There is life after the White House, especially if one was young when assuming office. U.S. President Barack Obama will probably continue to engage in diplomatic issues after his term ends. Being a former president is not without its benefits -- more free time and far fewer responsibilities, for example -- and he will most likely be back before we begin to miss him. Obama may also return to the Middle East to try and mend what went wrong on his watch. As a former president, Obama will probably try to devise ways to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His desire to promote a resolution has not diminished, but over time -- like the presidents before him -- Obama has come to realize how complex the conflict really is. Obama's own speeches at the U.N. General Assembly illustrate this point: His 2009 address resonated with determination to resolve the conflict, while Tuesday's speech echoed of awareness to the situation's complexities and urged both parties to recognize that it is imperative to find a solution. He urged Israel to suspend the settlement enterprise in Judea and Samaria (old news) and urged the Palestinians to recognize the Jewish state (older news). The real question is, what will Obama accomplish before leaving office in January 2017? Will he join the French peace initiative, which the pessimists say is lurking at the U.N. Security Council, biding its time until the U.S. presidential elections are decided? For years now, the same pessimistic pundits have been painting a bleak reality in which Israel and the U.S. in the Netanyahu-Obama era turn from friends to foes, but they have all been proven wrong. The enigma of Obama's post-presidential plans is exactly what lent his meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Wednesday its importance. The meeting -- the two men's 17th and most likely their last -- was, on the surface at least, a good one. Obama expressed his concerns over Israeli settlement construction in Judea and Samaria, which he views as an obstacle to peace, while Netanyahu spoke about Israel's commitment to peace. Both leaders share the same objective; the question is, how best to achieve it. Could it be that the Palestinians have a part in this problem? And one must remember that the tumultuous Middle East has seen several countries fall apart in recent years; a brutal civil war is raging in Syria and many of the other issues plaguing the region have nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is supposedly linked to all that is wrong with the world. Obama wanted to carve out a legacy, and he did that in the form of an unsettling nuclear deal with Iran. In his eyes, he made up for it by increasing U.S. defense aid to Israel. Presumably, the American president actually appreciated the fact that Netanyahu signed the deal on his watch, despite the objection of some of Israel's friends in the Senate. It is hard to believe that Obama will join the French initiative, as it could potentially significantly harm Israel at the Security Council. In this case, the U.S. veto will play a dual role: maintain the special and close relationship between Jerusalem and Washington, which share the same values; and maintain U.S. hegemony over the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, as the French move seems to fill the vacuum left after the most recent failed American initiative. Obama and Netanyahu differ in their worldviews -- that is no secret. Differences of opinion where clear in Wednesday's meeting as well, and it is safe to say they would continue to exist even if Obama were to remain in office for eight more years. Neither leader yielded to the other. Netanyahu, maintained his principles and Israeli interests as he sees them -- as it should be. One must remember that these are not only relationships between the leaders, but between countries. There were many nuances to Wednesday's meeting, in body language and small talk. Overall, all the doomsday prophets were proven wrong, and it seems that the Israeli and American leaders parted as friends, despite their differences.
