You purged your “US officials optimistic about direct talks” from your website and replaced it by “No agreement on direct Israel-Palestinian talks.” Did it become more truthful & real?
The opening clause reveals that US optimism had been inappropriate.
Then we still read of more US made baseless optimism and lies:
– “We continue to work closely with both sides” – there is only one side obstructing
– “describing the Mitchell-Netanyahu session as “a good, productive meeting”” – there is no production needed there
– “there was no deadlock. “We are very close”” – sure – for 20 years now.
The parties themselves are also (mis)quoted:
– “an Israeli official: no breakthrough” – take it from an expert
– “Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat: “The key is in Netanyahu’s hands,” he told The Associated Press. He said the meeting between Mitchell and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Tuesday was “constructive & very positive.”” – Read this again and again and see how he shamelessly proclaims the opposite of reality, without AP’s any objection.
– “Israel is insisting on talks with no preconditions” – so it’s to blame for failure of talks?
– “The last direct talks ended in late 2008 after a year of negotiations.” – Not true; they ended when Olmert stepped down, many months later.
– “Erekat has said the Palestinians made a counter proposal to the U.S.” – a total fabrication.
– “the more hawkish Netanyahu has taken power.” He is more hawkish, but not than Erekat. He didn’t take power but there were elections that the Loony Left finally lost; he heads an almost national government, a broad coalition, just without the center left Kadima party.
This report is nothing better, with its own twists and lies. We can only conclude – again – that the withdrawal of the previous report must have been aimed at sparing clueless US officials deep embarrassment. AP as the State Department’s poodle.