Video and Transcript: Netanyahu on US TV "Meet the Press" (21 June)

On Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared for 13 minutes on US television, speaking to NBC's "Meet the Press". However, it is a remarkably tangential interview, with host David Gregory spending 12 1/2 minutes on Iran and 1/2 minute on Palestine. Given that the Obama Administration has made clear that Palestine and not Iran is the priority when it comes to US-Israeli relations, and given that issues on the next step with Iran are in suspension while the political crisis continues, Gregory's interview was as useful as chat about the weather, baseball, or the Man in the Moon:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

DAVID GREGORY: We want to go live now to Jerusalem and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Prime Minister, welcome.

MR. BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Thank you. Good to be with you.

MR. GREGORY: This is an unfolding story that we've been seeing all week long. The images from the streets are disturbing, you have a violent crackdown under way in Iran. What does your intelligence in Israel tell you about the weakness, the nature of the Iranian regime today?

MR. NETANYAHU: Well, it's not my intelligence, but my common sense and the traditional sense. Obviously, you see a regime that represses its own people and spreads terror far and wide. It is a, a regime whose real nature has been unmasked, and it's been unmasked by incredible acts of courage by Iran's citizens. They, they go into the streets, they face bullets. And I tell you, as somebody who believes deeply in democracy, that you see the Iranian lack of democracy at work. And I think this better explains and best explains to the entire world what this regime is truly about.

MR. GREGORY: I ask about your intelligence services as well in terms of what hard information you have about what's going on inside the regime.

MR. NETANYAHU: I don't know if anyone really knows, and I cannot tell you how this thing will end up. I think something very deep, very fundamental is going on, and there's an expression of a deep desire amid the people of Iran for freedom, certainly for greater freedom. But perhaps the word is a simple one, freedom. This is what is going on. You don't need all the intelligence apparatus that modern states have to see something when it faces you right away. It, it's facing you in--it's staring us in the face, there's no question about that.

MR. GREGORY: You know there's been quite a debate here in the United States and really around the world about what President Obama should do and should say at a moment like this. He has said over the weekend that these are unjust actions, that the whole world is watching, that Iran should not violently crack down on its people. Has he said and done enough, do you think?

MR. NETANYAHU: I'm not going to second-guess the president of the United States. I know President Obama wants the people of Iran to be free. He said as much in his seminal speech in Cairo before the Muslim world. I've spoken to him a number of times on this subject, there's no question we'd all like to see a different, a different Iran with different policies. Remember, this is a regime that not only represses its own people--Sakharov said, Andrei Sakharov, the great Russian scientist and humanist, said that a regime that oppresses its own people sooner or later will oppress its neighbors. And certainly Iran has been doing that. It's been calling for the, the denial of the Holocaust. It's threatening to wipe Israel off the map. It's pursuing nuclear weapons. To that effect it's sponsoring terror against us, but throughout the world. So I think what everybody would like to see is a change in policy, and the change of policy is both outside and inside.

MR. GREGORY: But does the United States have a unique role to play here in continuing to support this freedom movement, as you call it, in Iran; an obligation to support the protestors, to really give them moral support at the very least?

MR. NETANYAHU: I think it's clear that the United States, the people of the United States, the president of the United States, free people everywhere, decent people everywhere are amazed at the, at the, at the desire of the people there to--and their willingness to stand up for their rights. I cannot, as I said, tell you what is going to happen. I'll tell you what I would do, what we all would do in the face of demonstrations. There is--as we speak, David, there's a demonstration right now outside my window, outside my office. Well, democracies act differently. They don't send armed agents of the regime to brutally mow down the demonstrators. I'll tell you what I did. I called in these demonstrators, they happen to be representatives of a non-Jewish minority in Israel, the Druze community, they have certain, certain protests about the financing of their municipalities. I called their leaders in.

MR. GREGORY: Hm.

MR. NETANYAHU: I talked to them. I said, "How can I help you?" That's what democratic leaders do, that's what democratic countries do.

