The topic on Al Jazeera Arabic’s controversial yet highly popular talk show “Opposite Direction” this week was the Obama presidency, one year later.

The host questioned the sincerity of President Obama’s outreach to Arabs and Muslims. Faisal al-Qasem, the Syrian host of al-Itijah al-Mo’akis, likened President Obama to a wolf dressed in sheep’s clothing.

Al-Qasem accused Obama of speaking from both sides of his mouth and alleged that the Arabs’ problem was believing Obama’s sugar-coated words:

Al Arabiya news channel reported on the upcoming African Cup football match between Egypt and Algeria. Egypt beat Cameroon 3-1 to set up a repeat of the intense World Cup playoff against Algeria.

The last time these two teams faced each other was in Khartoum, Sudan, which was followed with violence and enormous tension across the Arab world.

Today’s lead headline in Israeli center-left newspaper Haaretz was about Israeli president Shimon Peres’ speech to the German parliament. Speaking on the anniversary of the Auschwitz death camp’s liberation, Peres called for the surviving perpetrators of the Holocaust to be brought to justice.

Abdel al-Bari Atwan, the editor-in-chief of the pan-Arab newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi, published in London, wrote an op-ed yesterday on the stalled Middle East peace process — in light of U.S. envoy George Mitchell’s recent visit to the region.

Atwan, who was born in a refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, is an outspoken critic of many Arab governments. He attributes Mitchell’s lack of progress to:

• Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to retain Jewish settlements in the West Bank and keep complete control of those areas.

• The refusal of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to return to the negotiating table again without an Israeli commitment to a freeze on settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

• U.S. President Barack Obama giving in to Israeli pressure on the settlements.

Atwan argues that another intifada is likely because of the stalemate in the peace process. He also thinks Fatah and Hamas may be forced to reconcile if progress is not made.

- Mohammad Al-Kassim

However, a year later, there is some movement toward a resumption of talks. Mitchell will be going back to the region in the next few days, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is to meet tomorrow with officials from Jordan and Egypt.

To take a deeper look at the issues, Alon Ben-Meir, a senior fellow at New York University’s School of Global Affairs, joins Daljit Dhaliwal. Ben-Meir discusses why the timing is right to resume the negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. He also talks about the new role settlements are playing in the peace process.

The meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas did not produce a breakthrough, but it was a moment deep in symbolism — the beginning, perhaps, of a new and more productive phase in the struggle for peace in the Middle East.

For his part, Obama had a strong message for the leaders after meeting with them individually: Get moving again on a comprehensive peace agreement.

After the meeting, Netanyahu said there was general agreement that the peace process has to be resumed as soon as possible with no preconditions.

Ghassan Shabaneh, an assistant professor of international studies at Marymount Manhattan College, joins Daljit Dhaliwal to discuss the significance of the meeting for the peace process.

The two men — and the nations they represent — have been searching for months for a way to resolve differences over Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The U.S. has been pushing hard for an Israeli settlement freeze, and the Palestinians are refusing to restart peace talks until Israel halts all construction there.

Despite their failure to reach agreement again on Wednesday, the two sides will resume talks in Washington next week.

What do you think it will take to reach a Middle East peace agreement? Tell us what you think in the comments section below.

Daniel Levy, a senior research fellow for the New America Foundation and a former advisor to the Israeli government, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the U.S. and Israeli positions and prospects for a broader Middle East peace deal.

The meeting was held one day after it was reported that Israel may be open to a freeze on settlement building.

Ghassan Shabaneh, an assistant professor of international studies at Marymount Manhattan College, joins Martin Savidge to discuss Palestinians’ concerns about settlements and other issues.

Meanwhile, a top Iranian nuclear official dismissed concerns over his country’s nuclear program as “politically motivated gestures by some countries.” But the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran needs to do much more to prove to the world that it is not developing a nuclear arsenal.

That possibility — a potential military dimension to Iran’s nuclear program — greatly worries Israel, which has hinted that it might attack Iran to disable its nuclear capabilities.

Daniel Levy, the co-director of the Middle East task force at the New America Foundation and a former adviser to the Israeli government, joins Martin Savidge to discuss Israel’s reaction to the Iranian election, Netanyahu’s endorsement of a Palestinian state and hopes for progress in the peace process.

Although cities in the north and south have traditionally been at the greatest risk of missile attacks, the government is practicing these drills nationwide.

Watch the report from Worldfocus partner The Media Line.

