President Obama and the Islamic World: Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Many analysts consider the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the chief focus of the Islamic World in the Middle East. Historically, the Arab World has perceived the United States as the supporter of Israel. Thus, if President Obama wanted to shift the public opinion in the Arab World he had to alter this policy.
On the one hand, President Obama had a different approach towards Israel in the peace process. The huge pressure over Israel for freezing its settlements caused the bitterness of the U.S.-Israeli relations up to the extent that Prime Minister Netanyahu did not even take the common photos with President Obama while visiting the White House. Although the tension now seems to be eliminated, its presence was historical. The fundamental outcome of this policy was a freeze in the settlements which was a positive step towards the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. Nevertheless, some scholars such as Reza Aslan argue that in depth the settlements were not fully frozen. Similarly, President Obama had several times insisted on the necessity for a change in the Palestinian language towards Israel.
One the other hand, Martin Indyk, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, argues that President Obama went too far in supporting the Arab World. Meanwhile President Obama gave memorial speeches in Ankara and Cairo, there was no such speech in Israel. Indyk argues that the lack of communication with the Israeli government and society and unusual pressures on Israel from the United States created a huge gap between President Obama and the Israeli government and society rendering it challenging to cooperate to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, it is necessary to ask whether President Obama had any other options rather than pressuring Israel when the ongoing settlements are a complex problem of this conflict? Nevertheless, Indyk believes that a more balance approach from the Obama administration is required to reach conclusions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Mark Lynch, a professor of social sciences at George Washington University, questions the creativity of President Obama’s policy towards the conflict. He states that meanwhile there was the expectation of a new agenda; President Obama took similar steps to President Bush. He argues that the Obama administration did not spend a great focus on solving the Gaza blockade or the reconstruction of the Palestinian territory. He believes that President Obama had to consider Hamas as a key player of this conflict; thus using similar policies such as Turkey’s approach to engage Hamas more actively. Yet, one has to consider the role of public opinion in the policies of the governments. The perception of the Turkish society towards Hamas is certainly not the same as the United States’. The role of the public opinion will be specifically analyzed in another section of this series. President Obama’s Israeli-Palestinian agenda was not designed without any creativity. The unique pressure on the Israeli settlement was certainly an evidence of a new approach. But, perhaps the engagement of Turkey as a partner favored by both sides, the Arab world and Israel, could have been another creative option.
Overall, President Obama’s Israeli-Palestinian approach had certain new elements. Nevertheless, there are no signs of a major, positive impact of this approach in this dilemma. Did President Obama’s approach fail due to the policy itself or due to the negative response of the Palestinian and Israeli partners? Although decreasing, hope is still alive as the Israeli and Palestinian authorities hold direct negotiations in a few weeks.