Obama in Israel

Beyond the speeches, imbued with rhetoric, Obama's first trip to Israel does not seem to give a different direction to the Palestinian issue. For the discounted speeches that call for peace between Israel and its neighbors, does not seem to follow an action that could put pressure on the attitude of Tel Aviv and the Zionist project of expansion of settlements. The declaration of pride of being the country's most powerful ally Israel remains a dead letter, if Washington does not fielding any initiative to bring Israel to the treaties already signed. The American position is in sharp contrast with what always said, is likely to be a part of a deliberate tactic, which, at this stage, sets aside, in practice, the Palestinian issue, to deal with the greatest possible agreement with Tel Aviv, immediate issues most relevant. This is the issue of Iran, where the U.S. must use all the means in their power to make Israel desist from the path of force, to embrace the Syrian issue through diplomatic channels and to maintain a vantage point from which, if necessary, take action. Instrumental in these geopolitical needs, should be read in defense of Israel's right to exist, set out in a peremptory, which is not only an ideal continuity with the U.S. foreign policy, since the war, but that is a real evolution dictated Washington from the need to monitor political developments taking place in the Middle East, always considered central in the overall strategy of American foreign policy. Despite the profound differences, cultural, global views and even politically motivated between Obama and Netanyahu, the two, while hating temperamentally, they must make the best of a bad job, having both absolute need for each other. The President of the United States, as is well known, would prefer a totally different handling of the Palestinian issue, with the obvious conclusion of the two states that recognize each other and if the international situation was different, he would not hesitate to exaggerate to arrive at a permanent solution, so as to remove Islamic fundamentalism a reason for its existence. But the moment of instability requires a realism that Obama, during his first term, did not seem to be fully equipped. Israelis themselves if they are realized even in the most progressive in the country, which has greater affinity with that policy, recognizing that the first phase, where the president of the United States was framed as a left-wing idealist, is now following a character more pragmatic, recognizing the need for the presence of a pro-American country in the Middle East which should also allow things that are not in agreement. This argument explains once and for all the dismissive attitude with which Netanyahu addresses the problem of the colonies, in violation of all logic, and this is allowed by the absolute necessity of the American Israel's very presence in the heart of the Middle East, as a bridgehead of Washington . For this reason no one understands the U.S. admission of Palestine as an observer at the United Nations and the coldness repeatedly demonstrated the recent Palestinian calls. But it seems curious that this power of blackmail is not scratched at all despite the potential of existing U.S., which could give addresses at least partially different, the Israeli policy.