Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu boards a plane in Israel on Sunday ahead of his Washington visit.

Elise Labott
CNN State Department Producer

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for an immediate resumption of peace talks with Palestinians Monday before meeting with President Barack Obama.

"My goal is to achieve a permanent peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians and soon," Netanyahu said in a speech to the Jewish Federations of North America. “I say to Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the Palestinian Authority: Let us seize the moment to reach an historic agreement, let us begin talks immediately,”

Netanyahu said he would work for a lasting peace with the Palestinians, promising "great concessions" as long as they don't compromise Israel's security.

“With the support of the United States, peace can become a reality,” Netanyahu said, hours meeting with President Obama to discuss the peace process and Iran's nuclear program.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has just returned from the Middle East, where she failed to persuade President Abbas to resume talks with Israel until it agrees to a complete freeze of settlement construction.

Clinton angered Palestinians and Arabs when she praised Israel's agreement to limit settlement-building as "unprecedented." She later clarified that the United States "does not accept the legitimacy" of building Israeli housing on occupied Palestinian land.

In his remarks Netanyahu pledged more steps to improve economic conditions in the Palestinian areas, but made no new proposals on curbing settlement construction.

Netanyahu is also expected to discuss with President Obama as well as a United Nations report that accuses Israel and Hamas, which controls the Gaza strip, of committing possible war crimes during an Israeli offensive earlier this year.

Calling the report "twisted," Netanyahu thanked Obama for opposing the report, which he claimed deprives Israel “of our right to defend ourselves.”

During his remarks police removed a protester who stood up and shouted: “Shame on you! Peace for Israel and Gaza!” Netanyahu joked that he received a better reception at the United Nations, where he spoke in September.

Obama with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, left, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas two months ago.

Aaron David Miller
Special to CNN

When Barack Obama receives his Nobel Peace Prize next month in Oslo, Norway, one thing seems clear: It won't be in recognition of his skill in advancing Israeli-Palestinian peace.

For much of the past year, the administration has wandered around the not-so-Holy Land without clear direction, an accurate understanding of Israelis and Palestinians, or an effective strategy.

But all is not lost. The past 10 months could be, to use the president's words, a teachable moment, and with the right lessons learned, maybe, just maybe, the president could get back on track.

The lessons:

Keep your enthusiasm under control: In January, President Obama came out harder, faster and louder on Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking than any of his predecessors. The speech in Cairo, Egypt, and his ultimatum to the Israelis on freezing settlements seemed to suggest that this president was going to be tough and fair. No more business as usual.

Meanwhile, back on Earth, the political laws of gravity that make getting anything done on Arab-Israeli diplomacy very hard kicked in, dragging down the president's hopes and words.

Keep Reading...

Benjamin Netanyahu, left, President Obama and Mahmoud Abbas.

Fawaz A. Gerges
CNN

Poor Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas! He returned to Palestine empty-handed and politically weakened after the tripartite summit this week with President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The New York summit yielded no signs of a breakthrough either on freezing construction of Jewish settlements or restarting the long-stalled Palestinian-Israeli talks.

By laying equal blame on the Palestinians and Israelis for the diplomatic stalemate, Obama undermined Abbas' position at home and exposed his weakness and overdependence on the Americans.

It is important to understand the context of Abbas' initial reluctance to attend the tripartite summit in New York. He swallowed his pride and accepted Obama's invitation to meet with Netanyahu, even though he had set a precondition of a settlement freeze, as the U.S. demanded, before agreeing to meet Netanyahu.

Keep Reading...

President Obama addresses the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday.

Bill Richardson
CNN

President Obama, in his address to the United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday, announced the next phase in America's efforts to finally end the decades-long Israeli-Arab conflict and remove one of the greatest destabilizing elements to America's national security interests from the Middle East playing field.

Like health care reform, this is a daunting task, and in order for the president to be the last one confronting this, Congress and Americans of all stripes should be supporting him.

The president made it clear that the United States wants permanent status negotiations to begin without preconditions based on the parameters from past negotiations: security for Israel and Palestine, refugees, borders and Jerusalem. The president added that the United States seeks peace agreements on all fronts, including with Syria and Lebanon.

Keep Reading...

Elise Labott
CNN State Department Producer

Prodding Israel and the Palestinian Authority to restart talks aimed at a permanent resolution of their decades-old conflict, President Barack Obama dropped a US demand for an Israeli settlement freeze, US, Israeli and Palestinian officials said.

“Simply put, it is past time to talk about starting negotiations. It is time to move forward," Obama told reporters before a meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime

Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. "It is time to show the flexibility and common sense and sense of compromise that is necessary to achieve our goals."

Obama met first met separately with Netanyahu and Abbas on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly in what he called "frank and productive" talks. The session was the first among the three leaders since Obama took office in January.

George Mitchell, Obama’s envoy for the Middle East, attended Tuesday’s talks. He said the talks were "at all times cordial," but "direct" and sometimes "blunt."

Obama told Abbas and Netanyahu that, "The only reason to hold public office is to get things done," and that everyone "must take risks for peace,"

Mitchell said.

Mitchell told reporters the US is “not identifying any issue as being a precondition or an impediment to negotiation.”

But the United States and Israel have publicly disagreed on Israeli plans to build more housing on land the Palestinians regard as theirs. Obama administration demands for a complete freeze have been ignored by the Netanyahu government.

Abbas has so far rejected resuming talks with Israel until the Jewish state halts all settlement building in the occupied West Bank and in

Predominantly Palestinian East Jerusalem. Arab states also have balked at the US request to take confidence building measures toward Israel until Israel freezes settlement construction.

Sitting with Netanyahu and Abbas, Obama softened his regular language on a settlement “freeze,” saying that Israel has had meaningful discussions about “restraining” settlement activity.

“But they need to translate these discussions into real action on this and other issues," he said.

