首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
On Wednesday, Sept. 23, President Barack Obama used his first-ever address to the U.N. General Assembly to try and reverse the
On Wednesday, Sept. 23, President Barack Obama used his first-ever address to the U.N. General Assembly to try and reverse the
admin
2021-10-13
62
问题
On Wednesday, Sept. 23, President Barack Obama used his first-ever address to the U.N. General Assembly to try and reverse the impression that his ambitious Middle East peace effort had suffered a reversal at the hand of Israel’s hawkish Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. "I am not naive," Obama told the gathered world leaders. "I know this will be difficult. But all of us must decide whether we are serious about peace or whether we only lend it lip service."
Many a jaded commentator saw Obama’s Tuesday meeting with Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas as a symbol of surrender to Netanyahu’s refusal of the U.S. demand that Israel halt all construction on land conquered in 1967. Instead, Netanyahu offered a partial and time-limited freeze and appeared to force the President of the United States to back down. For Abbas, the handshake with Netanyahu orchestrated by Obama was viewed as a humiliating climbdown from his refusal to talk to the Israelis until they implemented that settlement freeze.
Netanyahu, briefing the Israeli media after the talks, suggested that the Palestinians had also caved in to his demand for a reopening of talks without preconditions on an agenda the two sides would determine in discussions. But Abbas insisted that any talks would be based on the full range of final-status issues established by previous agreements—Netanyahu has publicly ruled out negotiating on two of those issues, the fate of Palestinian refugees and the status of Jerusalem, which both sides claim as their capital.
Abbas appeared to win Obama’s backing in the U.N. speech, which made clear that the President has not accepted Netanyahu’s position on the precursor issue of a settlement freeze even if he’s decided to move on to the final-status negotiations. "America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements," the President insisted on Wednesday. That could be read as a response to the damage Obama’s credibility has suffered in the Arab world as a result of being forced by Netanyahu to retreat on the settlement issue, which had been widely viewed as a test of Israel’s peacemaking bona fides and had been a centerpiece of Obama’s Cairo outreach speech in the spring. But there was an even stronger challenge to Netanyahu in Obama’s declared plan to relaunch negotiations "that address the permanent-status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians; borders, refugees and Jerusalem." He also spoke of the goal of those negotiations as being the establishment of "a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967."
While many analysts focused on Tuesday’s meeting as an Obama admission of defeat on settlements, some were more optimistic. Former Israeli peace negotiator Daniel Levy believes that the Administration’s pivot on the issue smartly boxed Netanyahu into a negotiating process the Israeli leader would have preferred to avoid, by turning his own argument against him: if, as Netanyahu insists, settlements should be an issue for negotiation rather than a precondition because their fate will depend on future borders, then why not move straight to final-status negotiations over those borders?
Final-status talks were something Netanyahu had hoped to dodge. Not only does his right-wing coalition government refuse to countenance negotiations over refugees or Jerusalem, but also, the Prime Minister, much of whose political career has been built on resisting the Oslo peace process, has sought to promote incremental improvements in Palestinian life, particularly the economy, over the search for a final two-state agreement. Obama isn’t buying it. According to Israeli accounts of Tuesday’s meeting, the U.S. President "scolded" Netanyahu and Abbas, declaring "We’ve had enough talks. We need to end this conflict. There is a window of opportunity, but it might shut." And according to these reports, Obama insisted that the negotiations will not be started from scratch but will instead be based on the previous agreements established through the Oslo process. In other words, Jerusalem and refugees are on the table, and Israel is expected to show up.
Obama is still talking tough, then, but having watched him climb down from his settlement-freeze demand—and the rebuff from moderate Arab states to the President’s call for them to make tangible gestures toward normalization of ties with Israel—most analysts are waiting to see what actions back his words. Reports from the talks suggest the Administration will summon the two parties to Washington next month for talks under U.S. auspices on the full gamut of final-status issues. But Netanyahu may have his own ideas and may be buoyed by his success in resisting the settlement-freeze demand. Indeed, the Israeli Prime Minister’s domestic popularity has surged as a result of his defiance of Obama. Abbas, however, who had already been reduced to an increasingly marginal figure by the failure of his negotiating efforts over the past decade to win any significant gains for the Palestinians, suffered further political damage by even showing up for the handshake.
