President Barack Obama will meet with Benjamin Netanyahu this week, and the agenda is clear: the Palestinian cause, from the obstructed indirect talks to the Gaza blockade, and the Iranian nuclear file in light of the new international sanctions. Therefore, there is no room for speculations and the detection of positions, as the American president is still convinced that stability in the region and the protection of American interests from Afghanistan to Iraq are linked to finding a solution to the Middle East problem - i.e. the discontinuation of the settlement activities, the ending of the occupation and the establishment of a Palestinian state. On the other hand, the Israeli prime minister is not ready to give the Palestinians anything and does not see any chance of stability as long as Iran is upholding its “nuclear” positions. So will any of the two men be able to impose his agenda on the other at this point in time, knowing that they are both tired and burdened with files and domestic and external predicaments forcing them to maintain truce and wait? The American president has not yet recovered from the Afghanistan shock, while there are only two months left before the launching of the pullout of the American forces from Iraq where the people are still struggling and unable to agree over the new government in light of prevailing Iranian interference. In this context, there is nothing giving the impression that the visit of his Vice President Joe Biden to Baghdad will secure the promised breakthrough. Moreover, the chapters of the Mexico Gulf oil disaster have not yet come to an end and the economic situation is suffering setbacks on a daily basis, not the least of which being the rising unemployment rate. For their part, the campaigns of the Republicans and some of the Democrats are incessantly confronting him with additional blows, at a time when polarization has reemerged with Russia over the spies case that toppled all that he had agreed on with his Russian counterpart Medvedev, and Russia's fears have resurfaced over the new “missiles agreement” signed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Poland. However, the epitome of these heated troubles was seen in the failure of American Peace Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell to achieve any progress worth mentioning, following the completion of the twentieth round of indirect negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians, while the concerns related to the Congressional mid-term elections in November are casting their shadows over these files. This will be a crucial date, considering that if the Democrats are able to maintain the majority, the talks with the right-wing government could take another turn. Now however, Obama does not need additional problems with Tel Aviv. As for Netanyahu, he is coming to Washington while pursued. Indeed, he is pursued by his Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman who is putting restraints on the Cabinet's decisions over anything related to the negotiations with the Palestinians, recognizing that his positions are increasing Israel's international isolation and that he is threatening his prime minister with early elections to divest the Likud of the leadership of the right wing, although his party Yisrael Beiteinu came third in last year's parliamentary elections. Netanyahu is also pursued by the rising domestic campaign to secure the liberation of captive soldier Gilad Shalit, by the international campaign calling on him to end the blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip once and for all, and by the escalating crisis with Turkey and the possible loss of a long-lasting Islamic ally. On the other hand, he does not need a new problem with Washington in light of the concerns revolving around the European positions opposing the policy of the Israeli right-wing at the level of the negotiations and the Gaza blockade files. Therefore, the decisive positions have been differed, although the time factor seems to be pressing. Indeed, the deadline for the freezing of the settlement activities will end in three months, the Arab assignment granted to the head of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmud Abbas, expires in about two months, and the mid-term elections in the United States will be conducted in four months. More importantly, none of the concerned sides has a clear vision for the outcome of the situation once all these deadlines are over, except for Netanyahu who does not seem to want any political progress. In reality, while the Egyptian foreign minister threatened that the Arab leaders will resort to the Security Council to achieve the two-state formula, the head of the authority denied the Palestinians' intention to undertake a unilateral step – such as heading to the Security Council – if the negotiations actually failed. Moreover, he recently addressed the Israelis by saying: “We have conducted debates at the Arab League to discuss what will happen if we are unable to reach a solution. The Arab League said we should go to the Security Council after consulting with our friends, including the United States and the European countries. However, some misunderstood this suggestion and claimed we wished to undertake a unilateral step. But this is not true. The signed agreements stipulate that no side is allowed to undertake unilateral steps that would hinder the permanent agreement.” Certainly, President Obama can explain to his guest and in details what his administration has accomplished to dissipate Israel's fears toward the rise of Iran and its nuclear file, from the quasi international unanimity secured over the new package of sanctions on the Islamic Republic, to the imposition of the more painful individual American and European sanctions, the reiteration of the United States' commitment to anything that could provide its strategic partner with security and guarantee its military superiority, the attempts to reassemble what was severed between Turkey and the Hebrew state and the attempts to alleviate the international isolation facing Tel Aviv. In this context, the president does not need to warn his guest against a military strike targeting the Iranian nuclear facilities, as Israel itself has become convinced that it will be difficult to stop the Islamic Republic's nuclear program and that any strike will not only be inefficient, but also extremely dangerous. On the other hand, Obama definitely does not want to confirm the failure of his initiative to resolve the Palestinian issue on the basis of the two-state formula, considering that this commitment cannot be sacrificed as it will mean the loss of the confidence of the Arab and Islamic worlds in his administration and the United States as a whole once and for all. Therefore, since he has been unsuccessful in imposing the final discontinuation of the settlements activities, he will ask his guest once again to stop these activities following the temporary freezing of this policy in September, in exchange for the authority's engagement in direct negotiations. However, Netanyahu will be coming to Washington while carrying his party's decision – in advance - not to renew the term of the temporary freezing of the settlement activities, after having destroyed the homes of Palestinians in Eastern Jerusalem and following the adoption of measures in form in regard to the Gaza Strip, recognizing that these measures did not alleviate the suffering of the blockaded in any way. In light of the past experiences, President Obama does not trust his guest. So far, he has tested him at the level of the obstructed indirect negotiations and at the level of his leniency toward all the extremist positions of his Foreign Minister Lieberman - which have been the main cause of the problem - instead of seeking an alliance with the Kadima Party. What the American president wants at this stage is to fill the lost time and maintain the minimum level of calm in the region, considering that the situations in Afghanistan and Iraq require special care and focus, especially during these two months. Consequently, until it is time for Obama to launch a peace plan that would be imposed on the concerned sides maybe following the midterm elections, he will try to convince Netanyahu at this stage to halt the settlement activities in exchange for moving to direct negotiations, although he knows that the Israeli right-wing government does not wish to see the birth of a Palestinian state, neither in a year nor in two or three years as it was clearly expressed by Lieberman. In parallel to the concern over the continuation of the negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis, Obama will remind his guest that the American administration is proceeding with the attempts to distance Syria from Iran, either by warning it against the seriousness of the Iranian targets in the region, by raising the issue of the arms provided by Damascus to Hezbollah and the Iranian radar posted on Syrian soil, or through American reports talking about invitations or inclinations to launch direct talks with Hezbollah and Hamas. Nonetheless, if the United States needs to speak to Syria or any other among the allies of the Party or the Movement each and every time, why does it not address them directly? How can someone seeking dialogue with the Taliban in Afghanistan justify the refusal to recognize and engage in dialogue with the Party and the Movement, despite the great difference between the two organizations in the Middle East and the organization in Central Asia?