Blogger “mimi54” describes the drill, writing that some ignored it:

It’s a very loud, urgent, scary wail. When it resounds across the country to remind us of our dead, it does sound like crying. I suppose it’s because we ourselves are weeping then. But in a real emergency, when adrenelin [sic] is pouring through the blood and our hearts are jumping, it sounds like a wavering howl. I wonder how many ignored it today and just got on with whatever they were doing, and how many complied with the Home Front’s orders. 

At the clinic, I saw signs with arrows pointing to the safe areas. Banks, supermarkets – big, organized places – and certainly schools, complied. However many individuals that I talked to today took a cynical view of the drill. My friend in the second-hand store told me that it’s just the government’s way of covering its back: “They don’t help in emergencies. They’re just doing this so they can say ‘We gave instructions and did our bit.’ ” (I don’t agree; the government does protect the population as far as possible in war.) “Anyway,” he added, “I’m not going to close shop and go to the shelter just for a drill. Who wants to look like a fool on the street?”

Watch a video of the drill as experienced by YouTube user bspier1, showing many people who were unconcerned:

A blogger at “From the hills of Jerusalem” echoes the sentiment, writing that after so many real attacks, it is hard to take simulations seriously: 

This wasn’t a crisis, of course, it was just a drill. But it was a drill that reminded us that we’ve been through many drills - real ones. The residents of Sderot, and towns along the southern borders, as well as those in the north, have already had many and constant real life exercises to practice. I have had my own runs for shelter when in some of those towns. Sometimes a safe room was available, sometimes we stood under a doorway…like in an earthquake. You do your best.

Today, no one moved. We just continued on with whatever we were doing. [...]It’s not that we are really nonchalant or lackadaisical….it’s just…well, alright already, we know the big one is coming…nuke, earthquake, bolts from heaven…. It’s Israel - our minds are already stretched as far as they can go in the survival mode. 

A blogger at “A Soldier’s Mother” explains why she warned her daughter of the drill in advance:

For some reason, perhaps to add to a feeling of urgency, the school decided not to explain to my 9-year-old daughter in advance that this would be an exercise. During the war, a siren was accidentally sounded in our city and the children were quickly moved to bomb shelters, fearing it was a real attack. There was no warning (as we have now) and therefore no chance to prepare the kids. All that mattered was a frantic but orderly move to bomb shelters in case our city, so far from Gaza, would somehow also be hit by missiles.

There was no time to find out if it was a mistake, human error. Later, they would confirm at attack on Beersheva and a mistake made. But at that moment, it was as real as if we too lived within seconds of Gaza.

I didn’t want my daughter to go through that again and so I told her, secretly, that when she heard the siren, she should listen to the teachers, but not be afraid. Every child has the right to live without fear, including that sudden panic that comes with hearing a siren and knowing you have to run quickly to seek shelter.

User “Traxus” comments on the “World Affairs Board,” addressing concerns that Israel may be preparing for war with Iran: 

Posturing and preparing… the lines are so blurred. This is definitely a posturing move though, at least in part. They are being quite vocal in preparing for war, I’m sure this is a message more aimed at the US and Europe rather than Iran.

Would Israel put so much effort into this if they had no intention of attacking Iran? Hard to say. This is also a PR move for Israeli citizens. Gets them used to the idea of being at war with Iran, makes the idea a lot more comfortable especially if these drills have a positive result.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Nahariense under a Creative Commons license.

That led to violence earlier this week as mobs of Jewish settlers attacked Palestinian workers in one town on the West Bank. The attacks were staged as a protest against the removal of several settler squatter camps by the government. 

Worldfocus partner The Media Line reports on the rising tensions from one tiny settlement outpost, built illegally, by a small group of Jews.

On Monday, Jewish settlers attacked Palestinian workers in one town on the West Bank. The attacks were staged as a protest against the removal of several settler squatter camps by the government. Six Palestinians were injured and the settlers burned tires and set fire to olive groves.

Ron Huldai, the mayor of Tel Aviv — Israel’s second-largest city — joins Martin Savidge as his city celebrates the 100th anniversary of its founding to discuss the city’s origins, the old town of Jaffa and how people in Tel Aviv view the settlement movement in the West Bank.

