the headlines across virtually all the Arab papers have the same basic message: Obama backs two-state solution and calls for stopping settlements. That has to be the message which the administration hoped would reach Arab public opinion, and judging by the first round of coverage it did. (His direct mention of the need to address the humanitarian situation in Gaza played well as well.)
[snip]
this generally positive Arab perspective on yesterday’s meeting obviously doesn’t extend to Netanyahu. Coverage of his remarks was scathing, disappointed, and angry — his refusal to mention the two-state solution or to respond on settlements, and his seeming preference for what al-Jazeera labeled Palestinian “self-rule” drew a lot of critical attention.

I see that Israelis are spinning the meeting as showing a strategic convergence on Iran as more important than the disagreements on the Palestinian issue. It’s an especially tough case to make since Obama explicitly rejected the Israeli “sequencing/linkage” argument
[snip]
Overall, the Arab media is highlighting the wide chasm between Obama’s and Netanyahu’s position on Palestinian issues, to Obama’s benefit, and not any supposed convergence on Iran. That will only last until the first serious test, of course — over settlements most likely. His response to that first test will crystallize Arab views of his seriousness and credibility.

Pat Lang is on another of his anti-neocon kicks. Yesterday he was on how the Sally Quinn hit on Jim Jones was an authorized take-down.

Jones stands too close to the president for their taste. They are now engaged in trying to pressure or persuade Obama to eliminating Israel’s Iranian rival’s chance of becoming a competing regional power. They do not want to take the chance that Jones (or Clinton) might oppose that. Therefore…

Since Sally Quinn isn’t usually assigned to the NSC beat, there may be something to that.

Now, today, reacting to Bibi’s visit, he says it must’ve been a bad day for Bibi. He points to the new EastWest report on Iran’s nuclear program that agrees with the NIE timetable, not with Israel’s. [And by the way, unsurprisingly, it also confirms that the proposed European missle defense is worse than useless.] And then Lang continues on the press coverage:

This report was available to Natanyahu yesterday. This was not good news for someone embarked on a campaign to discredit American intelligence analysis of the “Iranian Threat” (something like the “Yellow Peril”). Today, the news of the great Natanyahu/Obama meeting was on page 10 of the Washington Post along with this little gem about the conclusions of a joint US/Russian study.

And then, on the editorial page we have an OPED by John Hannah, the Bush Administration Middle East staff hack (now at WINEP). He is unhappy with the Obama crew’s attitude over Iran. What could be better!

It sounds to me as though things went well at the meeting from the American perspective. Obama gave up nothing over Iran, i.e., we will look at it again by the end of the year. Obama insisted that a two-state solution remains American policy in Palestine.

Look to see the lobby try to stage a US “revolt” against Obama over this. I predict that it won’t work and will just cause more damage to Israel’s position in the U.S. Natanyahu is in the process of destroying the special relationship between Israel and the US. His arrogant belief that the ant can dominate the elephant will do the job.

Now is the time for the Iranians and the Syrians to step forward offering an open hand.

Wishful thinking on Lang’s part. But it’s interesting that the best the neocons could come up with on Hiatt’s Op-Ed page today was a tired Hannah, even with the list of press meetings Bibi had.

Fromkin has a superb links round-up on press coverage and reactions to the O-Bibi meeting. Fromkin’s focus is on an emerging “grand regional plan” that O was reportedly peddling, and which he wants to present in Cairo. Wonder how much push-back Bibi will stagemanage via the pressniks he’s meeting with in DC.

As David Bromwich noted on HuffPost, the NYT sent its political reporter and her piece, which claimed somewhat misleadingly that O had announced a new timetable for Iran, neglected all the other aspects of the meeting which were more newsworthy.

Jim Lobe, however, didn’t make that mistake. He meticulously dissects the various signals coming out of the meeting. And he adds this little bit of scuttlebut.

The appearance of the two leaders before reporters followed a lengthy private meeting which reportedly lasted a full hour longer than anticipated, an indication, according to retired US ambassador to Israel Samuel Lewis, that they failed to agree to on key issues. In addition, the two sides also failed to issue a joint statement summarizing the talks, another indication of disagreement, according to Lewis.

Not so very good day for Bibi, indeed?

Ignatius just had the most inane op-ed in the Oregonian today, extolling Panetta’s brilliant take-down of Nancy Pelosi, based on the “careful” documentation of the torture briefings, dating back to 9/4/02. Guess reading between the lines isn’t a forte of his.

Can’t wait to let him have it, or to see him squirm out of this when he realizes that the Briefings Summary was complete CYA garbage.