Photo Ansa   The positions of the President of the United States, Barack Obama, on the Middle-East, have renewed relations with Israel and the Arab Countries, above all, those concerned in a conflict which, for sixty years has involved the entire area without any sign of a solution. It is common belief that the American Administration intends to bring the armed confrontation to an end, with a compromise which should allow Israelis and Palestinians to realize their respective aspirations: security and an end to the threat to survival, for the former; the building of a homeland and a free and independent State for the latter. According to Fawaz A. Gerges, Professor in International Affairs and Middle-East Studies at the Sarah Lawrence College, an Arab-Israeli solution mediated by the United States would lessen the tension in the entire Region and, above all, diminish the appeal of the religious fanaticism, while opening the way to the solution of numerous other problems that involve Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Indonesia.

Obama and Israel’s assault on Gaza

In the first seven years in office the Bush administration neglected the Middle East peace process, spent precious political capital on the so-called “Global War on Terror” and, of course, invaded Iraq, igniting a conflict that is now nearly five years old. At the same time, heated rhetoric, arrogance and open disdain for those with differing views marked the Bush administration’s conduct in the Middle East. The results, as we all know, have been, overall, catastrophic, with America’s reputation in that region lower than it has ever been. President Barrack Obama has vowed to change all that.
After initially being relatively quiet about Israel’s assault on Gaza, Obama vowed to press immediately for peace in the Middle East and pursue a clear policy of engagement with Iran and Syria. Defending his reluctance to speak about the brutal conflict in Gaza before he takes office on 20 January, he said he was building a diplomatic team so that “on day one, we have the best possible people who are going to be immediately engaged in the Middle East peace process as a whole.”
The team would “be engaging with all of the actors there” so that “both Israelis and Palestinians can meet their aspirations,” Obama said.
Pressed to elaborate further on his vision, Obama hinted at a peace settlement based on a two-state solution and whose broad contours – security for Israel and a viable Palestinian state - are widely accepted internationally: “I think that if you look not just at the Bush administration, but also at what happened under the [(Bill)] Clinton administration, you are seeing the general outlines of an approach.”
In a subsequent interview with The Washington Post interview a few days before inauguration, Obama sought to manage expectations of what his administration may initially be able to do: “Most people have a pretty good sense about what the outlines of a compromise would be,” noting that the problem is political weakness on both sides. He said he aimed “to provide a space where trust can be built” and pointed to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s suggestion “to build some concrete deliverables that people can see,” such as greater security for Israelis and economic benefits for Palestinians.
Three points are worth highlighting about Obama’s “new approach”. First, he confirmed that from the time he assumes the office, he will invest the prestige of the presidency in trying to broker an Arab-Israeli peace settlement that meets the national aspirations of both Palestinians and Israelis.
Symbolically, on the first day in office President Obama’s first telephone call with a foreign leader was to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and promised to “deploy every possible effort to achieve peace,” according to the Abbas spokesman.
Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said that the president reached out to leaders in the region and reiterated his “commitment to achieve engagement in pursuit of Arab-Israeli peace from the beginning of his term.”
Secondly, the president stressed the need for political engagement “with all of the actors present”, including Iran and Syria, as opposed to harsh rhetoric, exclusion and threats. He promised “a new emphasis on respect and a new emphasis on being willing to talk, but also clarity about what our bottom lines are.”
In his inauguration speech the president promised to improve US ties with the Muslim world: “To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.” Stressing his preference for dialogue and clarity, Obama put it bluntly: “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”
Finally, Obama’s “belief that engagement is the place to start” suggests a clear departure from the confrontational, hyper militaristic policies of the Bush administration and its neglect – criminal neglect to many of us -- of the Arab-Israeli peace process. In terms of rhetoric and substance the Obama presidency will represent a break with its predecessor.
Israel’s assault on Gaza is a case in point. While Bush and his foreign policy unquestioningly and vocally supported Israel and encouraged actions against Hamas, Obama’s approach was considerably more nuanced. He also views the crisis in broader terms, rather than as a simplistic conflict of good vs. evil. He said that while Israel had a clear right of self-defense, notably he also expressed regret for the loss of civilian life, almost all of which, as we know, has been Palestinian.
It can be argued that Obama should have criticized Israel’s disproportionate use of force against Hamas, and what many observers see as its violation of the laws of war. But this must not obscure the fact that the president-elect did join the chorus of establishment voices with their unequivocal backing of Israel’s war but, rather sees the conflict as considerably more complex in nature, with wide-ranging implications, than have most politicians.
Obama’s not publicly backing Israel’s actions also speaks volumes about his balanced sensibility given that criticism of the Jewish state, whether it is right or wrong, can be seen as a “third rail” in American politics. As a seasoned politician Obama knows he must walk a fine line between his message of change and political engagement, his support for Israel -- which, time and again, he reiterated – and his clear awareness that if the United States is to make progress in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, it must be seen as considerably more even-handed than the Bush administration was and, indeed, concerned for Palestinians as well as Israelis.
The conflict in Gaza and the high toll in Palestinian lives seems to have reinforced Obama’s conviction that time is of essence and that there is an urgent need to resolve the festering Arab-Israeli conflict. He has made it clear that he wll tackle the Middle East crisis as a priority.
On his visit to Israel and Palestine last year Obama reportedly questioned President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli leaders about the prospects for reviving the Arab peace initiative advanced in the Arab Summit in Beirut in 2006. “The Israelis would be crazy not to accept this initiative,” Obama told Abbas according to The Sunday Times of London. “It would give them peace with the Muslim world from Indonesia to Morocco,”
It is much to Obama’s advantage in forging a new approach to the decades old conflict that in the United States and, particularly, within the US Jewish community, and to a lesser extent in Israel that attitudes have been changing considerably. Increasingly, it is Jewish and Israeli groups that have been calling for a changed approach – one that, while certainly supporting Israel’s right to exist, also sees the creation of a viable Palestinian state as essential and, at the same time, is not unwilling to criticize Israeli policies.

