Comments on Expectations of President Obama's Trip to Israel

Today the wheels of Air Force One touched down at Ben Gurion International Airport just outside Tel Aviv.  The occasion was President Obama's first state visit to Israel.  (He and his entourage will be staying at the King David Hotel.  I have had the privilege of peering into that very room on the 6th floor of that stately and historic old hotel).  We know that while in Israel, President Obama will be visiting the Shrine of the Book (the museum that houses the Dead Sea Scrolls), Yad Vashem (the memorial to the Holocaust), and to Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity.  He will also journey to Ramallah for a visit with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and later go to Amman, Jordan, for a visit with King Abdullah.  The President declined an invitation to address the Knesset, the Jewish Parliament. 

What is the purpose of this visit?  According to Thomas Friedman, editorialist for the "New York Times," not much.  He writes, "It is hard for me to recall a less-anticipated trip to Israel by an American president.  But there is a message in that empty bottle: Little is expected from this trip - not only because little is possible, but because, from a narrow U.S. point of view, little is necessary."  But, is this assessment a correct one?  It is not, according to Joel Rosenberg.  In his column, that appears at www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/19/three-critical-questions-obama-needs-to-answer he identifies three very important questions that President Obama needs to be asked.
     1.  Have diplomacy, sanctions and covert operations failed to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons.
     2.  If so, will President Obama order airstrikes against Iran, or give Israel the "green light" to hit Iran's nuclear sites since other measures have failed?
     3.  If not, why not?

Unfortunately, I don't  believe those questions will be asked.  Yet, as Rosenberg points out in his column, the Obama Administration has given mixed signals about the situation in Iran in recent weeks.  On March 4, Vice President Biden, in a speech before the AIPAC Policy Conference meeting in Washington, stated that President Obama is committed to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear device and that the "window is closing" for diplomacy and sanctions to work.  However, on March 5, Secretary of State Kerry said that he believed the president wanted to "avoid any consideration of any kind of military action."  Also, on March 5, U.S. CENTCOM commander General James Mattis, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, in answer to a question about whether sanctions were working in Iran, responded, "No, sir."  Both President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu keep talking about an as yet undefined "red line" concerning Iran's nuclear program, but one wonders if the two men are talking about the same "red line."

So, the more I think of those three questions Joel Rosenberg has proposed, the more I believe he is right on target.  But these are the questions few are willing to ask and even fewer, especially those within political circles, are willing to answer. 

Also facing both President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu are reports that came out of Syria yesterday about the use of chemical weapons.  As of yet it has been undetermined whether those chemical weapons were used by the Assad Regime or the Rebels.  According to an article posted on the Fox News website, the Syrian state-run SANA news agency said "a missile containing a chemical substance:" was fired at the village of Khan al-Assal in Aleppo province by "terrorists" - the term it uses for rebels.  It was reported that 31 people were killed and more than 100 injured, some critically.  The rebel forces quickly denied these accusations but said that there were cases of "suffocation and poison" among civilians in Khan al-Assal after a missile was fired at the area.  The rebels went on to say that the cases were "most likely" caused by regime forces' use of "poisonous gases."  Both Israel and the United States have stayed away from any direct intervention in the Syrian Civil War that is now in its third year, but both countries have said that if chemical weapons were used, that policy would change.   So, if this report coming out of Syria this morning is validated as being true, what will be the responses of Israel and the United States?  And what will that response look like?

Finally, there is always the issue concerning the resumption of peace-negotiations with the Palestinians.  How hard will President Obama press the Israelis and the Palestinian leaders to get back to the negotiation table?  President Abbas has said that a precondition for the resumption of talks is for Israel to not only stop its settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, but to begin removing settlements.  Prime Minister Netanyahu has indicated that there would be no preconditions.  This is an impasse with great consequences.  I don't foresee any resumption of peace-talks anytime soon.  For the Israelis, this is no longer a front-burner issue as are the Syrian Civil War and the nuclear development in Iran. 

Friends, don't lose your focus upon what is happening in the Middle East.  If you want to keep abreast, read the editorial pages of the "Jerusalem Post."  You can find them at www.jpost.com.  I heartily endorse them for your reading - not always agreeing with them, but finding them stimulating. 

A few weeks ago, here at our church in Buffalo, I was preaching on the return of Jesus.  How I love preaching on that theme!  We sang an old song of the Gaithers that morning, and I close with those gloriously hopeful words: "The King is coming, the King is coming, I just heard the trumpet sounding and now His face I see; the King is coming, the King is coming, Praise God He's coming for me!"  And to that I will close with a hearty "Amen!"