiation,” Kaveh L. Afrasiabi wrote in a Monday article for Press TV.
In his speech to the 68th session of the UN General Assembly on September 24, President Rouhani reaffirmed Iran’s determination to engage in transparent nuclear talks with world powers and interact with the international community based on mutual respect.
He also held numerous meetings with the heads of state and officials from different countries on the sidelines of the event.
Later on Friday, Rouhani and his US counterpart Barack Obama had a landmark phone conversation mainly focusing on Iran’s nuclear energy program. It was the first direct communication between an Iranian and a US president since the victory of Iran’s Islamic Revolution more than three decades ago.
The two presidents also tasked their foreign ministers to follow up the matters of mutual concern, including issues regarding Tehran’s nuclear energy program.
Afrasiabi pointed to Israel’s efforts to push the US to intensify pressure on Iran due to Tel Aviv’s repeated allegations against Tehran’s nuclear energy program.
“Such accusations have been circulating for over a decade and the world community is less and less inclined to give much credence to the incessant Israeli propaganda against Iran, which serves Israel’s twin objectives of sustaining generous Western financial and military support on the one hand, and, on the other, deflecting attention from the Palestinian issue,” the analyst pointed out.
In his Tuesday speech to the UN General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for a global action aimed at fully dismantling Tehran’s nuclear energy program.
The United States, Israel and some of their allies have repeatedly accused Iran of pursuing non-civilian objectives in its nuclear energy program, with the US and the European Union using the unsubstantiated claim as an excuse to impose illegal sanctions against Tehran.
The bans come on top of four rounds of US-instigated UN Security Council sanctions against Iran under the same pretext.
Iran has categorically rejected the allegation, stressing that as a committed member of the International Atomic Energy Agency and a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it is entitled to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
29 sept 2013
Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu left for New York early Sunday in a bid to challenge perceptions that Iran under its new president poses less of a nuclear threat than before.
"I intend to tell the truth in the face of the sweet talk and charm offensive of Iran" Israeli public radio quoted him as saying as he boarded the plane at Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion airport.
"Telling the truth at this time is essential for world peace and security and, of course, for Israel's security."
Earlier in the week he described Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's conciliatory speech to the United Nations General Assembly as "cynical" and "full of hypocrisy."
On Monday Netanyahu will meet US President Barack Obama at the White House then return to New York to address the General Assembly on Tuesday.
Netanyahu has long put what Israel and the west say is a covert Iranian program to develop a nuclear weapon at the forefront of his security concerns.
Iran denies the charge and in his UN address Rouhani said that "nuclear weapons... have no place in Iran's security and defense doctrine."
The self-styled moderate, tasked with easing concerns over Iran's nuclear program, made history on Friday by speaking by phone to US President Barack Obama, in the first contact between the countries' leaders since the 1979 Islamic revolution.
Israeli media said that Netanyahu had instructed his ministers and senior officials not to comment on the call.
"I intend to tell the truth in the face of the sweet talk and charm offensive of Iran" Israeli public radio quoted him as saying as he boarded the plane at Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion airport.
"Telling the truth at this time is essential for world peace and security and, of course, for Israel's security."
Earlier in the week he described Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's conciliatory speech to the United Nations General Assembly as "cynical" and "full of hypocrisy."
On Monday Netanyahu will meet US President Barack Obama at the White House then return to New York to address the General Assembly on Tuesday.
Netanyahu has long put what Israel and the west say is a covert Iranian program to develop a nuclear weapon at the forefront of his security concerns.
Iran denies the charge and in his UN address Rouhani said that "nuclear weapons... have no place in Iran's security and defense doctrine."
The self-styled moderate, tasked with easing concerns over Iran's nuclear program, made history on Friday by speaking by phone to US President Barack Obama, in the first contact between the countries' leaders since the 1979 Islamic revolution.
Israeli media said that Netanyahu had instructed his ministers and senior officials not to comment on the call.
28 sept 2013
Page 31 from US Army Terrorist, Insurgent & Militant Group Logo Recognition Guide [PDF]
A declassified US Army guide designed to help personnel recognize the logos of “Terrorist, Insurgent and Militant” groups includes a Palestinian flag.
The website Gizmodo describes the guide:
Written by the U.S. Army Training And Doctrine Command in 2009, this 60-odd page document (PDF) was designed to function, in the words of its creators, as “a hip pocket” reference book for soldiers in the field. Categorized by geography, it groups the logos and insignia of “insurgents, terrorists, paramilitary, and other militant groups worldwide.” That includes everything from photos of Russian mafia tattoos to Hezbollah logos, as well as a thorough auxiliary list of branding from the “media wings” of each group. It’s a visual taxonomy of terror.
But on page 31 of the army guide itself, [PDF] a simple Palestinian flag appears next to the name “Abu Nidal Organization (Sunni).”
The group, notorious in the 1970s, is designated as “inactive” by the US Department of Homeland Security-funded National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland.
Abu Nidal, the alias of Sabri al-Banna, died in Iraq in 2002.
Every other organization listed in the US Army guide’s “Israel-Palestine” section includes a specific logo. In other cases, such as in the “Central Africa” section on pages 43-44 of the guide, the notation “Not Available” is included next to the names of groups where no logo appears.
