White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said reporters should not read anything into the closed, off-camera meeting between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu scheduled for this evening.
Gibbs said during his daily briefing the 7 p.m. meeting in the Oval Office will focus on
"a full range of issues," including the Middle East peace process.
Reporters asked if the Obama administration was backing down from its push earlier this year that all settlements on the West Bank should be halted. Gibbs insisted the policy was the same.
Obama initially had been scheduled to speak Tuesday to a major meeting of Jewish leaders, which Netanyahu plans to address. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is going in Obama's place.
The president's schedule changed significantly following the tragic shootings at Ft. Hood. Obama will spend most of tomorrow attending the memorial service at the base.
It was already going to be a packed week since Obama departs for a more than week-long trip to Asia. He is now scheduled to leave Thursday.
Two interesting exchanges after the jump.
QUESTION: What is the White House -- well, one thing first, on the meeting with the Israeli prime minister tonight. Why is that closed, you know, no press avail, no statements? What is the thinking there?GIBBS: Well, the president obviously is -- will meet later today with Prime Minister Netanyahu to discuss a full range of issues: Middle East peace.
QUESTION: It seems like he didn't really want to meet with him, this meeting...
(CROSSTALK)
GIBBS: Well, again, as you know, our schedule since late last week has been up in the air. We were -- the president was supposed to speak on Tuesday to the same group that Prime Minister Netanyahu is speaking to. He obviously looks forward to sitting down with the prime minister tonight and continue to work together to address issues like Middle East peace and the threat that's posed by Iran.
QUESTION: OK, last thing on settlements.
Last week, Secretary Clinton was in Israel and suggested she wanted to praise the Israelis for some progress on settlements. And the Palestinians were upset because the U.S. policy has been a complete freeze on settlements.
(CROSSTALK)
GIBBS: Well, a policy dating back several decades, yes.
QUESTION: Right. But specifically, it was emphasized in the early days of this administration, and the Palestinians felt like maybe there was some back-pedaling.
Can you just clear up -- there was a sense that she seemed to be shifting last week.
GIBBS: No, no. Again, I judge from your question, the policy of the United States government for many decades has been no more settlements. That -- that's not something that is new to this administration. It's something that I think has gotten disproportionate media coverage, but it's not a policy difference in this administration and previous administrations.
Late update: Here's MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell questioning the late night meeting.

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

Tamarat
November 9, 2009 3:32 PM
Hope they're not backpedaling -- Netanyahu doesn't deserve any leeway on this at all. In fact, he doesn't deserve much of anything.
I'm Jewish, but I have no patience for the Israeli government.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ethan
November 9, 2009 4:11 PM in reply to Tamarat
I wasn't a fan of Ariel Sharon, but compared to Netanyahu, Sharon was a hero.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
November 9, 2009 4:14 PM
Build on, Israel. The more you do, the more likely you're Jewish-supremacist apartheid state will be replaced with a single-state egalitarian and multicultural democracy, which of course is every good Zionist's worst nightmare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 9, 2009 4:51 PM
What did he say about the Stupak amendment? Didn't it come up? Just kidding, I know it did.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
November 9, 2009 6:30 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Obama on ABC: "This is a health care bill, not an abortion bill."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/abc-news-exclusive-obama-jobs-health-care-ft/story?id=9033559
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 9, 2009 7:52 PM in reply to fbacon2
yet leadership allowed the amendment. You'd think these people would be on the same page.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 9, 2009 7:55 PM in reply to fbacon2
wow. you kinda misrepresented there:
"I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test -- that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women's insurance choices," he said.
that is a non-position
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
November 10, 2009 12:02 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I actually didn't represent anything other than answer the question of what Obama said regarding the Stupid Stupak Amendment.
Now since you asked, what I think this means is that Obama is trying to neutralize the fight and declare a ceasefire over the abortion debate before it consumes the health care bill. Some of the pro-choice Democrats fighting the Stupak amendment were on TV this morning taking Obama's statement as an intervention in their favor. In other words, they're taking 'yes' for an answer and using it.
Did Obama reject and denounce? Nope. It's not in his interest to add fireworks of his own, but the folks in Congress fighting the amendment have enough. That won't necessarily satisfy folks on the Internet, but they haven't really been his constituency or his style for a while.
My .02.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
November 9, 2009 6:28 PM
Christina: We only have 30 seconds of video here, but it looks like Andrea Mitchell isn't really questioning the lateness of the meeting, but rather flat-out interpreting it as a sign the WH is angry about the settlements. Moreover, she starts to kick it over to Jim Baker, quoting Tom Friedman's column, suggesting that Obama is right to be angry.
I'm not saying whether I agree with Mitchell, but it looks like the press definitely wants to interpret the lateness of the meeting as a signal. The WH does not want to characterize it as anything but scheduling chaos in the wake of Ft. Hood. But that's not "questioning" the timing of the meeting.
But while we're at it, if Josh wants to editorialize on his blog that the WH's backpedaling on the settlements issue is bad all around, I'd think yours and the press corps' interpretation of WH distaste with Netanyahu would be a good sign, at least as far as TPM is concerned.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
November 10, 2009 5:32 AM
My hope is that Abu Mazen does dismantle the Palestinian authority. This is the only way the Israelis' political puppets in the US can be forced to recognize that the current arrangement can no longer serve as a mask for the obvious Israeli intention to reduce any future Palestinian "state" to an impotent refugee camp.
The US government is being increasingly exposed as a supremacist energy and power hungry empire bent on securing the resources of the world for its own ends. Sorry about the hyperbole folks, but it's really high time we began to see just how crude a presence in the world we're displaying. Our human rights stance is a laughing stock, as is our so-called respect for the integrity of borders of the other nations of the world, not to mention our obvious disdain for international organizations as a vehicle for arriving at a just and peaceful world. Oh well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?