MR. GREGORY: Let me, let...

MR. NETANYAHU: We've had thousands, hundreds of thousands demonstrate in Israel right and left, but that's how we behave, that's how you behave, and I have no doubt that everyone in the world is sympathetic to the desire of the Iranian people for freedom.

MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you about the nature of the Iranian threat. Mohamed ElBaradei, who, as you know, runs the International Atomic Energy Agency, said in an interview with the BBC on Wednesday the following: "The ultimate aim of Iran," he said, "as I understand it, is they want to be recognized as a major power in the Middle East. [Increasing their nuclear capability] is to them the road to get that recognition, to get that power and prestige. It is also an insurance policy against what they have heard in the past about regime change." My question, Prime Minister, what does all that's happening on the streets of Iran do, in your estimation, to the nature of the threat from Iran? Is this a game changer in some way?

MR. NETANYAHU: First of all, I, I don't subscribe to the view that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons is a status symbol. It's not. These are people who are sending thousands and thousands of missiles to their terrorist proxies Hezbollah and Hamas with the specific instruction to bomb civilians in Israel. They're supporting terrorists in the world. This is not a status symbol. To have such a regime acquire nuclear weapons is to risk the fact that they might give it to terrorists or give terrorists a nuclear umbrella. That is a departure in the security of the Middle East and the world, certainly in the security of my country, and so I wouldn't treat the subject so lightly. Would a regime change be a game changer? A policy change would be a game changer.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MR. NETANYAHU: I suppose that goes along with--it's not just personnel that is, that is involved here.

MR. GREGORY: But what--but we may not have regime change here.

MR. NETANYAHU: It's policy.

MR. GREGORY: You may not have regime change if--even if there's not, is everything that's happened on the street, does it make Iran more or less likely to engage with the West over its nuclear program?

MR. NETANYAHU: I don't know. I think it's too early to say what'll transpire both in Iran and is--and on the international scene. As I said, I think something fundamental is taking place here. But I did speak to President Obama about the question of engagement before this happened, and he made it clear that engagement is not an end in itself, it's a means to an end. And the end has to be to prevent this regime from developing nuclear weapons capability, and he said he'd leave all options on the table. And I'd say if it was right before these demonstrations, well, it's doubly right now.

MR. GREGORY: Prime Minister, there's always been debate about whether, when it comes to the threat of a nuclear Iran, whether there's a Washington clock and a Jerusalem clock. And let me show you a book by David Sanger of The New York Times that he wrote called "The Inheritance: The World Obama Confronts and the Challenges to American Power." And in the course of his reporting for that book, he wrote this about Israel's plans: "Early in 2008, the Israeli government signaled that it might be preparing to take matters into its own hands." This is about Iran. "In a series of meetings, Israeli officials asked Washington for a new generation of powerful bunker-busters, far more capable of blowing up a deep underground plant than anything in Israel's arsenal of conventional weapons. They asked for refueling equipment that would allow their aircraft to reach Iran and return to Israel. And they asked for the right to fly over Iraq." My question, if there is not tangible progress toward defanging Iran as a potential nuclear power by the end of the year, do you, as a leader of Israel, go back to that planning that Israel had under way in 2008 against Iran?

MR. NETANYAHU: I can't confirm those assertions. I can say that Israel shares with the United States and with many, many countries--let me tell you, David, I think we shared with just about all the governments in the Middle East, I've talked to many of the leading European heads of governments and many others; we all don't want to see this regime acquire nuclear weapons, this regime that supports terrorists and calls for the annihilation of Israel and for the domination of the Middle East and beyond. I think this would be something that would endanger the peace of the world, not just the--my own country's security and the stability of the Middle East. It would spawn, for one thing, a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Everybody understands that. So the Middle East could become a nuclear tinderbox.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

MR. NETANYAHU: And that is something that is very--a very, very grave development.

MR. GREGORY: And there...

