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.

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.

Mary Boys, a professor of theology at the Union Theological Seminary, discusses the pope’s relations with Jews and Muslims and how his trip is being perceived on all sides.

Read blogger reactions to the pope’s trip and his statements below.

The pope conducted mass in Manger Square, where he gave his condolences to the suffering people living in Gaza. Blogger “Lionel” describes attending the papal mass and the mood in the region:

Yesterday’s papal Mass at the Kidron valley was something [...] of a letdown. Security was super tight. There was a tension in the air. The pope had just been criticised for his yad Vashem speech and the sheikh had hijacked the conference that made the pope walk out. [..] The crowd was noticeably very small — mainly foreign pilgrims and religious nuns. Even the number of priests were very limited…it was pretty subdued.

I left for Bethlehem at 8pm after the Mass ended. Stayed overnight but got up real early to go to Manger Square in front of the Basilica of the Nativity for the 2nd papal Mass this morning.  Now here the Mass was packed packed packed!!!! And we had Catholics from Gaza and other refugee camps like Jenin, Zebibde and even Taybe and other West Bank districts closed by Israeli security. And many women wore traditional bedoiun costumes. It was like a carnival — the combined choir was leading in songs and chanting “Benedetto! benvenuto!” (Benedict! Welcome!) It was a stark contrast from yesterday’s sombre (one nun said it was like a funeral) mood. Here in Bethlehem, people were standing on chairs, singing, waving flags, interrupting the homily with shouts and claps.

After Mass the pope went to greet the Christians from Gaza — everything broke loose — a security nightmare. All the refugees rushed to plead with the pope for help and the security had to surround the pope to protect him and whisk him off quickly. Palestinian security was pretty tough as well. Snipers on every rooftop in Manger Square.

Blogger Tom Hein in Israel writes about the widespread preparation prior to the pope’s visit:

One of big events in the news of Israel is the arrival of the Pope in Jerusalem. All week long I have been seeing preparations in the old city for his arrival. For example, down in the Kidron Valley a gigantic platform stage was erected, seating set up in cordoned sections interspersed with imported olive trees and tons of gravel so that people in robes don’t have to walk on the dirty grimy floor of the Kidron Valley. Actually they’ve cleaned up everything around the city. One of our tour guides said that the city is not usually this clean, but they are giving it the spit and shine for the Pope.

Since the pope is arriving there are thousands of soldiers lining the streets around the old city, a blimp bouncing around in the sky overhead, and the roads are blocked with buses parked sideways across the width of the roadways. I guess that this is to stop someone from driving up in a car or truck with a bomb or trying to ram the popes automobile. It is a really massive operation, hard to describe how many soldiers I’ve talked to today as I’ve gone here and there. I went up high on one precipice to see the view, and I had a soldier follow and check for bombs in the flower pots! When he didn’t find any bombs he visited with me a bit which was fine. I respect and appreciate soldiers, and I just took it that he was doing his duty to keep an eye on me. People are not allowed to drive up here to the old city and there are certain roadways blocked to pedestrian traffic as well. Some people are upset because they have to take an alternative route around anywhere the pope is going. I understand why it’s necessary.

User “Max” comments on a Catholic blog about his experience as a Christian in Bethlehem:

I am a Christian Palestinian from Bethlehem […] I lived most of my life here, got baptized and confirmed here, went to Catholic schools etc. I have to say that blanket hatred of other religions does not resemble anything that I ever learned about Christianity. Muslims and Christians have been living peacefully together in Bethlehem for centuries now. Throughout my life Muslims here have been my good neighbors, classmates, friends, work colleagues and most of all fellow Palestinians with whom we have shared the experience of 42 years of a brutal Israeli military occupation of our city. All we want is to simply be free.

Like many Christian Palestinians I am also sadly making plans to emigrate from Palestine. I am doing so not because of my Muslim neighbors but because it is extremely demoralizing to live in a city that is besieged by Israeli walls and is constantly shrinking as Israel confiscates more and more of our privately owned lands to build Israeli settlements. Our beautiful city is starting to resemble a fenced in ghetto in which we have to maneuver Israeli army checkpoints on a daily bases with a regular dose of harassment and intimidation.  It would be a remarkable gesture for the pope to visit Gaza. If he does so I hope, as a Christian, that he would do this not only as an “expression of solidarity with the Christian community”, but with all Palestinians in Gaza who are still suffering from the aftermath of a barbaric attack that cannot be justified.

Also, read editorial consultant Peter Eisner’s analysis of the pope’s visit: Israel parses pope’s words at Holocaust memorial.

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.

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.