Did Netanyahu say he wanted no two-state solution, or that there was none available? There's a difference between goal and observation of the current state of affairs. I want there to be a two-state solution; I see no two-state solution possible. These are not mutually contradictory statements.
Yes, Netanyahu actively supports expansion of settlements. On the other hand, he actively opposes the expansion of settlements. Both of those sentences are true, both of the sentences are ambiguous to the point of being misleading. They are not mutually contradictory statements except under certain readings, and those readings aren't mandatory. That's what happens when you couch meaning in English sentences using bare plural nouns. A listener will acknowledge the ambiguity or not; if he does, he'll resolve it in a way that he finds acceptable. If there's ill will, that acceptable way will be to the other side's injury, if possible, because it's seldom acceptable to make excuses for your foes and always acceptable to vilify them. We're human; that's how our emotions and group solidarity drive us.
There are settlements whose expansion he opposes; there are settlements the expansion of which he approves. Those he approves, the majority of the expansions, are in those close to the Israeli border and which are included in proposed land swaps likely to be implemented under any reasonable compromise; moreover, some of the expansion is just the natural growth, a family adding another living unit to where they already live. These typically consolidate and move the borders of the settlements closer to the Green Line, and include land included in the most common land-swap proposals. Some expansions are approved from political necessity, backed by some important political backers as a condition for their support. I can accept the former; not the latter, because I think a land-swap is almost required, however hard it may be for the side that insists on "ni shagu nazad", "not a single step back" (Stalin's order concerning Stalingrad). Those he disapproves of are typically more isolated and their continuation is an embarrassment at present, a security complication, and a long-term problem for any political solution, because any land-swap to include those settlements would be unreasonable to the point of impossibility and dismantling the settlements as Israeli did in Gaza was a political JDAM. Many of the settlement expansions or even new settlements he opposes had not been approved, and for some approval hadn't been sought, so it's also a direct challenge to any Israeli government's authority. In other words, ambiguity here is the enemy of agreeing on the truth found in the details. Ambiguity can be a first good attempt at getting to an overall consensus when confronted with a thousand different variable, but at the risk of having the consensus disintegrate when the thick layer of ambiguity is removed so the details become visible. Sound familiar? Over and over agreements and such hit the reefs of nasty little facts that the ambiguity masked. Ambiguity is a three-edged sword: It hurts both parties and the truth. Continuity to insist on ambiguity is short-term, self-serving insanity. The truth may not advance the cause, but it's not like it's obviously hurt it.
If you have two alternative realities going into a meeting you're simply not going to get a solution. After establishing some good will, the first thing is to get everybody on the same page with the same set of facts. Calling falsehood "falsehood" can be a good way of getting there, but isn't always the best way. Now, doing it in private is far, far better than doing it in public. There's no long-term upside to calling falsehood "truth"; at the best it's flattery that can serve a short-term purpose. It's been 50 years, not how I usually define "short-term." We talk about speaking truth to power; it doesn't matter to whom you speak, it should be truth, so that "speaking truth to weakness" is also appropriate, as is "speaking truth to equals." If we speak truth to power and lies to the oppressed, it's rather worse than being silent in the face of power; the latter is a failing of omission, the former is actively misleading people. Bad, even if it's "for the greater good." (I'm firmly in the "the ends don't justify the means" camp, with caveats: slight bending of the truth, short-term, can help get to "yes", at the risk of triggering a complete breakdown.)
Of course, even once you agree on the facts there can be good reasons for no possible compromise. Perhaps the Palestinian compromise would result in revolution or war by other Arab powers struck by a fellow Arab nation's betrayal; perhaps the Israeli compromise would result in de facto genocide or widespread internal intifada or ethnic cleansing to ensure an Arabenrein country. Or maybe some outcome less fantastical than these but still sufficiently unpleasant. However, in the I/P conflict, it's unclear whether the actual possible solutions or compromises are so dire. At worst, from where I sit, it would cause individuals to lose power, meaning that one truth that needs to be said is that a leader, as opposed to a despot, first considers his people. It might trigger some local unrest, but nothing unmanageable even in disorder-averse societies. If the right decision results in the loss of power for an individual or even a party, then it's still the right decision. Special interests shouldn't dictate the solution, in this case "special interests" might be a select group of leaders or the access of a political party to majority status in the government.
