President Barack Obama may have gone further than any other US President in specifying the borders of the Palestinian state in his latest speech. And if it is well-known that such a state should be established on the basis of international legitimacy and UN resolutions, it necessarily should be established on the territories occupied during the 1967 war. Yet specifying these borders in the US President's speech on Middle East affairs reflects the Administration's vision of the nature of a permanent solution. This is also the first time the Administration clearly specifies that this vision it holds should lead to establishing a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, with some land-swaps that would be subject to negotiations. However, after Obama's meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, the aspects of weakness inherent to this vision became clear. This is not just because Netanyahu absolutely rejects those borders, or even discussing a permanent solution, but because Obama himself has become a lame duck with the start of his electoral campaign. Indeed, he will not be able, in any case whatsoever, and regardless of his intentions, to promote such a vision in the United States and with those funding his campaign, especially within the Israeli lobby. Many articles published in major US newspapers, after the speech and after the meeting with Netanyahu, linked the fact that continued Jewish support of Obama as candidate to a second term would come at the price of his abandoning his vision of a permanent solution, with not exerting any pressure on Netanyahu in order to see it through. That is the equation for Obama with the start of his electoral campaign: Jewish backing and support in exchange for unambiguous support of the Israeli government's policies. Certainly Obama's main advisers are well aware of such an equation. They also know that Netanyahu will reject such a vision and that the Israeli lobby in the United States will stand against it and will blackmail the President during his electoral campaign. Why then include it in the speech? It is believed that this is connected to at least two important issues: one methodological and the other political. Regarding the first issue, Obama sought to show that the United States has, under the effect of his Administration and of his vision, changed its stances on the issues of peoples and their legitimate aspirations towards freedom and democracy – evidence of this being the fact that it has abandoned official regimes, whether they were its allies or its adversaries, and has taken the side of the Arab peoples, including the Palestinian people under occupation who aspire to live in an independent state. Regarding the second issue, the Palestinian demand to establish an independent state is now meeting additional support from all over the world, especially from among close allies of the United States and in Europe. In fact, even several European capitals have hinted to their desire to recognize such a state. Furthermore, the Palestinian Authority is headed towards putting forward the demand to establish the Palestinian state before international legitimacy again in September, which could lead to a broad wave of recognition of their state and represent a major relapse for the American method of monopolizing sponsorship of negotiations. This is on the one hand. On the other, and that is what is most important, such a declaration would represent a blow to Israel's policy of obstinacy and would place the Hebrew State in the face of international isolation. Putting forward Obama's vision of the borders of the Palestinian state aims to represent pressure exerted on the Palestinian Authority to prevent it from moving forward with its plans to demand recognition of the Palestinian state at the United Nations. In fact, it has linked this vision with declaring a commitment to reject any plans that would “isolate” Israel on the international scene. And the “action” pointed to in the speech is precisely that of the PA heading to the United Nations to demand recognition of the Palestinian state. This would explain the brevity of Obama's words about occupied Palestinian territories and his omission of other occupied Arab territories, in the Golan and in Lebanon. In this sense, Obama's stances on the changes taking place in the Arab World represent a form of cover for maintaining stances of political support for Israel, not a serious effort to find a sustainable permanent settlement in the Middle East.
