Obama's Visit Rekindles Hope
A day after formation of the government through early elections, Israel was visited by President Obama, whose schedule is fully booked by challenges that include reformulation of the relationship between Benjamin Netanyahu and Barack Obama, the conflict in Syria and its consequences, and the challenges posed by Iran’s nuclear program. Yet another challenge of this trip is the expectation that Palestinians have to see the president of the United States reassert his commitment to a two-state solution.
Obama’s schedule lacks any new peace initiatives; his intention with this trip to the region is to strengthen bonds with allied countries and to renew hope for new peace negotiations. But above all, it’s a symbolic visit to the Holy Land, something that was well-known even before the trip.
For many, this could be a rare opportunity for Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu to mend personal relations, along with their disparate political views on the matter of the advancement of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
During his first term, Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu’s perspectives were mismatched, at a time when the Palestinian National Authority hoped that Washington would be more persuasive with Jerusalem.
Benjamin Netanyahu says he’s committed to a two-state solution. With the formation of a new government, in which figures from the radical and moderate right are predominant, there are also expectations concerning the policy that will be adopted with regard to the stalled peace process.
Hope fades, especially when Barack Obama prefers to not face the issue of peace between Israelis and Palestinians head-on, possibly so as not get in the way.
The crux of the matter here remains the refusal of the Israeli authorities to join talks about certain issues and to cease construction in territories that should become part of a future Palestinian space. The Palestinians hope that Israel keeps its promises, some of which involve international resolutions, and joins direct talks. The role of the mediator, whether the one played by the Quartet in the Middle East or the one played by the United States, has been contested; an ABC News poll reveals that 69 percent of Americans don’t look favorably on the continuous role played by Washington.
While the two-state solution is a way for Israel and Palestine to peacefully coexist as independent and sovereign states, that possibility hangs by a thread. And there is a great fear that this possibility will vanish, giving Israelis and Palestinians the eventual opportunity to cohabitate a single space from the Mediterranean to Jordan.
Obama’s trip to the Middle East doesn’t exactly aim to make both parties begin negotiations anew, but, according to new information, to explore the ways through which the peace process can move forward. This seems to be one of the reasons that led the secretary of state, John Kerry, to meet with Benjamin Netanyahu’s special envoy just days before Obama’s visit to Israel. After a first term characterized by so-called failure in getting Israelis and Palestinians to sit down at the negotiating table and reach a peace agreement, Barack Obama will have learned a lot with the reality on the field, thus avoiding further swelling expectations.
Regarding the conflict in Syria, it can be said that it strengthens Israel’s position in the region until such time as the post-Bashar al-Assad scenario, the new political forces in power and their respective agendas become crystal clear. After the interview given by Obama to an Israeli news channel in which he argued that Iran is a year away from developing a nuclear weapon, no doubt remains that this is one of the key points of Obama’s agenda.
U.S. newspapers stated that Obama’s trip to Israel was also an opportunity for the president to reassert his opposition to Benjamin Netanyahu’s red line, a threshold which, once crossed, would make Israel feel free to utilize force to put a stop to the Iranian nuclear program. Obama argues that diplomacy and sanctions should be given time to run their course, while the Israelis, first and foremost their political figures, state that nothing will come from dialogue.
Obama’s schedule lacks any new peace initiatives; his intention with this trip to the region is to strengthen bonds with allied countries and to renew hope for new peace negotiations. But above all, it’s a symbolic visit to the Holy Land, something that was well-known even before the trip.
For many, this could be a rare opportunity for Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu to mend personal relations, along with their disparate political views on the matter of the advancement of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
During his first term, Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu’s perspectives were mismatched, at a time when the Palestinian National Authority hoped that Washington would be more persuasive with Jerusalem.
Benjamin Netanyahu says he’s committed to a two-state solution. With the formation of a new government, in which figures from the radical and moderate right are predominant, there are also expectations concerning the policy that will be adopted with regard to the stalled peace process.
Hope fades, especially when Barack Obama prefers to not face the issue of peace between Israelis and Palestinians head-on, possibly so as not get in the way.
The crux of the matter here remains the refusal of the Israeli authorities to join talks about certain issues and to cease construction in territories that should become part of a future Palestinian space. The Palestinians hope that Israel keeps its promises, some of which involve international resolutions, and joins direct talks. The role of the mediator, whether the one played by the Quartet in the Middle East or the one played by the United States, has been contested; an ABC News poll reveals that 69 percent of Americans don’t look favorably on the continuous role played by Washington.
While the two-state solution is a way for Israel and Palestine to peacefully coexist as independent and sovereign states, that possibility hangs by a thread. And there is a great fear that this possibility will vanish, giving Israelis and Palestinians the eventual opportunity to cohabitate a single space from the Mediterranean to Jordan.
Obama’s trip to the Middle East doesn’t exactly aim to make both parties begin negotiations anew, but, according to new information, to explore the ways through which the peace process can move forward. This seems to be one of the reasons that led the secretary of state, John Kerry, to meet with Benjamin Netanyahu’s special envoy just days before Obama’s visit to Israel. After a first term characterized by so-called failure in getting Israelis and Palestinians to sit down at the negotiating table and reach a peace agreement, Barack Obama will have learned a lot with the reality on the field, thus avoiding further swelling expectations.
Regarding the conflict in Syria, it can be said that it strengthens Israel’s position in the region until such time as the post-Bashar al-Assad scenario, the new political forces in power and their respective agendas become crystal clear. After the interview given by Obama to an Israeli news channel in which he argued that Iran is a year away from developing a nuclear weapon, no doubt remains that this is one of the key points of Obama’s agenda.
U.S. newspapers stated that Obama’s trip to Israel was also an opportunity for the president to reassert his opposition to Benjamin Netanyahu’s red line, a threshold which, once crossed, would make Israel feel free to utilize force to put a stop to the Iranian nuclear program. Obama argues that diplomacy and sanctions should be given time to run their course, while the Israelis, first and foremost their political figures, state that nothing will come from dialogue.
Next article![]( "US Mulls Bringing Back Nukes")
