´óÏó´«Ã½

Commentators from the US, Israel and the Middle East look at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington to meet US President Barack Obama

that the Israeli Prime Minister's visit was more about thawing the relationship with US President Barack Obama than it was about making concrete decisions:

"Netanyahu's US visit is primarily about fence-mending after a rocky start to his relationship with Obama. The president said he was committed to Israel's security and pledged to 'back that up, not just with words but with actions.'"

points out that the two leaders have focused mainly on what they saw eye-to-eye on:

"Where there was agreement, such as on Iran's nuclear ambitions or the promise of Mid-East peace, Obama and Netanyahu emphasised it. Where tensions remain, such as on Israeli settlements or the attack on the aid flotilla, there was little public mention."

also points out that the issues that caused tension between the two countries were hardly mentioned:

"Not addressed in their joint statements were continued tensions over the expansion of Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem - viewed as a major roadblock to progress in the peace negotiations."

Meanwhile, in Israel's Haaretz newspaper:

"Professional cynics should have no doubt that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama had an 'excellent' meeting at the White House on Tuesday. After all, Obama used the adjective three times, seemingly compensating for the previous episode of the unfolding Israel-US soap opera, in which Obama snubbed the prime minister."

In The Jerusalem Post compared to Mr Netanyahu's last visit in March:

"Gone at Tuesday's press conference were the harsh demands on Israel that Obama unveiled at that first press conference, when he said starkly and baldly that 'settlements have to be stopped.' With that single utterance he distanced any chance of direct negotiations for months because of a Palestinian belief that they didn't need to negotiate with Netanyahu, because Obama would do their work for them."

, Nadav Eyal examines why President Obama has changed tactics. As he put it:

"Obama's harsh approach brought about the weakening of the US position as the closet friend of Israel... The administration understood that the campaign of pressures on Netanyahu had brought the maximum possible results at this stage and that its continuation could weaken the stability in the region. It is impossible to expect Netanyahu to pay a political price and continue the freeze without being able to show a significant political achievement..."

Elsewhere in the Middle East, the editorial of the privately-owned says there was nothing new in the meeting:

"The statement made by US President Barack Obama following his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu... raises many questions, especially since Israel has not given lately any indications that it wants peace or even ready to make the effort to launch serious negotiations succeed... We, unfortunately, do not see anything new in the meeting between Obama and Netanyahu... apart from the ongoing US backtracking on the pledge made by President Obama after his election to end the occupation, establish a Palestinian state and achieve peace."

Charle Kamlah, writing in the , chose the title "The need to market the illusion of negotiations" for his commentary:

"The Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin [Benjamin] Netanyahu is in Washington attempting to push the indirect talks between his state and the Palestinian authority to direct talks. He attempts to imply there is something new that requests such a transformation while the truth is the complete opposite. The results of indirect talks so far are zero or even less."

While the newspaper says that US Israeli relations can never really go wrong:

"What has happened in the White House was a political awards' ceremony for Netanyahu in recognition of the 'black list' of commodities banned from entering Gaza he has announced before reaching the USA... The USA-Israeli relations never go sour for any reason even if Israel refuses a US project. The relationship between the two countries is strategic and not subject to emergency incidents."

In the Gulf, an editorial in Qatar's al-Rayah newspaper concludes that President Obama's position on the Palestinian issue is not favouring the Palestinians.

"We can say there is some sort of change in the positions of the Obama administration regarding the Palestinian issue and it is not at all in favour of Palestinians. The trigger for this change is the mid-term elections of the US Congress at the end of this year. Obama cannot risk the Jewish votes and money. The change has left Palestinians and Arabs with no political cover."

Links in full

• Christi Parsons | Los Angeles Times | Obama%20and%20Netanyahu%20promise%20to%20pursue%20Mideast%20peace%20talks
• Ben Feller | Huffington Post | Obama%20Meets%20With%20Netanyahu,%20Says%20U.S.-Israeli%20Bond%20Is%20%27Unbreakable%27
•
•
•
• [In Hebrew]
• [In Arabic]
• [In Arabic]
• [In Arabic]
• [In Arabic]