An Internet search did not reveal an example of a specific logo for the Abu Nidal Organization. Did the author of the Army guide, identified by Gizmodo as David Friedman, have the same problem and simply substitute a Palestinian flag?
In any case, even if the Palestinian flag were indeed the logo of any specific organization, the guide provides no warning or caveat that the Palestinian flag by itself should not be “recognized” as the symbol of a “terrorist, insurgent or militant” group given its global recognition as the flag of a country.
But that is what any army personnel relying on the guide would do.
Confused
A declassified US Army guide designed to help personnel recognize the logos of “Terrorist, Insurgent and Militant” groups includes a Palestinian flag.
The website Gizmodo describes the guide:
Written by the U.S. Army Training And Doctrine Command in 2009, this 60-odd page document (PDF) was designed to function, in the words of its creators, as “a hip pocket” reference book for soldiers in the field. Categorized by geography, it groups the logos and insignia of “insurgents, terrorists, paramilitary, and other militant groups worldwide.” That includes everything from photos of Russian mafia tattoos to Hezbollah logos, as well as a thorough auxiliary list of branding from the “media wings” of each group. It’s a visual taxonomy of terror.
But on page 31 of the army guide itself, [PDF] a simple Palestinian flag appears next to the name “Abu Nidal Organization (Sunni).”
The group, notorious in the 1970s, is designated as “inactive” by the US Department of Homeland Security-funded National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland.
Abu Nidal, the alias of Sabri al-Banna, died in Iraq in 2002.
Every other organization listed in the US Army guide’s “Israel-Palestine” section includes a specific logo. In other cases, such as in the “Central Africa” section on pages 43-44 of the guide, the notation “Not Available” is included next to the names of groups where no logo appears.
An Internet search did not reveal an example of a specific logo for the Abu Nidal Organization. Did the author of the Army guide, identified by Gizmodo as David Friedman, have the same problem and simply substitute a Palestinian flag?
In any case, even if the Palestinian flag were indeed the logo of any specific organization, the guide provides no warning or caveat that the Palestinian flag by itself should not be “recognized” as the symbol of a “terrorist, insurgent or militant” group given its global recognition as the flag of a country.
But that is what any army personnel relying on the guide would do.
Confused
Page 30 from US Army Terrorist, Insurgent & Militant Group Logo Recognition Guide [PDF]
The guide, which includes everything from Salvadoran gangs to Lebanon’s Hizballah to the Earth First environmental movement, appears to contain a lot of confused and incorrect information and careless categorizations typical of government agencies that lump all perceived enemies under the label “terrorist.”
For example, it arbitrarily categorizes many groups as “Islamist,” including, bizarrely the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – both secular.
The Jewish extremist group, Kahane Chai, the only Jewish group in the section, is labeled “Radical Israeli” with no mention of its explicitly Jewish ideology.
The PLO’s dominant Fatah faction is described as “Sectarian Palestinian,” another nonsensical label.
US army training “terrorists”?
It is also bizarre that the PLO and its main faction Fatah should appear in a guide to “terrorist” groups at all.
PLO security forces, dominated by Fatah, and nominally commanded by US-backed Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, have been trained and funded for years by the United States.
Indeed, much of the training was done under the leadership and supervision of US Army general Keith Dayton.
The guide, which includes everything from Salvadoran gangs to Lebanon’s Hizballah to the Earth First environmental movement, appears to contain a lot of confused and incorrect information and careless categorizations typical of government agencies that lump all perceived enemies under the label “terrorist.”
For example, it arbitrarily categorizes many groups as “Islamist,” including, bizarrely the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – both secular.
The Jewish extremist group, Kahane Chai, the only Jewish group in the section, is labeled “Radical Israeli” with no mention of its explicitly Jewish ideology.
The PLO’s dominant Fatah faction is described as “Sectarian Palestinian,” another nonsensical label.
US army training “terrorists”?
It is also bizarre that the PLO and its main faction Fatah should appear in a guide to “terrorist” groups at all.
PLO security forces, dominated by Fatah, and nominally commanded by US-backed Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, have been trained and funded for years by the United States.
Indeed, much of the training was done under the leadership and supervision of US Army general Keith Dayton.
President Rohani exchanged views with US officials on return of the seized ancient vessel, known in art circles as a rhyton, to Iran on the sideline of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.
The US officials presented the ceremonial drinking vessel belonging to the 7th century BC to Iran as a token of goodwill.
The ancient vessel had been in New York since 2003, when an art dealer smuggled it into the country from Iran.
Griffin is a legendary creature with the body, tail, and back legs of a lion; the head and wings of an eagle; and an eagles talons as its front feet. As the lion was traditionally considered the king of the beasts and the eagle was the king of the birds, the griffin was thought to be an especially powerful and majestic creature.
The griffin was also thought of as king of the creatures. Griffins are known for guarding treasure and priceless possessions.
The US officials presented the ceremonial drinking vessel belonging to the 7th century BC to Iran as a token of goodwill.
