It happened because it had to happen, because history dictated that it happen.
Barack Obama, the newly elected president of the United States and Benjamin Netanyahu, the newly resurrected prime minister of Israel, were fated to meet.
The meeting had historical precedence. The meeting had diplomatic overtones. And like historical precedence and like diplomatic two steps, the meeting yielded nothing except for another page written into history and another diplomatic gesture politely completed.
Think tactics, not strategy. The changes in administrations brought about under the leadership of both Obama and Netanyahu will be tactical changes, not strategic changes. To think otherwise is to be naive and overly optimistic.
The changes we will see will be in the attainment of short-term goals rather than long-term objectives. Both men acted mature and statesmanlike. The tensions that were expected were present, but only minimally. They heard each other out. They shared and they discussed for one hundred and five minutes. And they both leaned a little.
They learned about each other and about each other’s agenda. And because they were engaged in discussion and dialogue as opposed to debate, each actually heard what the other had to say.
In the end, Netanyahu confirmed what he knew about Obama the man and came away reassured about Obama the leader vis-a-vis his take on Iran.
In fact, Netanyahu came away so reassured on that one important issue that he was quoted as saying “the U.S. and Israel see eye to eye on Iran.”
And since the meeting, Obama has stated more than once that Iran must not be allowed to acquire military nuclear power while Admiral Mike Mullen, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was quoted saying that a nuclear Iran is potentially “calamitous.”
“Calamitous” is a very powerful word.
Mullen said, “I’m one who believes that Iran getting a nuclear weapon is calamitous for the region and for the world.”
Here we have it: The most important military leader and adviser in the United States is saying that Iran is very dangerous.
The Palestinians are another matter. As part of their give and take, their point-and-counterpoint discussion, Obama made his case for a Palestinian state to be created now while Netanyahu, the consummate orator, treated Obama to a brief course on Israel’s reservations concerning the creation of a Palestinian state at this juncture.
There was nothing new in the material that either the American president or the Israeli prime minister delivered, but the time and the place – as well as the mutual respect between the two leaders – required it be said and said in its entirety.
They spoke, they listened, they changed nothing. Not at the White House, that is.
On Capitol Hill Netanyahu was greeted with great fanfare – and frankness. Much as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had done, John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, made it very clear the U.S. is in favor of creating a Palestinian state and that Washington wants Israel to cease building settlements.
America wants a two-state solution, as do most Israelis. That comes as no surprise, but it does come with a bit of a problem. The problem for Israeli leadership is that in order for Israel to sign off on a Palestinian state there must be real as opposed to theoretical safeguards agreed to by the Palestinian government. And right now there are no safeguards of any kind.
Looking out on the Palestinian horizon there is no leader who can control the Palestinian factions. Looking past the horizon, the only controlling figure who might emerge is Marwan Barghouti, but he is serving a term in an Israeli prison for his role in terror attacks against Israelis.
In the absence of a real leader it will be almost impossible to rein in the various Palestinian factions. And without a real Palestinian leader it will be impossible to strike a meaningful blow against Hamas. And without a real leader Palestinians will never be able to invest in building the institutions that will help pull them out of the muck and mire and into the modern technological world.
Despite the widespread desire for the establishment of a Palestinian state, American lawmakers recognize the dilemma posed by the lack of Palestinian leadership.