ANALYSIS: Obama speech contains nothing sides have not heard before

Jun 4, 2009, 14:38 GMT

Tel Aviv - US President Barack Obama patted Israelis and Palestinians on the back Thursday, but at the same time wagged a finger in their face.

Making a landmark address in Cairo to the Muslim world, the president was careful to stress the suffering and hopes of both sides while at the same time reminding them of their obligations in order for peace to be achieved.

The main focus of his comments on the Israeli-Palestinian imbroglio - that Israel had to stop settlements, and Palestinians had to combat militancy - was nothing the sides had not heard before.

But they had not heard it in such an anticipated speech, in which a US president outlined his vision of relations with the Muslim world.

The comments on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, therefore, were important because of the timing and location of the speech, rather than because of their content.

Predictably, reactions to the speech were mixed. In Israel, Obama's remarks drew praise from the left and centre, and were slammed by the right, and especially by settler leaders.

'Never has so much hoopla been made before, during and after a speech which said nothing new,' said the Settlers' Council.

Official Israeli government waited three hours before putting out a reaction, which stated that the Israeli government shared the president's hope for a new era of reconciliation between the Arab and Muslim world and Israel.

The laconic response did not address Obama's demand on a settlement freeze. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made it clear that Israel has no intention of instituting a complete settlement freeze.

The initial response from the Palestinian Authority also did address the demands Obama made of it.

A spokesman for President Mahmoud Abbas said the speech was 'candid and clear' and 'a new American beginning.'

'Israel should take Obama's speech seriously,' Nabil Abu Rudeineh said.

Militant Palestinian factions, whom the president called on to renounce violence, were less impressed.

Fawzi Barhoum, a spokesman for the Islamic Hamas movement in the Gaza Strip, said the speech was cosmetic only.

In a clear rejection of Obama's call for non-violence, Barhoum slammed the president for not talking about 'the Palestinian peoples right of resistance and their right of self-defense. '

The radical Islamic Jihad went further, denouncing the speech as 'imposing Israel on the Arabs and Moslems.'

Both movements, along with other militant groups, are crucial to the peace process, since, as they proved in the past, they can derail it, or even any possible further treaty, with violent attacks.

Their rejection of non-violence, and of Obama's vision for a new start in America's relations with the Muslim world, as well as Israel's previous rejection of calls for a settlement freeze, indicates that the US president now finds himself in a corner.

By unequivocally and emphatically reminding Israelis and Palestinians of their obligations, Obama has made it every clear what the sides have to do.. What is less clear is what he will do if they fail to meet his demands.

And it is equally unclear whether he will have the will, or the political clout, to be able to do it.