As expected, the first meeting between US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Bejamin Netanyahu was not particularly successful. It was cordial and Obama made it clear that Washington would never accept a nuclear-armed Iran, but both leaders more or less stuck to their position on the Palestinian question.
The US President made it clear during a joint press conference with Netanyahu that he believes Israel should halt the building of settlements in the Palestinian territories, stop the blockade of Gaza and accept the idea of a Palestinian state. Such a clear position contrasts somewhat with the Bush administration, which was reluctant to be seen at odds with the Israeli government.
During his visit, Netanyahu tried to avoid giving an answer as to whether he was in favour of a two-state solution, which he is clearly not, partly because of his own beliefs and partly because of his right-wing coalition allies. He simply stated: "We don't want to govern the Palestinians. We want them to govern themselves."
What the Prime Minister has in mind is a system of self-government for the Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, with Israeli settlements remaining intact. This would be a huge step backwards for the peace process and goes against the two-state solution envisaged by the previous Israeli government and every peace initiative that has been put forward since 2000.
Furthermore, Netanyahu's proposal would be a guarantee of further conflict and another dent in Israel's international reputation, which already took a battering after the 2006 invasion of Lebanon and last year's Gaza conflict.
Since his Washington trip, Netanyahu has continued to pursue his hardline agenda. Speaking in Jerusalem on Friday at a ceremony marking 42 years of the annexation of East Jerusalem, he said: "United Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Jerusalem was always ours and will always be ours. It will never again be partitioned and divided." Such talk does little to enhance the peace process or to give much hope to the Palestinians that Israel is a reliable partner with which it can negotiate.
Unless there is a radical change in the attitude of the new Israeli government - which is doubtful, considering that most of the parties in the ruling coalition are right-wing nationalist parties - there is little hope of any progress being made in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
Naturally, Israel has legitimate security concerns, which should be dealt with in any peace agreement, and which the international community, especially Washington, is fully conscious of. Israel is right to be fearful of Hamas and Iran and both these elements have to be taken into consideration as part of an overall regional settlement.
However, Iran did not create Hamas. The Islamic movement emerged as a reaction to the Israeli occupation, a lack of progress in the peace talks with Israel and because of perceived corruption and inefficiency within Fatah, the main secular Palestinian political organisation.
Obama sees progress in the Middle East as an important incentive for moderate Arab support in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. This is something which Israel should appreciate. The US President made it clear that a nuclear-armed Iran would be a threat not only to Israel and the US, but also to international stability. He also assured his Israeli guest that Washington was contemplating much harsher sanctions against Iran should Teheran not budge on its nuclear programme by the end of the year.
The role of the United States in trying to forge a Middle East peace agreement cannot be over-emphasised. As the only country with any real clout when it comes to Israel, the US is in a unique position of being able to exert pressure on the country to change course. Obama made a reasonable start during Netanyahu's visit by insisting on a two-state solution, and an end to the building of illegal settlements in the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza. These were fine words and set the tone for Obama's vision for the Middle East.
However, if Obama is serious about peace in the region - and I believe he is - there will have to be some tough decisions which could lead to friction between the US and its ally Israel. The President is expected to announce a new peace plan in a major speech in Cairo on June 4, which will be eagerly followed by the international community. It is also important for the US to restore its credibility among Arab and Muslim nations as an impartial broker in the Middle East, which was badly damaged during the Bush presidency.
Perhaps a cartoon in the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz best summed up the meeting betweent the US President and Israeli Prime Minister. It showed Obama escorting Natanyahu out of the White House and telling him: "You can take the subway to your hotel. Next time you are around, give me a call."