ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel


Updated on May 21, 2011


Was Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel a beggar having a choice or what? In all actuality, the stoicism he used to frame his sentences in the White House meeting with President Barack Obama yesterday flew in the face of ordinary commonsense.

His advisers must be aware that they have not been properly schooled in International diplomacy, otherwise they would have warned him (Netanyahu) in advance that showing dissent to President Obama, was never the right thing to do.

The reason being that he (Obama) was in every respect an independent observer under the present circumstances. The U.S. has not been appointed as an arbitrator over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and all he had to do was to contribute to the discourse surrounding the matter, which he did in a speech the previous day.

The crust of the matter remained that a stalemate between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs has been brewing for so long; and its agitation was still being driven by the extremist among the Arabs, to use every means possible to forestall all attempts to bring it to an end.

In every sense of the word, Hamas, the Sunni Muslim Palestinian extremist group based in the Gaza Strip, was at the helm of that entangled crisis and not the Palestine elected government which was led by President Mahmoud Abbass. Meaning that the actual problem was not being created by any outsider, but by elements within the confines of Israel itself.

In his speech, President Obama used the word "truthful", directly addressing the issue and making it abundantly clear of where he was coming from.

His words and even his actions toward events in that part of the world were beyond reproach, because what he was striving to achieve was for a peaceful atmosphere for both sides in that fractured conflict; with Israel having a defined border from that of Palestine. His point of reference was only to suggest Israel to go back to the 1967 lines, not literally, but as a start for any realistic and tangible negotiations.

What was seen was Prime Mister Netanyahu using a foray of words to baffle the American public; but was he successful? No; not to the majority. Was he missing anything in President Obama's speech? Yes; for he failed to analyse it carefully, to get its understanding, before his meeting at the White House.

It was obvious that the President of the United States of America did his homework for the occasion, far ahead of all others, and he must be congratulated on his efforts. Well done, Mr. President.

P.S. HAMAS: (in Arabic, an acronym for "Harakat Al-Muqawama Al-Islamia" -- Islamic Resistance Movement -- and a word meaning zeal) is a radical Islamic fundamentalist organization).


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      Howard Schneider 6 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey

      Very astute analysis. With Hamas and Netanyahu in charge, very little will be accoumplished. But we need to still be involved because this issue affects so much in the Middle East. President Obama angered both sides which leads me to believe he got it just right. Great Hub.