MR. NETANYAHU: I think stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons capability is not merely an interest of Israel. As I think the current, recent events--the current events now demonstrate, this is something of deep interest for all people who want peace and seek peace throughout the world.

MR. GREGORY: If the international community proves unable to stop Iran, is it your view that Israel will have to?

MR. NETANYAHU: It's my view that there's an American commitment to make sure that that doesn't happen, and I think I'd leave it at that.

MR. GREGORY: Right. But there is a precedent here. Israel, in 1981, took out a nuclear reactor in Iraq. Israel, in 2007, took out a nuclear reactor in Syria. There is precedent and a proclivity for Israel to take unilateral action if it deems it necessary for its security. That could be the case with regard to Iran, no?

MR. NETANYAHU: Well, I don't think I have to add to anything that I've said. We're--the Jewish people have been one of the oldest nations in the world. We've been around for 3500 years. We are threatened as no other people has been threatened. We've suffered pogroms, exiles, massacres and the greatest massacre of them all, the Holocaust. So obviously, Israel always reserves the right to defend itself.

MR. GREGORY: You have said--you said it to Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic magazine, talking about Iran, that it was a messianic and apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. The Obama administration argues that for the past eight years under President Bush there has been a hard line, calling it part of the axis of evil, and where has that hard line gotten America? Only emboldening Iran over that period of time. Is your hard line--is the U.S. hard line over the past eight years the wrong strategy to get Iran to change its behavior?

MR. NETANYAHU: I think that the, the president spoke to me quite explicitly about the great threat that Iran's development of nuclear weapons capability poses to the United States. I saw, in fact, a continuity, in that sense, of an assessment of the threat. But of course, as you say, the clock is ticking. The Iranian nuclear program is advancing. And so the, the problem that now faces the entire world is to, is to ask themselves a simple question: Can we allow this brutal regime that sees no inhibitions in how it treats its own citizens and its purported enemies abroad, can we allow such a regime to acquire nuclear weapons? And the answer that we hear from far and wide is no.

MR. GREGORY: Prime Minister, just about 20 seconds here before you go. There is concern within the Obama administration that as a political matter it may be difficult for you to survive and pursue peace with the Palestinians. Do you share that concern?

MR. NETANYAHU: Absolutely not. I, I gave a speech in which I gave out the winning formula for peace, which is a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes Israel as the state of the Jewish people. And these two elements of recognition of Israel as a state of the Jewish people and a demilitarized Palestinian state I think is something that all people who want peace should unite around. And I have to tell you, since giving that speech I've been delighted and heartened by the fantastic support across the Israeli political spectrum, really cutting across the political parties and political views. And I think that's very important, because people understand it's inherently fear. What I'm suggesting is that if we're asked to recognize the Palestinian state as the nation-state of the Palestinian people, then the Palestinians should recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, who've been deprived of a land of their own and of security for so long.

MR. GREGORY: All right. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, thanks so much for your time this morning.

MR. NETANYAHU: Thank you.

The Message from the Israeli Public: 'No Concessions!'

According to a Jerusalem Post-sponsored Smith Research poll, most Israelis view outposts and settlements in the West Bank far differently than they are seen by the US Government. The outcome is a negative shift in their opinion of the Obama Administration.

Concerning the Policies of the Obama Administration:

The poll was conducted of 500 Israelis after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech on Sunday. Fifty percent considered the Obama Administration's policies more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israel, 36 percent stated that the Adminstration was neutral, while the rest did not give an opinion.

This was a marked shift from a poll conducted on May 17, on the eve of the meeting between Netanyahu and Obama. Then, 31 percent thought that US policies were pro-Israel whereas 14 percent considered them as anti-Israel and 40 percent labeled the policies of the US neutral. And, in the last months of the Bush Administration, 88 percent stated that the US policies were pro-Israel, whereas 7 percent said that Bush was neutral and 2 percent labeled him pro-Palestinian.

