Ok, let's take a little look at what amounts to the "cynical evasion":
Mr Obama has chosen as his battleground the Jewish settlements on occupied Arab land, all of them illegal under international law. “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements,” the president said. Washington has called for a total freeze, including on the so-called “natural growth” that has enabled the settlements to expand exponentially. Mr Netanyahu, in London and due to see George Mitchell, the president’s special representative, wants to talk economics. This is a cynical evasion.Ok, and now the Oslo balance sheet:
In 1992-96, at the height of the peace process, Israel alone reaped a peace dividend, without having to conclude a peace. Diplomatic recognition of Israel doubled, from 85 to 161 countries, leading to doubled exports and a sixfold increase in foreign investment. During the same period, per capita income in the occupied territories fell by 37 per cent while the number of settlers increased by 50 per cent. Economic development deals in facts; Mr Netanyahu deals in cosmetics.And it's Likud that denounces, renounces and reneges on Oslo. There's just no pleasing the zios but the FT really doesn't like Netanyahu and has a few other goes culminating in this:
In his last administration, Mr Netanyahu turned the drive for peace into pure process: piling up unresolved disputes to be parked in “final status” negotiations he never intended to begin. Under US pressure he has changed tactics – but the aim is exactly the same.So the FT doesn't like Bibi which is why some on the left quite like him or at least prefer him to his predecessors. He's harder for the media to ignore.
But returning to the theme rather than the personality, if Oslo was bad for the Palestinians and anti-Oslo is bad for the Palestinians might the bosses wake up to the fact that the problem is neither Bibi nor Oslo but zionism? Might they? They've certainly come close in this article.