“Obama told Abbas that he couldn’t get the settlement freeze and promised to keep trying, but that it shouldn’t be a condition for talks and it was time to move on,” one Palestinian aide to Abbas said.

Several US officials said that President Obama told Abbas that although the US believe a settlement freeze would create a better atmosphere for talks to begin, the lack of one should not be used an as excuse not to talk.

“Let’s not have the perfect be the enemy of the good,” Obama told Abbas, according to the officials.

“It’s been apparent for some time that the Israelis were going to fall short of what is necessary on the settlement freeze,” one senior US official said. “But our view is let’s get to negotiations and settlements will be addressed within those final status issues”

US and Israel have been negotiating a settlement freeze for several months. The Obama administration demanded a complete settlement freeze but Israel would only agree to a freeze limited in time and scope.

A senior Israeli diplomat said Israel agreed to not building any new settlements, no outward expansion of existing growth and to only build for “natural” growth within existing settlements. He said Israel also agreed not to encourage Israelis to move to settlements, which would increase the population.

“A complete settlement freeze wasn’t physically or politically possible, especially in the absence of any Arab or Palestinian concessions,” the Israeli diplomat said. “There was a time the gaps had significantly narrowed, but now they were starting to widen. The administration recognized, rather than have them widen further, we should start negotiating.”

The Palestinian aide to Abbas said President Obama’s failure to secure a settlement freeze has weakened him in the eyes of the Palestinian delegation, because it casts doubt on his ability to move Israel during final status negotiations. The aide said that while Abbas would continue to push for a complete freeze, the Palestinian leader understands it likely will not happen and will begin “climb down” from his insistence for one before talks can resume.

The Palestinians did win an important point, however, with Obama making clear that the peace talks would not start from scratch, which Netanyahu had favored. Rather the talks would take into account progress made in previous negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, the sources said.

The Israeli diplomat said that Israel would “take into account” the previous negotiations, but stressed his country’s longstanding position that “nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to.”

Obama also addressed Abbas' desire to have the terms for negotiations more clearly defined, asking Israeli and Palestinian negotiators to come to Washington next week for further talks.

Next week’s talks, to be led by George Mitchell, will center on what issues will be addressed at negotiations, which will present the US with its next big challenge. Palestinians want negotiations to resolve the “final status” issues of the conflict, such as borders, Jerusalem and the right of return for Palestinian refugees. Israel wants to begin with talks on a “provisional” Palestinian state.

President Obama's is the latest in a long line of U.S. administrations to press for a settlement of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian population in territories it has occupied since the 1967 Mideast war. Recent hopes for renewed Israeli-Palestinian talks have dimmed despite Mitchell's diplomatic efforts.

But Obama told reporters that talks on a permanent resolution of the conflict, including the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, "must begin and begin soon."

"My message to these two leaders is clear: Despite all the obstacles, despite all the history, despite all the mistrust, we have to find a way forward," he said. "We have to summon the will to break the deadlock that has trapped generations of Israelis and Palestinians in an endless cycle of conflict and suffering. We cannot continue the same pattern of taking tentative steps forward, and then stepping back."

Program Note: Watch Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish's interview TONIGHT on AC360° 11p ET

Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish
Daughters for Life

Palestinian doctor Izzeldin Abuelaish came to the world's attention during the recent offensive in the Gaza Strip, when the respected obstetrician, holed up with his family in their home, gave daily interviews from the battle zone on Israeli television and radio.

Then, on Jan. 16, the last day of the offensive, Israeli fire killed three of his daughters. "My God, my girls," Abuelaish wailed that night on Israeli television, decrying the loss of Bessan, 20, Mayar, 15, and Aya, 14, as well as his niece, Nur Abuelaish, 17. Now he is trying to use his fluent Hebrew and English - and his pain - to appeal for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. What follows is an edited transcript of an interview he did with The Times' Marjorie Miller.

I had returned home on Dec. 25 from Tel Hashomer, the hospital where I work in Israel. That day, they had opened the border for humanitarian aid for the first time in more than a month, which made me realize something bad would happen. At 10 a.m. on the 26th, the airstrikes started.

Read more...

Editor's Note: A foundation, with an international mandate, is being established to provide leadership development and educational access to women throughout the middle-east. The foundation honors the memory of Dr. Abuelaish's daughters and serve as a living legacy. For more, check  Daughters for Life 

Program Note: Tune in tomorrow for more on Izzeldin's story in 'Generation Islam,' as Christiane Amanpour reveals the struggle for hearts and minds of the next generation of Muslims. Tomorrow 9 p.m. ET.

A building damaged by an airstrike in the southern Gaza strip during the conflict in January.

Isabel Maxwell
Israel Insider

Back at the end of October last, I was in Tel Aviv at the international conference celebrating the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the Peres Center for Peace activities, which I attended in my capacity as a member of the Board of Governors. There were 40 international guests including many Palestinians and Palestinian students too, who were highly participatory and I felt encouraged for the first time since the Lebanon War of the summer before.

Little did I know then that within three short months, Israel would plunge into Gaza, and that I would become a telephone witness to the unspeakable tragedy of one recently widowed Gazan doctor, whom I had befriended 10 years before when he was a resident at Soroka Hospital and I was receiving an award from there and getting involved with helping fundraise for the hospital.

Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish with the author, Isabel Maxwell, taken at UCLA in April earlier this year.

By now most of the readers of this column will know the public story: the doctor from Jabalaya who was trained by Israel and treated Israelis and Palestinians alike at Soroka Hospital. A peace activist, whose three daughters of his eight children, were horrifically killed last Friday when his house was bombed during an exchange of fire between an Israeli tank and Hamas. There was Bisan, aged 20 who had taken over her mother’s role and was also a student – she had been thrown from a bed to the floor. Mayar, 15, and Aya, 14, were also dead, along with Noor, a 17-year-old cousin. Shatha, 17, who was badly wounded in the eye, was a straight-A student, and another niece was badly wounded too.