"Talking" to your enemies isn't anything like a final goal. It's an initial goal. There have been talks for decades.
It's also very much worth pointing out the difference between open, blunt conversation in private and having the same conversation made public. What's appropriate in the two situations is radically different. There's a difference between asking your secretary to fellate you during a BOD meeting versus during a weekend tryst, or saying that your boss is an asshole while talking to your spouse Friday at 10 pm at home in bed versus talking to her on the phone while in a meeting with your boss. Lies bad, but not every truth needs to be said at every juncture.
The fall-out from the private conversation, if as reported, is entirely Trump's. It might have been good, not bad. I honestly can't know and am confident nobody here can, either. The assumption, that nobody's ever spoken the truth to the Palestinian's before, is pathetic to the point of being risible--both the idea that neither Clinton, Bush II, nor Obama had the balls to say this in the face of flagrant lying or that we assume that these three presidents were all castrati.
Strictly speaking, I have no idea either way if one or all three of those presidents actually spoke to the truth to Abbas. I can't know. Nobody at the meeting decided to make himself into a liar by breaking his (or her) confidentiality agreement, while qualifying himself for immediate dismissal and committing a felony. I know that as a mere citizen I'm not entitled to know everything the government knows. That includes a lot of one-on-one meetings between Trump and Abbas (or Obama and Abbas), personnel decision, as well as my neighbor's social security number, gross annual income and his deductions. In fact, most of what the government knows I'd rather be kept secret. Even if I distrust Trump. In this case, if he said something that disrupts peace negotiations he's just screwed up in 3 months where Obama and Bush II failed to achieve meaningful results in 8 years each--either way, no result, and for them I had much higher hopes. The only reason to get upset at Trump over this is because I like getting upset; I don't like getting upset, it triggers unpleasant atrial flutter, which in turn causes me to fall down if I stand up too fast and generally wonder if my heart is going to make it to dinner.
The fall-out from the publicizing of the private conservation is the leaker's. I don't see how it could be good, and I see the leaker's contribution as 99% of the fall-out, esp. given the extent to which public, external honor plays a role in some of the cultures involved. Dissing somebody in private is different from dissing that same person in front of 100 people for whom that person bears their honor, as well. I also don't know what to make of the leak: Was it to embarrass Trump, derail the I/P negotiations and make Israel look good (or make Abbas look victimized)? Was it to let the leaker's friends, in a culture in which oath-breaking is prestigious, know that he, too, has the balls to commit a felony and divulge confidential information for jollies? Or was the leak there to further disrupt American foreign policy--now we piss off the Israelis by having a leaker not just point out intelligence was shared but by having another leaker tell the Russians through the WaPo that it was Israeli intelligence they were given? Then we piss off the British by having confidential Manchester-related information splashed around in the NYT. Now we return to pissing off the Israelis. You'd almost think that the leakers had in common a desire to isolate and hurt the US. (Do I think this? No. But once you start conspiratorializing, hey, the sky's the limit.)
Even worse, the hearsay nature of this leak leaves a lot of things unanswered. "You're a liar" ... Is that a quote? Or is it an inference drawn by somebody in the administration based on what a person in the room at the time said. "Trump presented Abbas with information that showed he wasn't being completely honest, and asked him to account for it" could easily be morphed into, "Trump effectively said Abbas he was a liar," which can easily become, "Trump told Abbas he was a liar." That's the problem with putting unconditional faith in unsubstantiated anonymous sources: Even if what they say contains a kernel of truth, it may still be more truthy (which is to say, false) than true.
Interesting to ruminate on. Not a good idea to take it at face value even to the point of venturing, "Trump was correct." (Sorry, Arachae.) I'd have said, "If Trump actually said it, then he'd have been correct for a change." But I have no confidence that he said it at all, much less that way.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Why do I think those will be the words emanating from Trump's bulbous maw any day now? 