Concerning the Palestinian Policy of Benjamin Netanyahu:

On Benjamin Netanyahu's vision of a demilitarized Palestinian state, 70 percent affirmed their Prime Minister's policy and 27 percent opposed.

Concerning Illegal Outposts and Settlements:

The removal of illegal settlements and outpostsi was favoured by 57 perecent while 38 percent were against. More than half (52 percent) also favoured freezing far-flung settlements vs. 42 percent was against. However, on the large settlements like Gush Etzion, Ma'aleh Adumim, and Ariel, only 27 percent favoured freezing construction with 69 percent opposing.

Video and Transcript: Clinton and Israel's Lieberman on Settlements and Iran

Related Post: Iran after the Elections - Confession, Accusation and Warning from Israel

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED

On Wednesday, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and his US colleague, Hillary Clinton, met in Washington. The main subjects for discussion were the peace process in the Middle East, with particular attention to the American demand for a freeze on expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and the Iranian elections.



Speaking to the press after the meeting, Clinton began by underlining the special relationship between Israel and the US. This, however, was only a prelude to more substantive differences with both Clinton and Lieberman being "clear" about their positions. The Israeli Foreign Minister said:

We cannot accept this vision about absolutely completely freezing call for our settlements. I think that we must keep the natural growth. The Prime Minister spoke about this in his speech. I think that this position, it’s – this view, this approach, it’s very clear.

Clinton was more measured, even cautious, in her statement but --- between the words --- calling for a shift in Israeli position:

Well, I think if one looks at Israeli history, there have been prime ministers going back to the beginning of Israelis’ statehood that have staked out positions which have changed over time. I personally have known such prime ministers from Labor, Likud and Kadima, who started in one place, but in the process of evaluating what was in the best interests of Israel, and that has to be the primary obligation of any leader of Israel: What is in the best interests of my people and the future of my state?

And these prime ministers have moved to positions that they never would have thought they could have advocated before they started looking hard and thinking hard about what the future should be. But that’s what negotiations are for.

While the US has yet to convince Israel on the settlements issue, Clinton did indicate that Washington had succeeded in another important area: keeping Iran in the background, rather than at the forefront, of US-Israel discussions.  Speaking about the current crisis over the Presidential election, she re-emphasized that the United States would not interfere in the internal affairs of Iran while maintaining the openness of the Obama Administration to engagement with the next Iranian Government, whoever was in charge.

TRANSCRIPT

SECRETARY CLINTON: Good afternoon. It is my pleasure to welcome Foreign Minister Lieberman to the State Department today for his first official visit to Washington in his new role. Minister Lieberman’s visit gave me the opportunity to reaffirm the United States deep, unshakable friendship and bond with Israel. Our commitment to Israel’s security is and will remain a cornerstone of our foreign policy, and I was pleased to have this chance to express that personally to the foreign minister. The United States has no greater ally in the Middle East and no greater friend than Israel.

Because our countries are close friends, we spoke honestly and openly about a range of issues. And we are looking forward to continuing that dialogue in the U.S.-Israel strategic dialogue, which has provided a useful forum for discussion of shared concerns and challenges over recent years. We exchanged views on the Middle East, including Iran, and reiterated the need for Iran’s leaders to comply with obligations to the United Nations Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency to suspend enrichment-related and reprocessing activities. And we look forward to Iran’s response to our offers of engagement.

And of course, we also focused on efforts to bring about a comprehensive peace between Israel and her neighbors in the region. Israel’s right to exist in peace and security is undeniable and non-negotiable. Both Israelis and Palestinians deserve to live in peace and security in two states that will entail both parties fulfilling their obligations under the Roadmap.

Building on the Arab Peace Initiative, Arab states must do their part to support the Palestinian people as they develop the institutions that will sustain their state. And they must recognize Israel’s legitimacy and, in doing so, choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

The United States will never do anything to undermine Israel’s security, and the United States also supports a viable Palestinian state. We do not believe that these two objectives are incompatible. In fact, we believe they are both critical elements of a comprehensive and secure peace.