I have decided to repeat here something of my private conversations with Izzeldin, to testify to the ‘WYSIWYG’ of the man – What You See IS What You Get – his outlook from the time of Soroka many years before, till now, had strengthened if anything. We talked at length about the special responsibility he had, as an international spokesperson for his country and as a bridge for peace through medicine. I would telephone him on his cell phone in Gaza and his streams of conversation and my questions and expressions were punctuated throughout by the heavy noises of gunfire and bombs and artillery – for me, a most surreal and uncomfortable experience.

Here I was, looking out at the blue Pacific Ocean with the little white sails of boats skimming along in the distance, and the sun beaming in the sky, while 10,000 miles away my friend has not left his home in 19 days and lives in total fear of it being reduced to rubble at any moment. At one particularly loud explosion, I said in alarm, “Izzeldin!!! I’m so worried for you! Please! What is happening?!”

“Isabel! The house is shaking! The whole house is shaking! So close!!”

“Izzeldin! I don’t think you should be speaking on the phone any more! Please go and be with your children!” He told me that his brother was there and it was OK and he wanted to go on talking. I got the impression it somehow helped him to be talking to the outside world…….and so I kept going….We talked about his children, about his poor dead wife, and how she had died….about his dreams for the future…..

His streams of consciousness were of this nature – he would say things like:

“Isabel, I know, I know so much I have the responsibility for building bridge to peace. All my life I have worked for peace I been all over the world, in Israel, in Canada, in Afghanistan, in in Germany, in England, all these places I have been and you know me, Isabel, I love my work, I love helping people for the peace, my children I want them to know a better world, I want my people to know a better world. The tunnels are no way for a people to live! It is disgusting. They are Mafia who control those tunnels. The Leadership is no good, no good! I stood for Parliament as an independent and you know I got 6,000 votes in my area. I was very popular in my area – the people they know me well, they know what I do. I love Gaza, I love my people. They deserve better” Come to Gaza, it’s nice here, when things are better, you come.” When the fighting has died down I am dying to take my camera outside and take pictures of my house….. “

But the last comment I heard before his life changed for ever, was one of such simplicity and so human -

Isabel. You know what I want most right now? I want to take a shower.

“Izzeldin, take good, good care, we are working so hard on getting you and your children out.”

“God willing, Isabel, we will make it through. “

“Yes, yes, I’ll talk to you tomorrow…”

When I woke up in the morning of the 16th, my thoughts turned immediately to Israel and my friend in Gaza…. I opened up my email anxiously as I have done for the past three weeks, and the worse news hit me. My friend Moshe emailed me from Jerusalem to inform me that he had seen the tragedy of Izzeldin played out on Israeli TV – HORRIFIED, I tried to call Izzeldin, hoping against hope it was a mistake. His phone answers and all hell breaks loose on the line. Sirens are blaring, his voice is horribly strained and different.

“Who’s this? Who’s this?”

“Izzeldin, I raise my voice into the phone speaker, “It’s me Isabel, ISABEL”–

“AAAARGH ALLAH ALLAH, THEY KILLED MY CHILDREN, MY CHILDREN!!!

Why? Why? What did my children do to deserve this? What did I do? ALL MY LIFE I WORK FOR PEACE Allah Allah . Isabel, tell me! What did I do, what did we do?? AH!!!

I’m devastated at this torrent of anguish and grief and shock that is pouring down the phone into my ear. I’m destroyed for him and to be speaking to him at such a traumatic moment, is beyond heart-breaking –

“Izzeldin! I’m sooooooo SORRRRRRRY, soooooooo SORRRRRY…..
I have to raise my voice – “WHERE ARE YOU ? WHERE ARE YOU ?
WHO IS WITH YOU ?

“I’m in the ambulance, ambulance, ah Sala!!!!!! My daughter my daughter.” “Where are the others? Where are your other children?!”

He does not answer, but cries out in great gasps and gags -

“THEY KNEW MY HOUSE THEY KNEW ME I AM GIVING INTERVIEWS ALL THE TIME TO THE ISRAELIS. OH MY GOD. ALLAH , ALLAH AAAAAAGH”

Suddenly, the ambulance sirens blare very, very loudly and Izzeldin starts: “I ahhh” . Then the phone clicks off.

One man’s life and his whole family, changed in the flash of a bomb, the blink of an eye, the horrors of war…… an unwanted symbol of all that is terrible in this enduring conflict – and yet, in his extreme grace since the tragedy, for I have spoken with him since, a beacon of hope for new leadership in Gaza.

Whether one is Israeli, Palestinian or an international citizen who believes that the only way out of such a conflict is to once and for all achieve a peaceful agreement between these two States – Israel and Palestine, one thing is clear to me: Israel and Hamas owe this man and all civilians who have lost dear ones in this war the deepest regrets and apologies for what this conflict has perpetrated on the innocent.

May the Obama administration actions enable the Cease Fire to hold in Gaza so that not one more child will die in vain and new seeds of hope can actually be planted and grow to maturity at last in the memory of Izzeldin’s dear children and all the children who have died so needlessly in this unspeakably sad conflict. AMEN.

Program Note: To learn more about Dr. Abuelaish and his foundation, visit http://www.daughtersforlife.com/. For more ways to make a difference, visit Impact Your World.

Editor's Note: Isabel Maxwell is a peace activist and international business consultant. Find more of the story here.

Elise Labott
CNN State Department Producer

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton blasted Israel Monday for evicting dozens of Palestinians from homes in East Jerusalem, calling the move a violation of Israel's obligations.

"I think these actions are deeply regrettable, Clinton told reporters following a meeting with Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh. "The eviction of families and demolition of homes in East Jerusalem is not in keeping with Israeli obligations. And I urge the government of Israel and municipal officials to refrain from such provocative actions."