The ancient vessel had been in New York since 2003, when an art dealer smuggled it into the country from Iran.
Griffin is a legendary creature with the body, tail, and back legs of a lion; the head and wings of an eagle; and an eagles talons as its front feet. As the lion was traditionally considered the king of the beasts and the eagle was the king of the birds, the griffin was thought to be an especially powerful and majestic creature.
The griffin was also thought of as king of the creatures. Griffins are known for guarding treasure and priceless possessions.
|
|
Rohani's tweet which was later removed
American media analyze words used by president at end of phone conversation with Iranian leader; Iranians hopeful after first direct contact between leaders in three decades
"Have a nice day" - this is how Iranian President Hassan Rohani concluded his phone conversation with US President Barack Obama, the first direct contact between leaders of the two nations in over three decades.
A message on Rohani's Twitter page, which has since been deleted, stated that Obama answered in Farsi by saying "khodahafez" to indicate goodbye, whose literal meaning is "may God be with you."
The tweet was one of several Rohani posted after the historic phone conversation. He noted that Obama had phoned him and told him he was positive that relations between Iran and the US would have great effect on the region.
Some tweets that were later removed and replaced with a more general statement, noted that Obama had wished the Iranian president a safe trip and had apologized for New York traffic.
However, a US senior official stressed that the conversation was held on Rohani's initiative.
Meanwhile, the New York Times reported of Iranians' response to the conversation. “Wow, this is fantastic,” said Armin Kay, an engineer reacting to the news. “The most important thing is that Obama took the initiative. This will go down really well with our leadership.”
Amir Mohebbian, a political adviser close to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said: “After the positive meeting between the foreign ministers of Iran and the United States on Thursday, we could see this coming,” referring to Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and Secretary of State John Kerry. “This was a polite farewell, a thank you for all the positivity from Iran.”
If talks on Iran’s nuclear program next month go well, he said, “we could witness a meeting after that.”
The paper quoted another analyst close to Rohani who praised the phone call by Obama as “the best thing he could have done.”
The analyst, Nader Karimi Joni, who works as a journalist and has been jailed for opposing the interests of hard-liners, said the call was a “verbal farewell for a V.I.P. guest, similar to seeing Mr. Rohani off personally.”
According to the report, some Iranians said the immediate practical impact of the phone call could be a surge in the value of Iran’s currency, the rial, which has weakened to historic lows against the dollar in recent months because of the accumulated economic sanctions on Iran, imposed by the United States and European Union in response to the nuclear standoff.
American media analyze words used by president at end of phone conversation with Iranian leader; Iranians hopeful after first direct contact between leaders in three decades
"Have a nice day" - this is how Iranian President Hassan Rohani concluded his phone conversation with US President Barack Obama, the first direct contact between leaders of the two nations in over three decades.
A message on Rohani's Twitter page, which has since been deleted, stated that Obama answered in Farsi by saying "khodahafez" to indicate goodbye, whose literal meaning is "may God be with you."
The tweet was one of several Rohani posted after the historic phone conversation. He noted that Obama had phoned him and told him he was positive that relations between Iran and the US would have great effect on the region.
Some tweets that were later removed and replaced with a more general statement, noted that Obama had wished the Iranian president a safe trip and had apologized for New York traffic.
However, a US senior official stressed that the conversation was held on Rohani's initiative.
Meanwhile, the New York Times reported of Iranians' response to the conversation. “Wow, this is fantastic,” said Armin Kay, an engineer reacting to the news. “The most important thing is that Obama took the initiative. This will go down really well with our leadership.”
Amir Mohebbian, a political adviser close to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said: “After the positive meeting between the foreign ministers of Iran and the United States on Thursday, we could see this coming,” referring to Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and Secretary of State John Kerry. “This was a polite farewell, a thank you for all the positivity from Iran.”
If talks on Iran’s nuclear program next month go well, he said, “we could witness a meeting after that.”
The paper quoted another analyst close to Rohani who praised the phone call by Obama as “the best thing he could have done.”
The analyst, Nader Karimi Joni, who works as a journalist and has been jailed for opposing the interests of hard-liners, said the call was a “verbal farewell for a V.I.P. guest, similar to seeing Mr. Rohani off personally.”
According to the report, some Iranians said the immediate practical impact of the phone call could be a surge in the value of Iran’s currency, the rial, which has weakened to historic lows against the dollar in recent months because of the accumulated economic sanctions on Iran, imposed by the United States and European Union in response to the nuclear standoff.
27 sept 2013
Peace in the Middle East? Not if Benjamin Netanyahu has anything to say about it.
On Monday, Sept. 30, U.S. President Barack Obama will welcome Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House for the first time in 18 months. Much has changed in the intervening period -- both leaders have been re-elected, Obama has made his first visit as president to Israel, Israeli-Palestinian peace talks have been relaunched, and that rather pragmatic-sounding Hasan Rouhani chap has been elected president in Iran.
In what might be called an anti-"Asia pivot" speech, Obama announced to the U.N. General Assembly this week that the United States is engaged in the Middle East "for the long haul" and that "in the near term, America's diplomatic efforts will focus on two particular issues: Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and the Arab-Israeli conflict."