But even the relatively hawkish Israeli commentator Shmuel Rosner warns that "Israel should restrain itself from declaring victory just yet. True, Obama had to draw down his overeager demands from Israel. But it is also true that Netanyahu, not long ago, had to reverse his opposition to a two-state solution and publicly declare that his goal is similar to the one espoused today by Obama. True, Abbas was dragged to the summit only days after insisting that he will not come to any meeting unless settlement construction is frozen first. But it is also true that Netanyahu, the head of the right-wing Likud Party, is one of the first Israeli Prime Ministers to agree to some form of settlement freeze."
What can be inferred from the passage?
选项
A、The final-status issues will soon be settled.
B、Israel is likely to win in Mideast-Peace fight.
C、It is hard to say who will win in Mideast-Peace fight.
D、Obama will defeat Netanyahu in Mideast-Peace fight.
答案
C
解析
推理概括题。通读全文可知,很难说谁将在中东和谈中获胜。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/xSIK777K
0
专业英语八级
相关试题推荐
PASSAGETHREEWhatfeaturedelightstheauthormost?
(1)Thishasbeenquiteaweekforliterarycoups.Inanalmostentirelyunexpectedmove,theSwedishAcademyhavethislunchtime
(1)Thishasbeenquiteaweekforliterarycoups.Inanalmostentirelyunexpectedmove,theSwedishAcademyhavethislunchtime
Duringtheearlyyearsofthiscentury,wheatwasseenastheverylifebloodofWesternCanadaPeopleoncitystreetswatchedt
A、Anexperiencedteacher.B、Afriendofthetargetlanguage.C、Aregularlearningprogram.D、Aninborntalentoflanguage.C对话中,
Self-discipline:theFoundationofProductiveLivingI.Issuestobenoticedatthethoughtofself-disciplineA.Troublesfors
(1)Saintsshouldalwaysbejudgedguiltyuntiltheyareprovedinnocent,buttheteststhathavetobeappliedtothemarenot,
Thewordconservationhasathriftymeaning.Toconserveistosaveandprotect,toleavewhatweourselvesenjoyinsuchgoodc
DevelopinganAdvertisingCampaignGenerallyspeaking,fourmajorstepsareinvolvedinthedevelopmentofanadvertisingca
DevelopinganAdvertisingCampaignGenerallyspeaking,fourmajorstepsareinvolvedinthedevelopmentofanadvertisingca
随机试题
下列给定程序中,函数fun()的作用是,将字符串tt中的大写字母都改为对应的小写字母,其他字符不变。例如,若输入"Ab,cD",则输出"ab,cd"。请改正函数fun()中的错误,使它能得出正确的结果。注童:不要改动main函数,不得增行
A.行气止痛,解毒消肿B.行气止痛,开郁醒脾C.行气止痛,温补肾阳D.行气止痛,杀虫疗癣川楝子的功效是
按照偿还方式,债券可划分的种类是【】
低频探头的特点是
某男,16岁,不规则发热半月,骨痛及牙龈出血。体格检查:胸骨压痛(+),脾肋下2cm,血红蛋白:70g/L,白细胞:18×109/L,原始细胞0.2,血小板40×109/L.本例最可能的诊断是()
下列药物应后称的是( )。
QDII基金在()募集基金,在()进行投资,其托管业务的责任由()承担。
2×21年10月,甲公司决定以一项投资房地产、一项无形资产和一项交易性金融资产(股票)与乙公司交换其持有的一项对合营企业(丙公司)的长期股权投资(持股比例为20%)和一台生产经营用设备。相关资料如下:(1)甲公司换出的投资性房地产的账面余额为15
面试评价阶段一般采用()对应聘者进行评价。
2014年一季度农村居民的四项现金收入中,较上年同期增长率最高的一项是()现金收入。
最新回复
(
0
)