The U.S. protested the evictions Sunday to the Israeli embassy in Washington, which are complicating U.S. efforts to jumpstart peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. The U.S. believes the move is not keeping with Israel's obligations over the U.S.-backed roadmap for peace, which calls for an end to all settlement activity.

"Both sides have responsibilities to refrain from provocative actions that can block the path toward a comprehensive peace agreement," Clinton said. "Unilateral actions taken by either party cannot be used to prejudge the outcome of negotiations. And they will not be recognized as changing the status quo."

An Israeli government spokesman rejected international criticism Monday in defending the evictions of the Palestinians from their homes, where some of them had lived for generations.

"I think a lot of the criticism is simply not fair," Mark Regev told CNNI.

He described the dispute as a legal one between two private parties over who had title to a property in East Jerusalem. "As you know, the Israeli court system is independent and professional," he said. "Many times it goes on the Palestinian side if they think that's where the justice is and, in this case, they ruled in favor of the Jewish side."

But Jordan's Foreign Minister Judeh condemned the evictions, saying they present an obstacle to peace and urged Israel to reverse course.

"East Jerusalem is occupied territory. It is part of the territory that was occupied militarily in 1965 - in 1967, and it is very, very important that people bear in mind that this is part and parcel of the discussions that will take place when negotiations are re-launched," he told reporters.

Drawing on her legal training, Clinton suggested Israel could be taking the move to strengthen its hand before negotiations with the Palestinians begin.

"I was a lawyer in a prior life. Very often, people try to stake out even more strong and difficult positions going into negotiations. We understand all of that, and we intend to continue on the path that we are on," she said.

Tensions have erupted between Israel and the United States over President Obama's insistence that Israel halt all settlement activity in the occupied West Bank. President Obama's Mideast peace envoy George Mitchell is trying to negotiate an agreement with Israel over a settlement freeze which could allow some existing construction to continue.

Mitchell is also trying to get Arab states to make some gestures to Israel to create a climate for peace, which could include opening trade offices in Israel and allowing tourist visas for Israelis.

Foreign Minister Judeh said while such a climate was important, it was time for Israel to reciprocate to the 2003 Arab peace initiative which offered it relations with all Arab nations in exchange for the creation of a Palestinian state and ending the occupation of all Arab land, including Lebanon and Syria.

"In the Middle East, there has been in the past an overinvestment,perhaps, by the parties in pursuing confidence-building measures,conflict-management techniques, including transitional arrangements, and an overemphasis on gestures, perhaps at the expense of reaching the actual end game," Judeh said.

Quoting Jordan's King Abdullah, he said, "There has been too much process and too little peace, a situation that most certainly is no longer sustainable."

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, left, shakes hands with his Israeli counterpart, Ehud Barak.

Elise Labott
CNN State Department Producer

Don't you just love a parade? Apparently the Obama administration does too, as evident by the steady stream of top US officials visiting Israel this week. A bevy of heavy hitters are there, the likes of which Jerusalem hasn't seen since the Persian Gulf War.

Just as Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrapped up his meetings there, Mideast peace envoy Mitchell arrived for talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He will be followed later this week by National Security Advisor James Jones and Dennis Ross, the White House's point main on Iran.

Aaron Miller, a former Mideast peace negotiator under president Clinton and author of "The Much Too Promised Land: America's Elusive Search for Arab-Israeli Peace," calls it "the big hug," a show of reassurance to Israel that the US Israeli relationship remains strong despite the current squabble over settlements.

To be sure, ties between the countries have been strained over President Obama's firm insistence that Israel halt all settlement as part of his drive for a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace, including a Palestinian state. And Israel is concerned Obama's engagement policy vis-à-vis Iran will come at the expense of its own security.

But the flurry of diplomatic activity sends a strong signal that these disagreements are minor in comparison to how central the US-Israel relationship is, and how large Israel looms in every piece of the American policy puzzle in the Mideast.

Which is why Gates offered Israel security reassurances with talks on Iran and missile defense. And why Mitchell emphasized the enduring strength of the friendship between the US and Israel and has been working on a deal with the Israelis on settlements, which is expected to include a freeze on construction but would allow several hundred buildings already under construction to be exempted.

One question remains about this diplomatic A-team, though. Where is Hillary Clinton? The Secretary of State hasn't visited the Middle East March, when held one day of talks with Israeli officials. She has not been to Israel since Netanyahu took office.

To be fair, Clinton just returned from a 7-day trip to Asia and spent the beginning of the week hosting top Chinese officials for two days of strategic talks. Next week she leaves for a seven-nation tour of Africa.

But on Sunday Clinton appeared Sunday NBC's "Meet the Press," where she missed an opportunity to frame the week's visits within the context of the Obama administration's plans for Mideast peacemaking. She spent a fair amount of time insisting she was President Obama's chief diplomat and and deflecting criticism that she was "sidelined" by President Obama's team of foreign policy heavyweights and because of an elbow injury. "I broke my elbow, not my larynx," she told David Gregory.

Yet in the full hour President Obama's chief diplomat didn't mention the Mideast peace process, one of Obama's stated top foreign policy priorities, even once. Clinton already enjoys a healthy dose of Israeli respect from her days as a pro-Israel senator from New York. Now Clinton must also define herself, both in word and in deed, as a key player on the President's Mideast peace team.

President Obama, too, has to work at his relationship with Israel. His aides can only do so much to ease Israeli fears about his intentions. Candidate Obama got high marks for visit to Israel during the campaign. But if he wants to now been seen as the kind of honest broker that can achieve true Mideast peace, he needs to make his own trip to Israel. His Cairo speech in June established his credentials with the Arab world. Now it's Israel's turn.

Vice President Joe Biden's recent comments on Israel worried some law-makers.