Photo Ansa

Two months ago 500 former Israeli generals, diplomats and senior security officials launched a campaign to ‘sell’ the Arab Peace Plan to the Israeli public. In a full-page advertisement in the Israeli press, the 500 senior officials, led by Major-General (ret) Danny Rothschild, urged their fellow Israelis not to “ignore a historic opportunity which a moderate Arab world presents us with.”
The US presidential leadership would go a long way to fueling the debate in Israel and sustaining the pro-peace forces against the extremists and hardliners.

Obama’s National Security Team

Although now we know the leading players on Barack Obama’s national security team, it is, not surprisingly, much too soon to know how they will implement policy changes or even foreign policy priorities, given the necessarily-reactive nature of much foreign policy. He has opted for a team whose character is, essentially, centrist and not given to radical change and the selection of establishment figures to fill these roles suggests that a paradigm shift in US foreign policy remains unlikely. But against that, it is clear that as president, Obama is not going to either delegate policy-making or neglect matters he deems important. At a recent news conference, he stated that he will raise the banner of change in the White House and be its guiding force.
“Understand where the vision for change comes from, first and foremost,” he told reporters. “It comes from me. That is my job, to provide a vision in terms of where we are going, and to make sure, then, that my team is implementing.”
Obama is correct, of course, but there is a danger that amidst the competing interests of his cabinet secretaries and the policy options they advance. some of his vision will be lost.
It is doubtful, too, that much as Obama might like to make radical policy changes immediately, that will not be done. He is well aware that he must not only work closely with the Congress, but court influential groups and make persuasive arguments. Thus, in the near term, we can expect that America will, for the most part, reclaim the realist compass that guided its international relations from the end of the Second World War to September 11, 2001 rather than take an uncharted course. Obama’s foreign policy will, to a considerable extent, follow in the path of the Clinton administration, returning to power politics and national interests, with a more pronounced emphasis on human rights, the rule of law, close relations with allies and friends and greater support for international organizations. American “smart power,” a mix of diplomacy, defense, economic relations and other tools of national policy, will be fully deployed worldwide. In other words, diplomacy, not militarism, will be the vanguard of Obama’s foreign policy, with military options likely to be used only when all others have failed.