President Barack Obama talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday. Photo: White House

Popular democracy and a will for peace weigh heavily in the relations between the leaders of Israel and the United States. As it happens, Barack Obama, the new U.S. president, is a very popular leader whose appeal extends beyond U.S. borders — even to Israel. And the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, is the head of a fragile coalition where he must pay lip service to the cause of promoting a secure and just peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Netanyahu has opposed a two-state solution in the Middle East and when he took office this spring said a Palestinian solution was secondary to his focus on Iran. “The biggest danger to humanity, and to our state Israel, stems from the possibility that a radical regime will get nuclear weapons, or a nuclear weapon will be armed by a radical regime.” 

Yesterday, President Obama set the order of business squarely with a resumption of Palestinian talks. The goal, Obama said, is a separate Palestinian state.

Netanyahu may not like it, but he may not have a choice. Obama has chosen the path of diplomacy, reaching out to Iran, and waiting for the result of elections in that country next month before taking his additional steps toward dialogue.

Since Netanyahu took power in March, speculation has centered on whether and when he might set a deadline and use Israeli air strikes in an attempt to cripple Iran’s nuclear capacity. There are precedents — Israel bombed Syrian nuclear facilities in 2007 and Iraq’s Osiris nuclear facility in 1981.

Israel’s Haaretz newspaper reported that top U.S. officials warned Netanyahu before his visit to Washington “that Israel not surprise the U.S. with an Israeli military operation against Iran.”

It’s not difficult to imagine what would be happening now if a Republican president were in the White House and if Netanyahu had a stronger hold on Israel’s Knesset. The policy is clearly spelled out in a guest opinion column in the Washington Post.

John P. Hannah, who was former Vice President Dick Cheney’s national security adviser, clearly sides with Netanyahu. “Successful denuclearization of hostile states is most likely to occur as a result of regime change, coercive diplomacy or military action, not U.S. pledges of mutual respect.”

Regime change was the order of the day for Hannah in the run up to the Iraq War. He and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby were key in gathering the thin and fake information on Iraq’s non-existent nuclear program prior to the war.

Cheney and Hannah argue that the United States and the world were safer under the neoconservative policy that held sway during the Bush administration — strongly aligned with Netanyahu and his allies in Israel. At the same time, he implies that U.S. policy in the Middle East under Bush was successful.

He writes: “…given the history of tyrannical Middle Eastern regimes seeking nuclear arms, we must also acknowledge that the Obama strategy reflects the triumph of hope over experience.”

- Peter Eisner

The United States has reached out to Iran in an effort to persuade it to stop its nuclear program.

Daniel Levy, a senior fellow and co-director of the Middle East Task Force of the New America Foundation, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the Iran question, the possibility of resuming negotiations with the Palestinians and the U.S. role going forward.

Its special envoy to the region, George Mitchell, recently visited Israel and the West Bank. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has traveled to the region as well.

But Israel’s new conservative government is taking an altogether different approach to any peace deal with the Palestinians — an approach that diverges significantly from the Obama administration’s.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has attempted to place Iran ahead of the Palestinian issue, and the new government says Israel will not move ahead with peace talks until the U.S. makes progress in stopping Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Alon Ben-Meir, a senior fellow at New York University’s School of Global Affairs, joins Martin Savidge to discuss what’s behind this shift in Israel’s approach and the challenges it presents for the Obama administration and the Palestinians themselves.

Also, read what Worldfocus editorial consultant Peter Eisner had to say about Israel’s posturing: Israel angles for control in chess-like peace negotiations.

During its first three months in office, the Obama administration has repeatedly stressed how committed it is to a new peace agreement in the Middle East.

Its special envoy to the region, George Mitchell, recently visited Israel and the West Bank. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has traveled to the region as well.

But Israel’s new conservative government is taking an altogether different approach to any peace deal with the Palestinians — an approach that diverges significantly from the Obama administration’s.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has attempted to place Iran ahead of the Palestinian issue, and the new government has said that Israel will not move ahead with peace talks until the U.S. makes progress in stopping Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Worldfocus editorial consultant Peter Eisner takes a look at the meaning behind Israel’s posturing.

A few days short of 100 days into the Obama administration, it’s still early to track the direction of Middle East negotiations. It’s also too soon to mistake posturing for substance. The attempt by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to shift attention from the Palestinian question to Iran may not go very far.

He appears to be only one player in a simultaneous chess exhibition, in which a chess master –- President Obama in this case — moves from table to table, playing a dozen games with less weighty competitors at the same time.

Netanyahu has already heard from President Obama on the airwaves, and more directly from special envoy George Mitchell, that the United States clearly wants a two-state solution –- that is, a separate Palestinian state. He opposes that solution and apparently wants to change the subject.