Minister Lieberman, I hope that you enjoy your first visit to the United States as your country’s foreign minister, and I look forward to continuing our conversation and working with you more on these issues in the future.

FOREIGN MINISTER LIEBERMAN: Madame Secretary, at the outset, I would like to say to you how much the people and the Government of Israel appreciate your consistent support of Israel. We value your friendship greatly. We remember the many contributions you have made personally, even before you became a United States senator from New York. We thank you, Your Excellency, for your longstanding commitment to Israel and to strengthening the American-Israeli special relationship and friendship.

I think that we have had a good discussion today covering a broad spectrum of regional and global issues. We also covered a wide range of important bilateral topics. Madame Secretary, I thank you for your very kind hospitality today, and I look forward to our future friendly dialogue, both in Washington and in Jerusalem. Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.

MR. KELLY: Our first question goes to Lachlan Carmichael.

QUESTION: Yes, Minister --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Here comes the microphone, Lachlan.

QUESTION: Minister Lieberman, first, Ambassador Oren, the new ambassador to Washington, is talking about some interesting proposals on settlements. Could you elaborate on what they might be? And then for Secretary Clinton, does that mean there is some wiggle room to your statement that there should be no such settlement activity?

And finally, for both of you, did you discuss previous President George Bush’s letters, private letters to the Israeli Government? Is that issue over with?

FOREIGN MINISTER LIEBERMAN: Thank you. It’s a long question. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: It’s actually three questions.

FOREIGN MINISTER LIEBERMAN: Three questions, yeah. First of all, we really don’t have any intention to change the demographic balance in Judea and Samaria. But we think that, you know, as – in every place around the world, baby are born (inaudible), people get married, some pass away. And we cannot accept – we cannot accept this vision about absolutely completely freezing call for our settlements. I think that we must keep the natural growth. Prime minister spoke about this in his speech. I think that this position, it’s – this view, this approach, it’s very clear.

And also, we had some understandings with the previous administration and we tried to keep this direction. And we are, of course, ready for immediately direct talks with the Palestinians.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, as President Obama, Senator Mitchell and I have said, we want to see a stop to the settlements. We think that is an important and essential part of pursuing the efforts leading to a comprehensive peace agreement and the creation of a Palestinian state next to a Israeli-Jewish state that is secure in its borders and future. We believe that this process which Senator Mitchell is quarterbacking for us has just begun. There are a number of critical concerns, many of which overlap in their impact and significance, that will be explored in the coming weeks as Senator Mitchell engages more deeply into the specifics as to where the Israelis and the Palestinians are willing to go together.

I think that the whole issue that you’ve raised is one that we’ve expressed our opinion on. And in looking at the history of the Bush Administration, there were no informal or oral enforceable agreements. That has been verified by the official record of the Administration and by the personnel in the positions of responsibility. Our former ambassador Dan Kurtzer has written an op-ed that appeared in the last few days that lays out our position on that.

MR. KELLY: Our next question, Israeli television, Channel 2.

QUESTION: Thank you. Madame Secretary, I’m interested to know, how do you envision any progress, any chance for achievement of progress on the Israeli-Palestinian track when the Israeli prime minister and the foreign minister have put so many conditions on the existing of a Palestinian state, conditions that are all – all-out refused by their Arab neighbors, including the Palestinians? And when you hear that the Israeli – current Israeli Government refuses totally to talk about your demand of freezing the settlement activity, how do you envision a progress on that track?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think if one looks at Israeli history, there have been prime ministers going back to the beginning of Israelis’ statehood that have staked out positions which have changed over time. I personally have known such prime ministers from Labor, Likud and Kadima, who started in one place, but in the process of evaluating what was in the best interests of Israel, and that has to be the primary obligation of any leader of Israel: What is in the best interests of my people and the future of my state?