Obama’s Foreign Policy Priorities?

For the President Iraq is important for symbolic and political reasons, as well as fiscal necessity. America now spends around $148 billion annually in Iraq, a staggering sum in any economy but devastating in one weighed down by a severe recession. Desperate to find savings to finance his enormous economic recovery projects, pay for increased spending in the Afghan-Pakistan theatre and, at the same time, rein in government spending, Obama is well aware that costs for Iraq must be dramatically reduced – and, at the same time, that both stability in the region and the reputation of the US rests, in large measure, on a high degree of success in Iraq.
On his first day in office Obama summoned his national security team and reportedly underlined his desire, as he had promised in the presidential campaign, to take combat troops out of Iraq by the summer of next year.
But ending the American military mission in Iraq is not likely to result in a dramatically altered the regional landscape nor will it alone reconcile differences between America and much of the Islamic world. If Obama’s image (including, perhaps, being seen as the anti-Bush) his vision, and personal appeal globally will provide a great advantage, they may well not make a decisive difference in dealing with the particularly difficult situations in the Middle East.
But neither a popular image nor changed attitudes will be enough; only actions that yield results will bring about the kinds of changes necessary in the Middle East.

The Game Changer: an arab-israeli peace settlement?

The Arab-Israeli peace process is where Obama’s vision can make a pivotal difference in restoring America’s prestige, reputation and ability to influence others. But will Obama go for the game changer, helping to broker a comprehensive Arab-Israeli settlement and breaking the psychological barrier between Muslims and Jews and Muslims and Westerners? That is not to say that success is assured and risk is minimal. Israel and its allies in the US will put up a fierce resistance against any effort to create a viable Palestinian state. If both the majority of Israelis and the majority of American Jews now favor the creation of a viable Palestinian state, there are still many in influential positions who are opposed. For some of them, Hamas’ rocket attacks from Gaza are seen as proof that a Palestinian state would result in greater conflict. But even with the greatest willingness to see a Palestinian state emerge, there are a number of very thorny issues that must be addressed.
Aiming to broker an Arab-Israeli peace is not wishful thinking or an academic exercise. Obama’s senior advisers, particularly Daniel Kurtzer, a former American ambassador to Israel and Egypt, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security adviser, have reportedly told him that the time is ripe to broker an ambitious peace settlement between Arabs and Israelis in the first six to twelve months in office while he enjoys maximum goodwill.
According to published reports, in a policy paper written by Kurtzer, he ,argued that two recent factors have changed the geo-strategic regional landscape, making the prospect of a peace settlement more promising: 1) Predominantly Sunni Arab states fear that as long as the Arab-Israeli conflict remains unresolved, Iran will take advantage of resentments among their citizens and, thus, are all the more anxious to see a settlement 2) As the rise of militant Islamism represents a threat to pro-Western Arab rulers and regional stability, there is greater incentive to push for a settlement that could lessen religious fanaticism.
Despite the fact that Israel made a terrible blunder in assaulting Gaza, paradoxically it might create a real opportunity for a breakthrough in the more than six decade Middle East confrontation. When the dust settles over broken Gaza, once again Israeli leaders will learn that military power alone cannot guarantee their country’s security. Although the Jewish state possesses military superiority over all its Arab neighbors and has often unleashed its U.S.-made] powerful arsenal against them, Israel has neither broken the will of its adversaries nor achieved long term peace and stability. But, perhaps, too, Hamas leaders will recognize that the welfare of the Palestinian people requires an end to the conflict and a settlement that is seen as, at a minimum, addressing their basic needs.
Israel’s brutal and disproportionate use of force in Lebanon in 2006, and now in Gaza, shows clearly the long-term failure of its dependence on military power. The damage to its moral standing in the world, and increased enmity on the part of most Lebanese, Palestinians and, indeed, those in the Muslim world, cannot but hurt Israel itself. Killing large numbers of Palestinians and other Arabs will not bring Israel security.