“What’s going on here?” asked Haaretz correspondent Aluf Benn, in an analysis earlier this month that still rings true.  ”Clearly the Netanyahu government and the Obama administration have not yet developed discrete communication channels to let them coordinate their policy and avoid statements that would embarrass the other party.”

Not that Netanyahu’s mention of Iran should be taken lightly. There are hawks in Israel and the United States who advocate military action — and soon — against Iran if its nuclear aspirations are not contained. But Obama has been moving toward diplomacy with Iran, not only on the nuclear issue but also in an all-inclusive attempt to work on the problems of Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time.

It is unlikely that Netanyahu will be able to change the subject for long, even if he says today he won’t be working on the Palestinian issue until he sees positive developments on Iran. The White House has invited him, along with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to Washington in May to work on the outlines of peace talks.

It sounds more like Netanyahu is looking to play from a position of strength. He’s probably read a report in Israel’s largest circulation daily, Yedioth Achronoth. Correspondent Shimon Shiffer played back some tough words by Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s chief of staff, to an unamed Jewish leader: “In the next four years there is going to be a permanent status arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians on the basis of two states for two peoples, and it doesn’t matter to us at all who is prime minister.”

Shiffer’s April 16 report sounds like the reverse of Netanyahu’s attempt to place Iran ahead of the Palestinian issue. He quoted Emanuel, who is highly regarded in Israel for his Israeli ties, saying that “Any treatment of the Iranian nuclear problem will be contingent upon progress in the negotiations and an Israeli withdrawal from West Bank territory.”

- Peter Eisner

Photo courtesy of Flickr user NguyenDai under a Creative Commons license.

Mitchell arrived in Tel Aviv on Wednesday after first stopping in North Africa. On the top of his agenda: Discussions about a two-state solution to bring peace between Palestinians and Israelis, something Prime Minister Netanyahu has so far refused to endorse.

Daniel Levy, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington D.C., joins Martin Savidge to discuss Mitchell’s time in North Africa, his support for a two-state solution and his scheduled meeting with Palestinian leaders on Friday.

On Tuesday, after many hours of contentious debate, Labor voted to join the coalition led by Netanyahu’s conservative Likud Party, bringing a centrist tone to the new government and a strong voice for continuing peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

Daniel Levy, who has been an advisor to the Israeli government and is now director of the Middle East Task Force at the New America Foundation, joins Martin Savidge to discuss how the coalition was formed, what concessions were made to Ehud Barak and where this leaves Tzipi Livni, the Kadima party leader.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran.

After President Barack Obama sent a video message to Iran appealing for better relations between the two countries, Iran’s leaders wasted no time in replying. On Saturday, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said,”They chant the slogan of change but no change is seen in practice.” See more from Worldfocus on the response: Iran dismisses Obama’s video message.

Worldfocus editorial consultant Peter Eisner, the former deputy foreign editor of the Washington Post, dissects Khamenei’s statement and both countries’ political positioning.

Don’t expect that 30 years of hostility between the United States and Iran will turn around on a dime, or a rial or a shekel for that matter. But it would be wrong to think that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has rejected President Obama’s call last week for a change in relations.

Something subtler is going on here. First of all, look at the source: Ayatollah Khamenei is the top leader in Iran. We’re used to hearing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ranting about the United States; this time, Ahmadinejad was conspicuously silent. Khamenei’s answer, meanwhile, was mostly a recitation of Iran’s grievances with the United States, along with the comment that nothing has changed. In concrete terms, he was right, even though change is in the air.

From the U.S. side, Obama not only issued his televised greeting last week for the Iranian new year; he also has invited Iran to be part of a solution to the war in Afghanistan. There are also reports that Obama sent former defense secretary William Perry to Iran as a secret emissary to emphasize his interest in improved relations.

Iran, meanwhile, is gearing up for presidential elections on June 12. Any response to Obama’s overtures will play heavily in the campaign, in which Ahmadinejad is expected to be a candidate, though not yet a declared one. There are also reformist candidates, and many Iranian voters are interested in improved relations with the United States.

Obama and Khamenei appear to have one thing in common. While they make public statements, each is making sure not to go too far, too quickly in the direction of rapprochement, minimizing criticism from the right.