And these prime ministers have moved to positions that they never would have thought they could have advocated before they started looking hard and thinking hard about what the future should be. But that’s what negotiations are for.

QUESTION: Do you hold out that Netanyahu and Lieberman will follow through (inaudible)?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I leave that to them to decide. I’m just reflecting on history and on people who have been in these positions over the last 30, 40 years. And there has been an evolution in thought. And I thought Prime Minister Netanyahu, in recognizing the aspirations of the Palestinians for a state of their own in his speech on Sunday night, said something that many people were waiting to hear him say.

MR. KELLY: Next question, Charlie Wolfson from CBS News.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, on Iran, and also for the foreign minister. The Iranians have protested U.S. actions through the Swiss ambassador today. Could you bring us up to date on those protests? And there have also been criticisms or reports of criticisms about U.S. interference in Iranian affairs because of the call to Twitter, if you could comment on that.

And for the foreign minister, does the outcome of the Iranian election change Israel’s position in any way, and were your discussions today – did they touch on that, and any actions you asked the Administration to do?

SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s four questions for the foreign minister. (Laughter.) We have very creative reporters on both sides here. (Laughter.)

The United States believes passionately and strongly in the basic principle of free expression. We believe that it is a fundamental human right for people to be able to communicate, to express their opinions, to take positions. And this is a view that goes back to the founding of our country, and we stand firmly behind it.

And therefore, we promote the right of free expression. And it is the case that one of the means of expression, the use of Twitter, is a very important one not only to the Iranian people, but now increasingly to people around the world, and most particularly young people. I wouldn’t know a Twitter from a tweeter – (laughter) – but apparently, it is very important. And I think keeping that line of communications open and enabling people to share information, particularly at a time when there was not many other sources of information, is an important expression of the right to speak out and to be able to organize that we value.

FOREIGN MINISTER LIEBERMAN: Thank you. As somebody said before you, we support evolution, not a revolution, and we never interfered in any internal affairs of the different countries. And what it’s important for us, not the personal creation, but the creation of policy. And what we saw during this elections, it was only one point that every candidates were united: its achieving, quote, nuclear capability; and maybe the other point, the hatred to Israel. What it’s important for us, it’s real – not the domestic problems of Iran, but their policy. And we hope that they will change their policy.

MR. KELLY: Last question for Channel One, Israel Television.

QUESTION: Thank you. Madame Secretary, given the latest unrest in Iran and the very brutal way the regime there is moving to quash these protests, does the Administration still believe there is room to engage diplomatically with Iran? And are you concerned that such engagement might embolden actually Ahmadinejad and his regime?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first let me say that the people of Iran deserve the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted. The outcome of any election should reflect the will of the people. And it is for the Iranians to determine how they resolve this internal protest concerning the outcome of the recent election. But it is a fundamental value that the United States holds with respect to free and fair and credible elections.

With regard to engagement, obviously we intend to pursue engagement because we think it’s in the interests of the United States and the world community to discuss with the Iranian Government important matters such as the one Minister Lieberman raised concerning their intentions for their nuclear program, their support of terrorism, their interference with the affairs of their neighbors and other states.

So yes, we think there is much to talk about. And I would think it’s a useful exercise to look back on history and to see where countries, most particularly my own, have engaged in ongoing diplomatic discussions with countries whose regimes we’ve disapproved of, that we rejected. We never stopped negotiating with the former Soviet Union. They invaded countries. They promoted unrest. But we knew we had an opportunity to learn more, to discuss fully, and perhaps to reach better understandings than we might have in the absence of such engagement, so we pursued it.

We are doing this out of what we view as our interest and the interests of friends and allies such as Israel. So now we are obviously waiting to see the outcome of the internal Iranian processes, but our intent is to pursue whatever opportunities might exist in the future with Iran to discuss these matters.

Thank you all.