That message will be viewed as a mixed bag in Jerusalem, which is keen for a greater American footprint in the region but is less enthusiastic about the idea of peacemaking with the Palestinians and deal-making with the Iranians taking top billing. For that reason, the upcoming White House meeting will likely find the two leaders back on familiar terrain, more focused on testing each other's underlying intentions than on working together as close allies.
The U.S. president is something of an open book, but Netanyahu's approach requires a little more interpretation and context. Too much of that analysis has been consistently wrong, and thankfully so. If prominent Netanyahu watchers had gotten it right, we would be marking the second or third anniversaries of Israeli bombing campaigns against Iran.
Netanyahu is indeed back in threatening mode. His latest rhetorical flourish is to quote Hillel's ancient maxim "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?" -- an upgrade of his previous refrain regarding Israel's "right to defend itself by itself." That language is being widely interpreted by Israeli commentators as a reaffirmation of Israel's willingness to strike Iran alone if Netanyahu's red lines on Iran's nuclear program are deemed to have been crossed.
This debate has taken on a new urgency given the diplomatic opening seemingly created by the election of Rouhani. It is no secret that Netanyahu has been dragged out of his comfort zone by the possibility of a U.S.-Iran rapprochement. Former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's aggressive and insulting behavior made him a convenient adversary for Israel; Rouhani and his diplomatic team, notably polished Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, present a challenge of a very different order of magnitude.
Under these new circumstances, the nagging question for Washington policymakers is whether Netanyahu's tough line on engaging the new Iranian reality is the wise approach of an understandably cautious and concerned Israeli leader, or whether this Israeli pushback is indicative of a more intransigent stance. The pushback has been nothing if not relentless: Netanyahu has called for an intensification of sanctions and military threats, has depicted Iran's new leader as a "wolf in sheep's clothing," and has heaped scorn on the Rosh Hashanah greetings sent to the Jewish world from Iranian leaders' Twitter accounts. The Israeli Embassy in Washington even crafted a fake LinkedIn account for Rouhani, which listed his skills as "weapons of mass destruction" and "illusion."
Sadly, the preponderance of evidence suggests that this is not just about Israel's leader driving a hard but realistic bargain. If Netanyahu's principal concern is really the nuclear file, he should be able to come to terms with the fact that a negotiated outcome offers the best long-term safeguard against Iran developing a nuclear weapon. The most that military strikes could achieve would be a short-term delay of Iran's ability to weaponize its nuclear program -- a decision that Iran has anyway not yet made, according to the consensus among Western intelligence agencies. A strike would also create a greater incentive for Iran to weaponize its nuclear program.
At the moment, however, Netanyahu is signaling that there is no realistic deal that would be acceptable to Israel. For instance, a consensus exists among experts and Western officials that Iran's right to enrich uranium -- in a limited manner and under international supervision -- for its civilian nuclear energy program will be a necessary part of any agreement. Netanyahu rejects this.
If Iran is willing to cut a deal that effectively provides a guarantee against a weaponization of its nuclear program, and that deal is acceptable to the president of the United States of America, why would Netanyahu not take yes for an answer?
The reason lies in Netanyahu's broader view of Israel's place in the region: The Israeli premier simply does not want an Islamic Republic of Iran that is a relatively independent and powerful actor. Israel has gotten used to a degree of regional hegemony and freedom of action -- notably military action -- that is almost unparalleled globally, especially for what is, after all, a rather small power. Israelis are understandably reluctant to give up any of that.
Israel's leadership seeks to maintain the convenient reality of a neighboring region populated by only two types of regimes. The first type is regimes with a degree of dependence on the United States, which necessitates severe limitations on challenging Israel (including diplomatically). The second type is regimes that are considered beyond the pale by the United States and as many other global actors as possible, and therefore unable to do serious damage to Israeli interests.
Israel's leadership would consider the emergence of a third type of regional actor -- one that is not overly deferential to Washington but also is not boycotted, and that even boasts a degree of economic, political, and military weight -- a deeply undesirable development. What's more, this threatens to become a not-uncommon feature of the Middle East: Just look at Turkey under Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, or Egypt before the July 3 coup, or an Iran that gets beyond its nuclear dispute and starts to normalize its relations with the West.
There are other reasons for Netanyahu to oppose any developments that would allow Iran to break free of its isolation and win acceptance as an important regional actor with which the West engages. The current standoff is an extremely useful way of distracting attention from the Palestinian issue, and a diplomatic breakthrough with Iran would likely shine more of a spotlight on Israel's own nuclear weapons capacity. But the key point to understand in interpreting Netanyahu's policy is this: While Obama has put aside changing the nature of the Islamic Republic's political system, Israel's leader is all about a commitment to regime change -- or failing that, regime isolation -- in Tehran. And he will pursue that goal even at the expense of a workable deal on the nuclear file.