In Obama’s case, we can count Israel’s incoming prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, in the hawkish camp. To maintain balance in dealing with Israel, Obama has to go slowly to maintain U.S. leverage with Israel toward larger goals for Middle East peace; some Israelis advocate unilateral bombing of nuclear reactors in Iran.

- Peter Eisner

Photo courtesy of Flickr user ManilaRyce under a Creative Commons license.

Read more about Khamenei’s response from Worldfocus editorial consultant Peter Eisner: Reading between the lines of Iran’s response to Obama.

Geneive Abdo, a former journalist based in Iran and now an analyst with the Century Foundation in Washington, joins Martin Savidge to discuss how to interpret Iran’s response, why Khameini issued the response instead of President Ahmedinejad and how Iranian elections and Israel play into the political positioning.

Amjad Atallah, the co-director of the Middle East Task Force at the New America Foundation, joins Daljit Dhaliwal to discuss the future of relations with Syria and other issues examined during Clinton’s visit.

Joshua Landis at the “Syria Comment” blog writes what the announcement may mean for the future of U.S.-Syria relations:

Clinton’s deliberate handshake with Syria’s Foreign Minister at the Gaza donor Conference promises a thaw in Syria-U.S. relations. [...]

All the same, some things seem not to be changing. The US is still seeking to “flip” Syria away from Iran, which Hillary doubts can be pursuaded to fall in with America’s regional security designs. (More promising would be an effort to engage both, rather than trying to split them). Hillary has set out strict preconditions for U.S. support for Israeli-Syrian dialogue. Syria must cut relations with its allies, Hizbullah and Hamas. The demand that Syria abandon its supporters and friends before entering into full dialogue with the US is no more likely to work under Obama than it did under Bush. Why? Because Syria fears that the US will again fail to deliver Israel, as it did under Bill Clinton in 2000. Netanyahu will decline to return the Golan, as he promised during his campaign, and Syria will be left without a deal and with with no friends or regional leverage. Syria suspects this is, in fact,  Washington’s desired outcome - to weaken Syria.

Clinton also said the movement toward the creation of a Palestinian state is, as she put it, “inescapable.” She met with Israel’s Prime Minister-designate, Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu, who said they found “common ground,” even though Netanyahu opposes a two-state solution.

The “Jerusalem Watchman” blog describes the fine line that Netanyahu must walk with the U.S. in terms of the two state question:

Netanyahu, who is being urged by many to withstand these pressures, is trying to walk a fine line. [...] Naturally enough, he does not want to embark on his second term in office already at loggerheads with the new most powerful man in the world. He has been there before. He knows, too, the value of the American Alliance Asset that Israel values and has long sought to protect.

Hillary Clinton meets the mayor of Jerusalem, Nir Barkat.

Times have moved on since Clinton’s husband occupied the White House. The new president is an entirely different kettle of fish. And he has a whole administration, together with a well-weighted Capitol Hill, to back his engagement in the Middle East.

As Hillary comes barreling in, Bibi is likely hoping for all the prayers he can get.

Edward Walker, a former assistant secretary of state and a former ambassador to Israel, describes his interactions with Netanyahu at the “Mideast Peace Pulse” blog:

The Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu who I worked with while I was our Ambassador to Israel, was certainly conservative in his viewpoint, and he was tough when it came to military action.  But, at the same time, he was pragmatic when it came to the interests of Israel and to his own political interests and that of his party. [...]

With Israel’s best interests in mind, Netanyahu has to consider the impact of his policies on his relationship with the new American administration and President.  As a pragmatist, Bibi has no need to rule out negotiations with the Palestinians or a two state solution.  So long as the Palestinians are divided politically, no two state solution is possible – and that will not be Israel’s or Bibi’s fault.

Blogger Daoud Kuttab attended Clinton’s press conference in Israel and describes asking her a question about the conflict in Gaza:

The Gaza Reconstruction conference was a busy affair. Speakers gave talks governments and foundations made pledges and politicians debated all day. In the end it was left to the key players to tell the press about the results of the all day event.

While the question and answer period was over, I was called on to meet privately with the Secretary. [...] I asked her about the blockade on Gaza. My question focused on her interest in children and I asked her what is the fault of a Palestinian child to be taken hostage by politicians. Despite her earlier emotional plea for the children of Palestine, this question failed to move her and she began an often repeated routine of faulting the rockets for the Israeli attacks. Hamas actually provokes Israel to respond was the gist of what she was saying. I was unhappy with the answer but was aware that my time was out.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user U.S. Department of State under a Creative Commons license.