Video: Netanyahu on US Television (NBC "Today" Programme - 15 June)

Related Post: Israel-Palestine - Netanyahu’s Two-State Magical Sidestep
Transcript: Netanyahu Speech on Israel-Palestine (14 June)

Following up his speech on Israel-Palestine yesterday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared on the US morning television programme "Today" on Monday:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Israel-Palestine: Netanyahu's Two-State Magical Sidestep

NEW Video: Netanyahu on US Television (NBC “Today” Programme – 15 June)
Transcript: Netanyahu Speech on Israel-Palestine (14 June)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a master politician, but as he walked to the podium at Bar Ilan University yesterday, he faced a magician's challenge: how could he ever wish away the headline US pressure on his Cabinet to start a meaningful Israel-Palestine peace process by halting the expansion of Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank?

No problem for Bibi: he did it with a wave of the hand: "The territory under Palestinian control must be demilitarized with ironclad security provisions for Israel." With that single sentence, the Prime Minister not only escaped from Washington's chains; he draped them around the shoulders of the Palestinian Authority.

The international media, primed in advance by the Prime Minister's office, rushed to declare that Benjamin Netanyahu, for the first time, had recognised a Palestinian state. Netanyahu's three references to that "state", however, were either far from positive or laden with conditions: "There is a real danger that an armed Palestinian state would emerge that would become another terrorist base against the Jewish state"; "It is impossible to expect us to agree in advance to the principle of a Palestinian state without assurances that this state will be demilitarized"; and, most importantly:

If we receive this guarantee regarding demilitarization and Israel’s security needs, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the State of the Jewish people, then we will be ready in a future peace agreement to reach a solution where a demilitarized Palestinian state exists alongside the Jewish state.

This was a political manoeuvre (I'll shy away from a reference to a magician's trick) of the highest order. Netanyahu ensured that he got the immediate endorsement of the White House without giving any ground.

For the immediate effect is to turn pressure onto the Palestinian Authority. Under Netanyahu's formula, Mahmoud Abbas and his advisors will have to not only repeat their recognition of Israel, given to the US-UN-European Union-Russia Quartet, but also declare in advance that they will not have any armed forces beyond local police. They will have to renounce the Palestinian "right to return" to lands owned in Israel before 1948.

While putting conditions on his Palestinian counterparts, Netanyahu is trying to make the condition set on Israel by US disappear. He began with the apparent concession, "We have no intention of building new settlements or of expropriating additional land for existing settlements," while at the same time trying to lock in construction which has already occurred or been authorised by the Israeli Government:

There is a need to enable the residents to live normal lives, to allow mothers and fathers to raise their children like families elsewhere. The settlers are neither the enemies of the people nor the enemies of peace. Rather, they are an integral part of our people, a principled, pioneering and Zionist public.

Far from incidentally, the Israeli Prime Minister also drew the line against any political recognition of Hamas, a possibility opened up in President Obama's Cairo speech. He did so far from subtly: "Above all else, the Palestinians must decide between the path of peace and the path of Hamas." Even more importantly for his strategy, Netanyahu used the Hamas menace to reinforce his demands on the Palestinian Authority: "Without [demilitarization], sooner or later, these territories will become another Hamastan."

Of course, Netanyahu's success may only be short-term. This morning, the initial headlines have of his "two-state" declaration have been offset by stories of the Palestinian rejection of his speech. And there are signs that Obama officials may have recognised their endorsement was given too quickly, in light of Netanyahu's conditions and his rejection of their condition to resolve the settlements issue.

For the moment, however, the Israeli Prime Minister has given himself a bit of breathing space. The US had hoped to follow the Cairo speech with diplomatic advances through envoy George Mitchell's talks in Tel Aviv, Ramallah, and Damascus. Netanyahu's manoeuvres, with his staff publicly denouncing Washington's approach before the promise of a speech after Mitchell's departure, and (height of ironies) the sudden attention given to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "victory" in Iran has blocked those American hopes.

Netanyahu's magic? At the same time that he supposedly accepted the "two-state" peace process, his carefully-framed speech --- for the moment --- made it disappear.