Netanyahu's maximalism does not represent a wall-to-wall consensus within the Israeli establishment. There is another Israeli strand of thinking -- notably among retired security elites like former Mossad chiefs Meir Dagan and Efraim Halevy and former Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin -- that holds that the challenges posed by Iran can be managed in different ways at different times. Others inside Israel's establishment acknowledge that the current period of unchallenged hegemony is unsustainable and that adjustments will have to be made. Some understand the efficacy of having an Iran more tied into the international system rather than isolated from it -- a deal on Iran's nuclear program, for instance, could also have its uses in limiting the maneuver room of groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.
But Netanyahu has rejected these positions. The prime minister is nothing if not consistent: He was similarly intractable when the Palestinian leadership and the Arab League put forth pragmatic proposals. While the PLO's leadership accepts Israel's existence, the 1967 lines, and an accommodation on Israeli settlements (including in East Jerusalem) by way of land swaps, Netanyahu has shifted the goal posts -- rejecting the 1967 lines and refusing to take yes for an answer. With the Arab League's "Arab Peace Initiative" offering recognition of Israel and comprehensive peace in exchange for withdrawal from the occupied territories, Netanyahu is again following this pattern of rejectionism.
Netanyahu is a deeply ideological leader with an unshakeable belief in a Greater Israel and regional hegemony. If this reading of him is accurate, it bodes ill for Israel's reaction to the nascent diplomacy between the United States and Iran. In the coming weeks and months, Netanyahu will likely dedicate himself to derailing any prospect for a diplomatic breakthrough.
In that mission he is, of course, not alone. He will be joined by American hawks and neoconservatives, Republicans who will oppose Obama on anything, and some Democrats with a more Israel-centric bent. Their efforts will be concentrated on escalating threats against Iran, increasing sanctions, and raising the bar to an impossibly high place on the terms of a nuclear deal. All this will serve -- intentionally, one has to assume -- to strengthen hard-liners in Tehran who are equally opposed to a deal.
Of course, the Iranian forces ranged against Rouhani's pragmatism do not need encouragement from Washington. But absent encouragement, they are not in the ascendancy -- and crucially, Rouhani appears to have the backing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei for his diplomatic outreach. Currently, the difference among the three capitals -- Washington, Tehran, and Jerusalem -- is that only in Jerusalem does a representative of the hard-line faction, rather than the pragmatic camp, hold the most senior political office.
If diplomacy survives this initial onslaught and the contours of a deal take shape, Netanyahu will face the choice that he has most wanted to avoid throughout his years in office: to acquiesce to a Western rapprochement with Iran or to stand alone in diplomatic and, presumably, military defiance. The ideologue in Netanyahu will counsel defiance, while the risk-averse politician in him will recommend a climb-down.
If Netanyahu wants a way out from bombing Iran, he could simply declare victory. It would be an easy speech to write: Bibi would declare that it was only Israeli pressure for sanctions and a credible military threat that created the conditions for a nuclear deal with Iran. Even if Netanyahu is wrong on the details regarding sanctions and threats -- they have often hindered, not advanced, progress toward a deal -- the desired result will have been achieved.
Netanyahu is not under Israeli public pressure to strike militarily or reject a deal. His security establishment is divided but wary of going solo, and even his cabinet is split on the issue. And this is why Monday's White House meeting matters so much: While Obama retreated on the Palestinian issue when Netanyahu stared him down -- first on settlements and then on the issue of using the 1967 borders as the basis for a deal -- on Iran they have so far deferred their disagreements. But that option may be reaching its expiration date. The Iran issue is now more urgent, and if progress is to be made on either of the priorities Obama highlighted at the United Nations -- Iran and Israeli-Palestinian peace -- the president will need to become defter at outmaneuvering his Israeli guest.
Netanyahu's calculations and his actions will be affected by clear signals from Washington, Europe, and elsewhere to stop undermining diplomacy, and making the case for the unrivaled benefits of a deal with Iran. After decades spent boxing in Tehran, the interests of global and regional security -- and even of Israel itself -- may now require a short, sharp burst of boxing in Bibi.
On Monday, Sept. 30, U.S. President Barack Obama will welcome Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House for the first time in 18 months. Much has changed in the intervening period -- both leaders have been re-elected, Obama has made his first visit as president to Israel, Israeli-Palestinian peace talks have been relaunched, and that rather pragmatic-sounding Hasan Rouhani chap has been elected president in Iran.
In what might be called an anti-"Asia pivot" speech, Obama announced to the U.N. General Assembly this week that the United States is engaged in the Middle East "for the long haul" and that "in the near term, America's diplomatic efforts will focus on two particular issues: Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and the Arab-Israeli conflict."
That message will be viewed as a mixed bag in Jerusalem, which is keen for a greater American footprint in the region but is less enthusiastic about the idea of peacemaking with the Palestinians and deal-making with the Iranians taking top billing. For that reason, the upcoming White House meeting will likely find the two leaders back on familiar terrain, more focused on testing each other's underlying intentions than on working together as close allies.
The U.S. president is something of an open book, but Netanyahu's approach requires a little more interpretation and context. Too much of that analysis has been consistently wrong, and thankfully so. If prominent Netanyahu watchers had gotten it right, we would be marking the second or third anniversaries of Israeli bombing campaigns against Iran.