Charley Keyes
CNN Senior Producer

The State Department carefully steered through new questions Monday over whether the United States would approve an Israeli attack on Iran to disrupt its nuclear program.

Vice President Joe Biden revved up the issue Sunday when he said the United States can’t dictate to Israel. "Israel can determine for itself - it's a sovereign nation - what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else," Biden said on ABC’s “This Week.”

State Department Spokesman Ian Kelly Monday said: “Our goal here is to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. When I say ‘our” it is just not the United States –it is the international community.”

“Israel is a sovereign country. We are not going to dictate its actions. We also are committed to Israel’s security and we share Israel’s deep concerns about Iran’s nuclear program.”

Could this be interpreted as the U.S. flashing a  green light for Israel, the number-one recipient of U.S. aid, to attack Iran’s nuclear sites?  “I certainly would not want to give a green-light to any kind of military action,” Kelly said.

Julian E. Zelizer and Melissa Lerner
Special to CNN

At a time when the Obama administration is dealing with a barely stable economy while trying to address long-term health care, two wars, the environment and the threat of terrorism, many ask whether it is wise for President Obama to try to resolve a problem that has frustrated so many presidents before him.

With the latest events in Iran, there is even more reason for skepticism that progress towards Arab-Israeli peace is possible.

Despite conventional wisdom, when presidents have become personally active in shaping American policy in the region and resolved to make the Mideast conflict a top priority, they've often succeeded in improving Arab-Israeli relations.

Jimmy Carter oversaw the Camp David Accords, which resulted in the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty that secured calm between the two countries for three decades.

Keep Reading...

Obama's address Thursday at Egypt's Cairo University has been highly anticipated.

Joe Klein
Time

About an hour after Barack Obama's excellent Cairo speech, I met with Khaled Meshal, the leader of Hamas, at his office here to talk about the speech and the Israel-Palestine conflict. We spoke for several hours and I will have a fuller accounting of our conversation in my print column next week. Meshal speaks some English, but he feels more comfortable using an interpreter. He listened to my questions in English, asking occasionally for translation of a word or phrase, and gave his answers in Arabic. He never raised his voice or used militant language, but he never yielded on his basic position either.

"Undoubtedly Obama speaks a new language," he told me. "His speech was cleverly designed... The essence of the speech was to improve the U.S. image and to placate the Muslims. We don't mind either objective, but we are looking for more than just mere words. If the United States wishes to open a new page, we definitely would welcome this. We are keen to contribute to this. But we [believe that can not happen] merely with words. It must be with deeds, by changing the policy on the ground."

Meshal went on: "A Palestinian listening to the speech would have a simple question: where are the true actual issues that touch our lives? A Palestinian listening didn't hear anything about the Israeli war in Gaza or about Israel's war crimes." He mentioned the alleged use of depleted uranium and white phosphorous. "A beautiful discourse lacks credibility if it doesn't address Gaza."

Read more...

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama visit at the White House on Monday.

Aaron David Miller
Special to CNN

President Obama has embarked on what could represent a radical departure in America's Mideast policy, at least on settlements.

Having worked for Republican and Democratic administrations, I took it for granted that the current president and secretary of state would first try to invest in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before publicly confronting him.

After all, even the toughest secretary of state, James Baker, who initially had no confidence in the hard-line Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, found common ground with him in an effort to pull off the Madrid Peace Conference in 1991.

Keep Reading...

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife, Sara, arrive in Washington, D.C., on Sunday.

Dave Schechter
CNN Senior National Editor

Will President Barack Obama “throw Israel under the bus?”

Outlandish as that sounds, that’s the fear expressed by some ardent supporters of Israel in advance of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit Monday to the White House.

While the leaders converse behind closed doors, there could be quite a show outside the White House if large numbers of people demonstrate on behalf of Israel or the Palestinians or on other Middle East issues.

Despite 60 years of support (to varying degrees) from the White House and Capitol Hill, despite tens of billions of dollars of economic and military aid (particularly since the 1967 and 1973 wars), despite the out-sized role of the Jewish community in American politics (especially in support of Democrats) and despite the feverish backing of Christian evangelicals, there are those who believe that the President Obama is prepared to sacrifice Israel to achieve other goals in the region.

To be sure, President Obama has supporters in the Jewish community for his Middle East policies. But a vocal segment that opposes the administration has been filling e-mail inboxes in recent days.

What’s going on here?

“Obama is changing the rules of Mideast pressure” was the headline atop an article by veteran Israeli journalist Akiva Eldar in the Israeli newspaper Ha’Aretz. “President George W. Bush enjoyed the title "friend of Israel" because he made do with paying lip service to pressure on Israel and passed around documents that lacked teeth. He taught the Israelis that it is possible to behave contemptuously and make a laughingstock of the road map, all the while preserving a most important strategic asset – special ties with the United States. Obama has already managed to alter the rules of the game of the U.S. in the Middle East; everyone, with no exception, is welcome to choose between understandings and sanctions, between carrots and sticks,” Eldar wrote.

What constitutes being thrown under the bus, anyway?

Suggestions of U.S. leniency or accommodation toward Iran or Syria qualify, as does pressure on Israel to curtail settlement activity in the West Bank and ease restrictions on movement by Palestinians. And this recent statement by a State Dept. official: "Universal adherence to the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Tready) itself – including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea – also remains a fundamental objective of the United States” (in effect removing the curtain from in front of Israel’s not-so-secret nuclear weapons program) set off alarm bells.

Among the widely circulated items is a column by Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post. “Arctic winds are blowing into Jerusalem from Washington these days,” Glick forecast. “As Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's May 18 visit to Washington fast approaches, the Obama administration is ratcheting up its anti-Israel rhetoric and working feverishly to force Israel into a corner.”

Glick was referring, at least in part, to Vice President Joe Biden’s remarks this month’s AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) conference in Washington. Ironically, the theme of the AIPAC meeting was “Relationships Matter.”

