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
60
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
WritingaResearchPaperI.ResearchPaperandOrdinaryEssayA.Similarityin【T1】______:【T1】______e.g.—choosingatopic—
StudyActivitiesinUniversityInordertohelpcollegeanduniversitystudentsintheprocessoflearning,fourkeystudyac
CharacteristicsqfAmericanCultureI.PunctualityA.Goingtothetheater:be【T1】______twentyminutesprior【T1】______B.
PASSAGEONEWhatcanreducethecitizens’emotionalresponseaftertheterroristattack?
Properarrangementofclassroomspaceisimportanttoencouraginginteraction.Today’scorporationshirehumanengineeringspec
Properarrangementofclassroomspaceisimportanttoencouraginginteraction.Today’scorporationshirehumanengineeringspec
Properarrangementofclassroomspaceisimportanttoencouraginginteraction.Today’scorporationshirehumanengineeringspec
PASSAGEONEAccordingtothepassage,whatisthestatusquoofcheatinginsport?
(1)Saintsshouldalwaysbejudgedguiltyuntiltheyareprovedinnocent,buttheteststhathavetobeappliedtothemarenot,
Thewordconservationhasathriftymeaning.Toconserveistosaveandprotect,toleavewhatweourselvesenjoyinsuchgoodc
随机试题
血压是重要的生命体征,在测量中我们获得高压、低压两个数值。并以此评估血压水平。下列与血压有关的说法错误的是:
法国完整的传统教育制度形成于()
下列肾小球滤过屏障的描述不正确的是
尿频、尿急、尿痛可见于哪些疾病
在津液的生成中,最为密切相关的脏腑是
谵妄属于下列哪种障碍
根据行政复议法律制度的规定,下列有关行政复议申请人的表述中,正确的是()。
下列金融业务中,属于中央银行对商业银行提供的有()。
4个人称体重,任意三个人的体重不超过180千克,问四个人的体重不超过_______千克。
给定资料 1.2013年10月10日是第22个世界精神卫生日。世界卫生组织公布的最新数据显示,全球约有4.5亿精神健康障碍患者,其中大多数生活在发展中国家。某心理研究所的研究报告表明,我国城市劳动力人口中亚健康人群的比例呈现增长趋势,其中城市无业人员中
最新回复
(
0
)