Netanyahu is indeed back in threatening mode. His latest rhetorical flourish is to quote Hillel's ancient maxim "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?" -- an upgrade of his previous refrain regarding Israel's "right to defend itself by itself." That language is being widely interpreted by Israeli commentators as a reaffirmation of Israel's willingness to strike Iran alone if Netanyahu's red lines on Iran's nuclear program are deemed to have been crossed.
This debate has taken on a new urgency given the diplomatic opening seemingly created by the election of Rouhani. It is no secret that Netanyahu has been dragged out of his comfort zone by the possibility of a U.S.-Iran rapprochement. Former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's aggressive and insulting behavior made him a convenient adversary for Israel; Rouhani and his diplomatic team, notably polished Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, present a challenge of a very different order of magnitude.
Under these new circumstances, the nagging question for Washington policymakers is whether Netanyahu's tough line on engaging the new Iranian reality is the wise approach of an understandably cautious and concerned Israeli leader, or whether this Israeli pushback is indicative of a more intransigent stance. The pushback has been nothing if not relentless: Netanyahu has called for an intensification of sanctions and military threats, has depicted Iran's new leader as a "wolf in sheep's clothing," and has heaped scorn on the Rosh Hashanah greetings sent to the Jewish world from Iranian leaders' Twitter accounts. The Israeli Embassy in Washington even crafted a fake LinkedIn account for Rouhani, which listed his skills as "weapons of mass destruction" and "illusion."
Sadly, the preponderance of evidence suggests that this is not just about Israel's leader driving a hard but realistic bargain. If Netanyahu's principal concern is really the nuclear file, he should be able to come to terms with the fact that a negotiated outcome offers the best long-term safeguard against Iran developing a nuclear weapon. The most that military strikes could achieve would be a short-term delay of Iran's ability to weaponize its nuclear program -- a decision that Iran has anyway not yet made, according to the consensus among Western intelligence agencies. A strike would also create a greater incentive for Iran to weaponize its nuclear program.
At the moment, however, Netanyahu is signaling that there is no realistic deal that would be acceptable to Israel. For instance, a consensus exists among experts and Western officials that Iran's right to enrich uranium -- in a limited manner and under international supervision -- for its civilian nuclear energy program will be a necessary part of any agreement. Netanyahu rejects this.
If Iran is willing to cut a deal that effectively provides a guarantee against a weaponization of its nuclear program, and that deal is acceptable to the president of the United States of America, why would Netanyahu not take yes for an answer?
The reason lies in Netanyahu's broader view of Israel's place in the region: The Israeli premier simply does not want an Islamic Republic of Iran that is a relatively independent and powerful actor. Israel has gotten used to a degree of regional hegemony and freedom of action -- notably military action -- that is almost unparalleled globally, especially for what is, after all, a rather small power. Israelis are understandably reluctant to give up any of that.
Israel's leadership seeks to maintain the convenient reality of a neighboring region populated by only two types of regimes. The first type is regimes with a degree of dependence on the United States, which necessitates severe limitations on challenging Israel (including diplomatically). The second type is regimes that are considered beyond the pale by the United States and as many other global actors as possible, and therefore unable to do serious damage to Israeli interests.
Israel's leadership would consider the emergence of a third type of regional actor -- one that is not overly deferential to Washington but also is not boycotted, and that even boasts a degree of economic, political, and military weight -- a deeply undesirable development. What's more, this threatens to become a not-uncommon feature of the Middle East: Just look at Turkey under Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, or Egypt before the July 3 coup, or an Iran that gets beyond its nuclear dispute and starts to normalize its relations with the West.
There are other reasons for Netanyahu to oppose any developments that would allow Iran to break free of its isolation and win acceptance as an important regional actor with which the West engages. The current standoff is an extremely useful way of distracting attention from the Palestinian issue, and a diplomatic breakthrough with Iran would likely shine more of a spotlight on Israel's own nuclear weapons capacity. But the key point to understand in interpreting Netanyahu's policy is this: While Obama has put aside changing the nature of the Islamic Republic's political system, Israel's leader is all about a commitment to regime change -- or failing that, regime isolation -- in Tehran. And he will pursue that goal even at the expense of a workable deal on the nuclear file.
Netanyahu's maximalism does not represent a wall-to-wall consensus within the Israeli establishment. There is another Israeli strand of thinking -- notably among retired security elites like former Mossad chiefs Meir Dagan and Efraim Halevy and former Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin -- that holds that the challenges posed by Iran can be managed in different ways at different times. Others inside Israel's establishment acknowledge that the current period of unchallenged hegemony is unsustainable and that adjustments will have to be made. Some understand the efficacy of having an Iran more tied into the international system rather than isolated from it -- a deal on Iran's nuclear program, for instance, could also have its uses in limiting the maneuver room of groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.
But Netanyahu has rejected these positions. The prime minister is nothing if not consistent: He was similarly intractable when the Palestinian leadership and the Arab League put forth pragmatic proposals. While the PLO's leadership accepts Israel's existence, the 1967 lines, and an accommodation on Israeli settlements (including in East Jerusalem) by way of land swaps, Netanyahu has shifted the goal posts -- rejecting the 1967 lines and refusing to take yes for an answer. With the Arab League's "Arab Peace Initiative" offering recognition of Israel and comprehensive peace in exchange for withdrawal from the occupied territories, Netanyahu is again following this pattern of rejectionism.