Biden first offered the carrot: “But in the midst of change, with all the change you will hear about, there is one enduring, essential principle that will not change; and that is our commitment to the peace and security of the state of Israel. That is not negotiable. That is not a matter of change. That is something to be reinforced and made clear. It seems almost unnecessary to state it, but I want the word to go forth in here that no one should mistake it.”

Later came a stick, of sorts: "But Israel has to work towards a two-state solution. You're not going to like my saying this, but not build more settlements, dismantle existing outposts, and allow the Palestinians freedom of movement based on their first actions - its access to economic opportunity and increased security responsibility. This is a "show me" deal - not based on faith - show me.”

The Obama White House is hardly the first to seek a halt to expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Over the years officials representing previous administrations termed the settlements “a complicating factor,” “obstacles to peace” and “illegal.”

Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed the AIPAC meeting by satellite. He did not use the magic phrase “two-state solution” in discussing the future of the Palestinians, but did say, "We are prepared to resume negotiations without any preconditions." Israeli President Shimon Peres, who did speak in person, said that Netanyahu would abide by the decisions of previous Israeli governments, which included the two-state solution, though to what extent is not clear.

President Obama supports Palestinian aspirations. So did his predecessor. George W. Bush was the first President to call publicly for creation of a Palestinian state and he followed Bill Clinton, who as President said that ”there can be no genuine resolution to the conflict without a sovereign, viable, Palestinian state that accommodates Israeli's security requirements and the demographic realities.”

Another piece e-mailed in volume is a column by Melanie Phillips in the British newspaper The Spectator. To be accurate, what Phillips wrote was that “ . . . Obama is attempting to throw Israel under the Islamist bus, . . .”

“It is not the aggressor here but the victim of aggression that American is now choosing to beat up,” Phillips said. After referring to controversies about candidate Obama’s associations she then referred to “the cabal of Israel-bashers, appeasers and Jew-haters he appointed to his administration, with a few useful idiots thrown in for plausible deniability.” I’m not sure in which of those categories she places Vice President Biden.

Author Joel C. Rosenberg (“The Last Jihad” his best-known work) also was wary. “The mutually warm words of appreciation for 61 years of U.S.-Israel relations notwithstanding, a train wreck is coming between the Netanyahu administration and the Obama administration over Iran and the "peace process." I pray it can be avoided, but at this point Netanyahu and his team understand the apocalyptic death cult they are facing in Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, and President Obama and his team do not. Netanyahu is preparing to take action to defend Israel and the world from the nightmare of a nuclear armed Iran, and Obama is not,” Rosenberg wrote on his blog after the AIPAC meeting.

Americans for Peace Now took a different tack in an open letter to the President: “As you face the opposition, please keep in mind that our support for your Mideast agenda represents a majority view both in Israel and among Israel's friends in the United States. American Jews voted for you overwhelmingly last November. Most American Jews and most Israeli citizens support the two-state solution that your administration is diligently pursuing. We are confident that Americans – Jews and non-Jews alike – increasingly recognize that Mideast peace is a key U.S. national security interest.”

J Street, a relatively new player in Washington, describes itself as “the political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement.” Its executive director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, wrote in The Forward, a newspaper focusing on Jewish affairs, that, “American Jewish organizations and leaders can choose to act as if it’s still the 1960s, with Israel fighting for physical survival and struggling to make the desert bloom. Or we can appreciate that it’s now the 21st century and that Israel boasts the dominant military in the region and a European standard of living. In 2009, we don’t risk Israel’s survival when we question whether the decisions Israelis are making run counter to their own interests, or to America’s, or if we engage in debate here that is at least as open and broad as in Israel itself.”

Elliott Abrams, whose portfolio as a national security adviser during the George W. Bush administration included the Middle East, offered advice about how to read signals from the Obama-Netanyahu meeting. “It's unlikely that we'll know quickly whether they hit it off,” Abrams wrote in The Wall Street Journal. “The Israelis will almost certainly make this claim within seconds after the meeting ends, and will adduce every possible piece of evidence. Mr. Obama smiled; he put his arm on Mr. Netanyahu's shoulder; his body language was friendly; his tie had positive colors.”

Abrams also offered this guidance: “The White House leaks will be more interesting, for the staff may want to keep Mr. Netanyahu nervous; we'll have to watch what favored journalists are told about the chemistry in the days after the visit. We should not expect to hear the kind of crack that French President Nicolas Sarkozy apparently made to journalists after meeting the president (that Mr. Obama was "not always at his best when it comes to decisions and efficiency"), as that does not appear to be the Obama style. If he makes an exception for Mr. Netanyahu and has the staff trash the prime minister to the media, we'll know the two men decided to loathe each other.”

Israeli Prime Minister Avigdor Lieberman remarked earlier this month about the new Israeli government's view of the peace process.

Robert D. Kaplan
The Atlantic

The statelessness of Palestinian Arabs has been a principal feature of world politics for more than half a century. It is the signature issue of our time. The inability of Israelis and Palestinians to reach an accord of mutual recognition and land-for-peace has helped infect the globe with violence and radicalism—and has long been a bane of American foreign policy. While the problems of the Middle East cannot be substantially blamed on the injustice done to Palestinians, that injustice has nonetheless played a role in weakening America’s position in the region.

Obviously, part of the problem has been Israeli intransigence. Despite seeming to submit to territorial concessions, one Israeli government after another has quietly continued to bolster illegal settlements in the occupied territories. The new Israeli government may be the worst yet: Its foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, is so extreme in his anti-Arab views that he makes the right-wing Likud prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, appear like the centrist he isn’t. The prospects for peace under this government are fundamentally bleak.

