President Obama’s Mideast Speech

Neither Israel nor Hamas was happy with President Obama’s latest Mideast speech. The Israeli and Palestinian governments are both fragile coalitions, seemingly incapable of coming to terms. How can peace really come to the Middle East?

The train’s a-coming! Palestinians are currently gearing up for their hoped-for declaration of statehood at the United Nations in September, a move thought likely to gain much support, but to have little real impact on the lives of Palestinians.

If it goes ahead, the resolution would place American policymakers in an awkward, lose-lose, situation. Opposition to the declaration of statehood would serve to further alienate the United States from Arab popular opinion; support of it would be viewed as betrayal by Israel, the United States’ principal ally in the Middle East.

So it came as no surprise that U.S. President Barack Obama gave a key policy speech on Thursday, in which he outlined American aspirations for Israel and the Palestinians. Determined to derail or at least slow down the train, the president:

• Restated U.S. support for a two-state solution.
• Declared that a future Palestinian state would be based on the pre-1967 borders, with mutually agreed adjustments.
• Insisted that U.S. support for Israel’s security is “unshakable.”
• Opposed unilateral action to establish a Palestinian state.
• Criticized Hamas for its rejectionism.
• And criticized Israel for its desire to maintain the status quo, which he declared “unsustainable.”

The president was hoping to reignite some of the impetus he hoped for after his widely acclaimed 2009 speech at Cairo University, and to regain some U.S. influence in a region where the superpower is held in low esteem. Israelis are wary of President Obama, regarding him as less sympathetic to them than his predecessor, George W. Bush, while many Arabs distrust what they regard as rhetoric followed up by little action.

Initial reactions

Will this speech restore American standing in the region? Will it “jump-start” the stuttering attempts at Mideast peace?

Initial reactions were not encouraging. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu quickly rejected any withdrawal to the 1967 borders, calling them “indefensible.” “The viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of Israel’s existence,” he declared.

Hamas spokesman Abu Zuhri declared the speech to be disappointing, stating, “What Obama needs to do is not to add slogans but to take concrete steps to protect the rights of the Palestinian people and the Arab nation.”

However, Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, welcomed President Obama’s attempts to restart peace talks that collapsed in 2010. “President Abbas expresses his appreciation of the continuous efforts exerted by President Obama with the objective of resuming the permanent status talks in the hope of reaching a final status agreement,” declared senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat.

Yet the prospects don’t look good. Both sides are weak, and would have difficulty negotiating the necessary compromises to reach an accord. In spite of the recent unity accord, Palestinians remain divided between the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority on the West Bank, committed to a nonviolent nationalism, and the Islamic Hamas movement in charge of the Gaza Strip, and committed to the destruction of the State of Israel. How can the two act in unison to establish a peaceful Palestinian state?

Israel’s government, on the other hand, also looks frail. Mr. Netanyahu heads a fractious coalition of right-wing and religious parties that disagree on foreign policy and would very likely bring down Mr. Netanyahu were he to go too far in concessions to the Palestinians.

Continuing religious conflicts

Western analysts and prognosticators often overlook the role of religion in conflicts such as this. For much of the world the separation of church and state is an alien concept; hence peaceful coexistence among political democracies that stand apart from state religion is unlikely. With the winds of the “Arab Spring” bringing a strong blast of political Islam in countries like Egypt, the religious factor seems likely to grow, not to shrink. And with it, the conflict is likely to become even more intractable.

One can’t help but be reminded of the words of the ancient prophet Isaiah, who declared centuries ago that “the ambassadors of peace shall weep bitterly” (Isaiah 33:7). Bible prophecy indicates that this region of the world will not experience lasting peace through the efforts of human negotiation. In fact, since there are so many conflicting claims, it will remain the center of contention.

Prince of Peace

Bible prophecy tells us that the Middle East will yet be an arena of conflict between world religions and their adherents. Christianity, Islam and Judaism are destined to remain locked in conflict over this key area of real estate till the “Prince of Peace” Himself brings what so many desire, but cannot obtain: real, lasting peace for the peoples of the region. But this will come only under the government and laws of God Himself.

The train’s a-coming, but not the one many expect. A time of great trouble awaits the Middle East. But eventually true peace will come to that part of the world—and to all humanity! May God speed that day!

Ralph Levy is a minister of the Church of God, a Worldwide Association, living in Ohio.