Netanyahu is a deeply ideological leader with an unshakeable belief in a Greater Israel and regional hegemony. If this reading of him is accurate, it bodes ill for Israel's reaction to the nascent diplomacy between the United States and Iran. In the coming weeks and months, Netanyahu will likely dedicate himself to derailing any prospect for a diplomatic breakthrough.
In that mission he is, of course, not alone. He will be joined by American hawks and neoconservatives, Republicans who will oppose Obama on anything, and some Democrats with a more Israel-centric bent. Their efforts will be concentrated on escalating threats against Iran, increasing sanctions, and raising the bar to an impossibly high place on the terms of a nuclear deal. All this will serve -- intentionally, one has to assume -- to strengthen hard-liners in Tehran who are equally opposed to a deal.
Of course, the Iranian forces ranged against Rouhani's pragmatism do not need encouragement from Washington. But absent encouragement, they are not in the ascendancy -- and crucially, Rouhani appears to have the backing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei for his diplomatic outreach. Currently, the difference among the three capitals -- Washington, Tehran, and Jerusalem -- is that only in Jerusalem does a representative of the hard-line faction, rather than the pragmatic camp, hold the most senior political office.
If diplomacy survives this initial onslaught and the contours of a deal take shape, Netanyahu will face the choice that he has most wanted to avoid throughout his years in office: to acquiesce to a Western rapprochement with Iran or to stand alone in diplomatic and, presumably, military defiance. The ideologue in Netanyahu will counsel defiance, while the risk-averse politician in him will recommend a climb-down.
If Netanyahu wants a way out from bombing Iran, he could simply declare victory. It would be an easy speech to write: Bibi would declare that it was only Israeli pressure for sanctions and a credible military threat that created the conditions for a nuclear deal with Iran. Even if Netanyahu is wrong on the details regarding sanctions and threats -- they have often hindered, not advanced, progress toward a deal -- the desired result will have been achieved.
Netanyahu is not under Israeli public pressure to strike militarily or reject a deal. His security establishment is divided but wary of going solo, and even his cabinet is split on the issue. And this is why Monday's White House meeting matters so much: While Obama retreated on the Palestinian issue when Netanyahu stared him down -- first on settlements and then on the issue of using the 1967 borders as the basis for a deal -- on Iran they have so far deferred their disagreements. But that option may be reaching its expiration date. The Iran issue is now more urgent, and if progress is to be made on either of the priorities Obama highlighted at the United Nations -- Iran and Israeli-Palestinian peace -- the president will need to become defter at outmaneuvering his Israeli guest.
Netanyahu's calculations and his actions will be affected by clear signals from Washington, Europe, and elsewhere to stop undermining diplomacy, and making the case for the unrivaled benefits of a deal with Iran. After decades spent boxing in Tehran, the interests of global and regional security -- and even of Israel itself -- may now require a short, sharp burst of boxing in Bibi.
25 sept 2013
Hamas leader Salah Bardawil strongly criticized a speech delivered by U.S. President Barack Obama on Tuesday before the General Assembly of the United Nations, in which he used the term "Jewish state". Bardawil told Quds Press on Wednesday that U.S. President's remark about the Palestinian cause represents a serious transformation that threatens the fate of the Palestinian cause and a violation of the UN resolutions.
He considered that the term "Jewish state" is very dangerous because it eliminates the right of return of refugees and stressed his movement's rejection of Obama's recent remarks.
He added: "using this term violates the earlier resolutions of the United Nations, which recognizes Israel as a state on 2 conditions; the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes from which they had been displaced, and the respect of the indigenous citizens in their country, which was also a condition of the Balfour Declaration.
The Hamas official stressed on the futility of the negotiations which is continuing in light of U.S. bias for Israel, and called on the Palestinian authority to stop the negotiations and search for a common national strategy to confront the occupation.
Bardawil also asserted that all these plots will never deter or undermine the resistance.
He considered that the term "Jewish state" is very dangerous because it eliminates the right of return of refugees and stressed his movement's rejection of Obama's recent remarks.
He added: "using this term violates the earlier resolutions of the United Nations, which recognizes Israel as a state on 2 conditions; the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes from which they had been displaced, and the respect of the indigenous citizens in their country, which was also a condition of the Balfour Declaration.
The Hamas official stressed on the futility of the negotiations which is continuing in light of U.S. bias for Israel, and called on the Palestinian authority to stop the negotiations and search for a common national strategy to confront the occupation.
Bardawil also asserted that all these plots will never deter or undermine the resistance.
President Barack Obama urged the global community to cast aside old prejudices and take the risks needed to help reach a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians. Two years after Mahmoud Abbas made a powerful plea to the UN General Assembly to grant his people statehood, Obama said the United States remained "determined to resolve a conflict that goes back even further than our differences with Iran."
"The time is now ripe for the entire international community to get behind the pursuit of peace," Obama told this year's UN summit in New York.
"Already, Israeli and Palestinian leaders have demonstrated a willingness to take significant political risks."