And yet this Israeli government faithfully represents the Israeli electorate, which is in utter despair over the impossibility of finding credible partners on the Palestinian side with which to negotiate. Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. President Mahmoud Abbas’s more moderate Fatah movement may be willing to live in peace with Israel, but it has insufficient political legitimacy among Palestinians to negotiate such a deal. With Fatah and Hamas facing off against each other, the Palestinians are simply too divided to plausibly meet Israel across the table. And because the Palestinians are unable to cut a deal, a majority of Israelis, as shown by the recent election results, have apparently given up any hope for peace.

Read more...

Israel's Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu

Yossi Klein Halevi
The Wall Street Journal

Enemies of the American-Israeli alliance could not have conjured a scenario more fraught with potential for misunderstanding. In Washington, a new president is reaching out to the Muslim world, including Iran. In Jerusalem, the government about to take office represents the disillusionment of the Israeli public with 15 years of failed peace talks. For President Barack Obama, power is a means to encourage the rational self-interest of opponents. For Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu, power is the means of defending his people from irrational hatred. Mr. Obama's mandate is for change; Mr. Netanyahu's is for survival.

Though the inclusion of the Labor Party in Mr. Netanyahu's otherwise right-wing coalition will shift it toward the center, differences between Washington and Jerusalem will persist. With Iran about to achieve nuclear capability, and its proxies in Lebanon and Gaza gaining strength, this is the worst possible time for tension between the U.S. and Israel. But a crisis can be averted if both countries consider each other's most pressing needs and remain focused on their shared anxieties.

Read more...

An Israeli tank maneuvers during a deployment near the Israeli border with Gaza.

Octavia Nasr
CNN Senior Middle East Editor
AC360° Contributor

It was meant to be a private meeting in which Israeli soldiers talked with military school graduates about what it was like to fight in Gaza. They talked openly - more openly than anyone expected - about their frustrations and experiences that they compared to crimes. Some critics have now called them war crimes that should be prosecuted.

It was an extraordinary meeting.

"At first the specified action was to go into a house. We were supposed to go in with an armored personnel carrier called an Achzarit [literally, Cruel] to burst through the lower door, to start shooting inside and then ... I call this murder ... in effect, we were supposed to go up floor by floor, and any person we identified – we were supposed to shoot. I initially asked myself: Where is the logic in this?

That's one of the statements from Israeli soldiers that that a leading Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz, published under the headline “Shooting and Crying.”  The soldiers' names were changed to protect their identity. None claimed that they personally committed any excesses. But for many Israelis, their comments have been shocking.

One described an army commander ordering unarmed civilians "taken out" for no specific reason. Another story describes a woman and her two children being shot at when they took the wrong path.

Israel Defense Forces Chief Gabi Ashkenazi categorically denied that soldiers harmed Palestinians in cold blood. But the soldiers' testimonies made headlines in Israel and around the Arab world.

The response from the Israeli press varied. An article in the daily Yedioth Ahronoth by Daniel Edelson provided accounts from other soldiers rebutting the claims generally- but not addressing the specific allegations. He quotes one soldier saying, “It is true that in war morality can be interpreted in many different ways, and there are always a few idiots who act inappropriately, but most of the troops represented Israel honorably.”

“It’s time to believe the war crimes allegations.” That's the headline of an edtiorial by Amira Hass, a prominent Palestinian affairs reporter for Ha’aretz. Hass questions why most Israelis reacted to the published allegations as if they’re hearing them for the first time. IDF Chief “Ashkenazi, like other Israelis, could have read the Red Cross' protest during the offensive, that the IDF prevented medical teams from reaching wounded Palestinians by shooting at them. He or his aides could have gone to the website set up by Israeli human rights organizations, which was full of reports and testimonies.”

Israeli human rights groups such as B’Tselem, known for their criticism of Israel’s activities in the Palestinian territories, called on the Israeli Attorney General to “Stop whitewashing suspected crimes in Gaza.”

Hersch Goodman is an Israeli military affairs analyst. He told CNN he didn’t consider the testimonies reliable and didn’t think they would harm Israel’s image. He told us, "There is a huge difference between a soldier misbehaving or three soldiers misbehaving or even a company of soldiers misbehaving because they are in an environment of killing and shooting and […] a State misbehaving.”

“If soldiers misbehave as per the newspaper article, you put them on trial," Goodman said. "But if the army as an institution used forbidden weapons, if the army as an institution targeted medical personnel, if the army as an institution targeted medical facilities, these are charges or these are things that really Israel will have to work on defending.” It is unclear from the transcript Ha’aretz published whether the soldiers were alleging misconduct just by specific soldiers or also by the army itself.

In the view of Arab media, this is a case of we told so. Complaints of major human rights abuses during the Gaza offensive were a daily part of reporting by Arab networks such as Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya. Both networks deployed local reporters inside Gaza as well as in Israel and provided their audiences with daily reports from both sides of the conflict. Although they brought in Israeli officials as guests, their reporting was emotional and focused mainly on the suffering of Palestinians as a result of the incursion.

Now the focus is on the latest developments – Al-Jazeera hosted yesterday an official from the international organization Human Rights Watch to discuss his group’s latest report, which accuses Israel of “repeatedly firing white phosphorous shells over densely populated areas.”

The Israeli army says it will investigate, but says it only used phosphorous as a smokescreen – not a weapon.

On the Saudi-owned Al-Hayat newspaper, an editorial by legal analyst Mahmoud Mubarak condemns both Israel and Arab governments: “Israel should be condemned for its crimes in Gaza,” Mubarak wrote. “Arab governments should also be condemned for being silent.”

And then there are the political cartoons. On the Saudi-owned London-based Asharq Alawsat, a cartoon of an Israeli soldier pointing his finger to his head as if shooting himself in the head. The testimony of Israeli soldiers, it suggests, will prove most harmful to Israel.

CNN

Thirty years ago, on March 26, 1979, three couples sat down for a celebratory lunch in the White House.

President Jimmy Carter and first lady Rosalynn Carter, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and his wife Aliza, and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and his wife Jehan, talked privately before greeting the hundreds of people who witnessed the signing of the historic peace treaty between Egypt and Israel that day.

Jehan Sadat remembers crying with joy that day at seeing Israelis and Egyptians putting aside their differences and talking simply as people. Sadat and Begin shared the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize for the treaty they negotiated under the auspices of President Carter.

Her happiness was shattered October 6, 1981, when Anwar Sadat was gunned down while reviewing a military parade.

Jehan and Anwar Sadat had been married for 32 years. The daughter of a British teacher and an Egyptian government official, she met the former Army officer at her cousin's house, not long after he had been released from prison for opposing Britain's occupation of Egypt. She was 15 and he was almost 30, but they fell in love and married soon after.

In her new book, "My Hope for Peace," Jehan Sadat says she was crushed by her husband's death and at first almost immobilized. But she eventually decided to continue her work outside the home.

Read more...

Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu and wife Sara vote in Jerusalem on Tuesday.

Joe Klein
Time

One by one, in reverse order, the leaders of Israel's top three political parties appeared on television the night of the Feb. 10 elections and declared victory. This was clever, since none of them had really won. Avigdor Lieberman, whose extreme anti-Arab Yisrael Beitenu party finished third, went on first.

His party had surged in the final weeks and would now, he boasted, be "the key" to forming a majority coalition in the 120-seat Knesset. Maybe. Benjamin Netanyahu, whose Likud party finished second, appeared next. He had won, he said, because Likud was the leading right-wing party and conservatives of various stripes had gained a majority of seats in the Knesset.

But Netanyahu had been expecting a big victory; his support had plummeted in the last days. Finally, there was Tzipi Livni, whose moderate Kadima party won one more seat than Likud ... but didn't really win either, because Netanyahu was right: he would probably have an easier path to building a parliamentary majority than Livni would.

Read More...

Editor’s Note: Israel’s moderate Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni’s and her conservative rivals are both claiming victory in Israel’s elections. Exit polls show Livni’s Kadima Party edging out Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party. The polls also show strong support for smaller hardline parties, though. And that could make it difficult for Livni to form a government.

Kadima's Tzipi Livni won more support than was predicted in the Israeli elections.

Octavia Nasr
AC360° Contributor
CNN Senior Editor Mideast Affairs

A scan of Arab media shows a region that’s very interested in Israel’s general elections. Here are some of the headlines in Arab newspapers: “Israeli Elections: Between the Right and the Right”, “Hardliners will dictate who wins Israeli polls” and “Exit polls give Livni a narrow lead.”

Israeli elections are leading news shows and online discussions. Residents of the Middle East are curious about the results but have no illusions about the future. The overwhelming majority believes that any Israeli government, new or old, won’t have their interest on its agenda. They do however acknowledge that “some Israeli leaders are worse than others.” As Abdel Wahhab Badrakhan writes in the UAE’s Al-Ittihad newspaper, fundamentalist candidate Avigdor Lieberman “would like to wipe Arabs out, Adolf Hitler style.” Badrakhan and others fear that someone like Lieberman joining the new government coalition will be devastating for all Arabs.

The Middle East Broadcasting Center (MBC) is an entertainment network owned by Saudi businessmen but based in the United Arab Emirate of Dubai. It dedicated a segment in its morning show to discuss the Israeli elections from an Arab perspective.

First, the hosts provided the latest information on the race, giving detailed figures and statistics on the role Arab-Israelis play in these elections. Then, the show hosted Aida Touma Sleiman – a candidate running as part of the Democratic Front for Peace and Equality party– she joined the show by satellite from Nazareth. Sleiman explained the intricacies of the elections and how they affect Arab-Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. She also said, “We hope to make it to parliament and have a robust presentation in the Knesset through these elections.”

What is interesting here is that through this one interview, Arabs outside Israel got a reality check on the status of Arabs inside Israel who are politically active and hopeful while realistic about the expectations. According to Aida Touma Sleiman, “Many Arab Israelis are depressed because of Israel’s ugly war on our people in Gaza and they’ve given up hope. But it is very important to understand that their participation in the elections is the only way to bring change about.”

The idea that Israel’s incursion into Gaza last month was part of the political campaign is a recurring theme on Arab media. It is illustrated in yesterday’s political cartoon of the London-based, Saudi-owned newspaper Al-Hayat newspaper. The cartoon shows Israeli jets shooting votes into a ballot box that sits atop a pile of rubble representing what’s left of Gaza.

Across the region, opinions abound summarized in simple words:

The leftist Lebanese newspaper Assafir’s headline reads, “Israel chooses a leader from a pool of three Losers and one Fascist.”

Addustur Newspaper in Jordan has this headline, “Israel elects one of its most racist and extremist governments to date.”

Syria’s Tishreen newspaper opinion piece begins with, “The world waits to see which extremist will lead Israel into the future.”

Another general feeling is compacted in this opinion from Rajab Abu Sariya with the Palestinian daily Al-Ayyam. He writes, “These elections will perhaps consecrate a reality that has become clear in the Israeli political map, that Israel has become a right-wing state par excellence.”

One thing is certain; Israel’s neighbors – Most of them “sworn enemies” of the Jewish state – are paying attention to these elections.

In addition to twelve presidents - most of them not democratically elected or elected for life - the Arab world still has four Kings, three Emirs, and one Sultan. Add to that 67-year-old Moammar Gadhafi, who holds no official title but is referred to as ‘"Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution". File links The following pages link to this file: Muammar al-Qaddafi Categories: Public domain images ... Who needs a title when you’ve ruled a country that you named “Jamahiriya” – That’s Arabic for “State of The Masses” - unchallenged since 1969?

One has to wonder what the Arab masses are thinking right now. No matter what their position on Israel, would they like to hold similar elections themselves? And would they like to choose people to lead them into the future?ast