The Middle East peace process was relaunched in July ending almost three years of stalemate, after US Secretary of State John Kerry spent months doggedly shuttling back and forth to coax the two sides back to the negotiating table.
With the guidance of newly appointed US special envoy Martin Indyk, Israeli and PLO negotiators have been meeting in private to hammer out some of the thorniest issues standing in the way of a deal to create two states, living side-by-side.
In September 2011, Abbas handed over a formal request for statehood to UN chief Ban Ki-moon, and triggered wild applause as he addressed the General Assembly, vowing that the Palestinians were ready to return to peace talks if Israeli settlement activities cease.
But that move was immediately rejected by Israel and the United States.
Obama, who met with Abbas later Tuesday on the sidelines of the UN gathering, praised Abbas for having now put aside efforts "to short-cut the pursuit of peace and come to the negotiating table."
He also hailed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's release of Palestinian prisoners and said the "current talks are focused on final status issues of borders and security, refugees and Jerusalem."
"Now the rest of us must also be willing to take risks," Obama insisted.
"All of us must recognize that peace will be a powerful tool to defeat extremists, and embolden those who are prepared to build a better future," he said.
"So let us emerge from the familiar corners of blame and prejudice, and support Israeli and Palestinian officials who are prepared to walk the difficult road to peace."
Abbas said during his meeting with Obama that "we have no illusion that peace will be easy" but he stressed it was important not just for Palestinians but the region and the world.
The two men met mostly one-on-one and Obama "encouraged Abbas, as he has Prime Minister Netanyahu, to move quickly in those discussions," a White House official said.
"We have a window of opportunity here with direct negotiations, and the quicker that they get to the hard issues, the greater likelihood there is of success," he added.
Kerry also met with Abbas late Tuesday after first holding separate talks behind closed doors with the chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat.
The top US diplomat has insisted that the nitty-gritty of the negotiations should remain confidential to prevent leaks which could scupper the chances of reaching a deal with suspicion and distrust running high on both sides.
Abbas, who will address the UN on Thursday, also met Tuesday with UN chief Ban. They discussed "the role that the international community could play in support of the Middle East peace process," Ban's office said in a statement.
They also stressed "the vital need for the international community to unite to bolster the fiscal standing of the Palestinian Authority," the statement added.
Kerry's team, in conjunction with the Middle East Quartet, is working on an economic plan to attract $4 billion in private investment to help shore up the Palestinian economy by investing in technology, housing construction and tourism.
"The time is now ripe for the entire international community to get behind the pursuit of peace," Obama told this year's UN summit in New York.
"Already, Israeli and Palestinian leaders have demonstrated a willingness to take significant political risks."
The Middle East peace process was relaunched in July ending almost three years of stalemate, after US Secretary of State John Kerry spent months doggedly shuttling back and forth to coax the two sides back to the negotiating table.
With the guidance of newly appointed US special envoy Martin Indyk, Israeli and PLO negotiators have been meeting in private to hammer out some of the thorniest issues standing in the way of a deal to create two states, living side-by-side.
In September 2011, Abbas handed over a formal request for statehood to UN chief Ban Ki-moon, and triggered wild applause as he addressed the General Assembly, vowing that the Palestinians were ready to return to peace talks if Israeli settlement activities cease.
But that move was immediately rejected by Israel and the United States.
Obama, who met with Abbas later Tuesday on the sidelines of the UN gathering, praised Abbas for having now put aside efforts "to short-cut the pursuit of peace and come to the negotiating table."
He also hailed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's release of Palestinian prisoners and said the "current talks are focused on final status issues of borders and security, refugees and Jerusalem."
"Now the rest of us must also be willing to take risks," Obama insisted.
"All of us must recognize that peace will be a powerful tool to defeat extremists, and embolden those who are prepared to build a better future," he said.
"So let us emerge from the familiar corners of blame and prejudice, and support Israeli and Palestinian officials who are prepared to walk the difficult road to peace."
Abbas said during his meeting with Obama that "we have no illusion that peace will be easy" but he stressed it was important not just for Palestinians but the region and the world.
The two men met mostly one-on-one and Obama "encouraged Abbas, as he has Prime Minister Netanyahu, to move quickly in those discussions," a White House official said.
"We have a window of opportunity here with direct negotiations, and the quicker that they get to the hard issues, the greater likelihood there is of success," he added.
Kerry also met with Abbas late Tuesday after first holding separate talks behind closed doors with the chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat.
The top US diplomat has insisted that the nitty-gritty of the negotiations should remain confidential to prevent leaks which could scupper the chances of reaching a deal with suspicion and distrust running high on both sides.
Abbas, who will address the UN on Thursday, also met Tuesday with UN chief Ban. They discussed "the role that the international community could play in support of the Middle East peace process," Ban's office said in a statement.
They also stressed "the vital need for the international community to unite to bolster the fiscal standing of the Palestinian Authority," the statement added.
Kerry's team, in conjunction with the Middle East Quartet, is working on an economic plan to attract $4 billion in private investment to help shore up the Palestinian economy by investing in technology, housing construction and tourism.