Obama might have to save Israel against itself

A sea change has occurred in the Arab world regarding peacemaking with the Jewish state. A consensus now exists among Arab rulers that the solution to the conflict lies in the land-for-peace formula, which means that Israel must withdraw from the 1967 occupied Arab territories, including East Jerusalem, in return for diplomatic recognition by all Arab countries and an end to hostilities.
Interestingly, top Israeli decision makers have finally come to see the merits and benefits of the Arab peace plan advanced by Saudi Arabia in the 2002 Arab summit and accepted by all the Arab states in Beirut. Senior Labour and Kadima leaders, including Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defence Minister Ehud Barak, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, and President Shamon Peres, recently stated their backing for the comprehensive Arab peace initiative. Yet those very leaders, in supporting a war to the bitter end against Hamas in Gaza, may well undercut efforts on both sides to bring about a historic settlement.
It is likely that without pressure from the US – expressed the president himself, Israel, will not make the painful concessions (withdrawal of occupied Arab territories and dismantling most settlements) that are critical for a breakthrough, if only because even many of the Israeli hardliners are aware that US support for Israel is critical.
Given the important role of the US in any negotiations for a peace settlement, it is no wonder that make-up of the foreign policy team in charge of the Arab-Israeli portfolio is of consequence. It is likely that they will include Dennis Ross, (former Middle East envoy during the Clinton and Bush administrations); Martin Indyk, (former US ambassador to Israel), Dan Kurtzer; Jim Steinberg, (likely to be Deputy Secretary of State), Dan Shapiro, (a longtime aide to Obama) and Richard Haass (a former State Department strategist in the Bush administration and now head of the influential Council on Foreign Relations).
Highly accomplished though they are, it is questionable whether they can take an even-handed approach, one which is seen by Palestinians as credible and able to play the role of honest broker. Neither Ross nor Indyk is even-handed; for both Israeli security trumps all else. Their roles during the Clinton administration left much to be desired. On the other hand, Kurtzer, who knows the Arab world and Israel well, is seen as sympathetic to all parties, including the Palestinians. Haass is a mainstream pragmatist.
One would hope that Obama and Clinton will recognize the critical need for balance in the decision-making process. The fear is that the historically dominant Israeli narrative in US decision-making will continue to hinder Washington’s ability to pursue an effective and balanced approach to the Arab-Israeli peace process. As long as US Middle East policy is seen – particularly by the Palestinians – as strongly biased in favor of Israel, American efforts to broker a permanent peace settlement are doomed to failure.
To achieve a breakthrough, Obama must maintain independence of judgment and be willing to exercise considerable pressure on Israel. As president he must also engage the pro-peace camp inside Israel and in the US as well.
Although Obama’s selection of Hilary Clinton as top diplomat dampened optimism in the Arab world about the peace prospects, her views on foreign policy in general are almost identical to the president-elect’s. There is no doubt that Clinton has recently expressed some of the strongest pro-Israeli views among US politicians, but it is also true that no senator from New York could do otherwise. She has been the darling of AIPAC, for example, and while there is little doubt that she will continue with support for Israel, we can only hope that as Secretary of State, she will take a more balanced approach.
But one point must be made clear: Clinton is not opposed to a settlement based on a two-state solution and, most certainly, will be a team player. She will carry out diligently whatever policies are decided upon by Obama.
Indeed, as he often pledged, Obama ought immediately to push for a comprehensive Arab-Israeli settlement that would transform Arab and Muslim politics and America’s relations with that part of the world.
For many Arabs and Muslims, the Palestinian predicament is an identity issue, not just political, tied to sense of powerlessness and injustice.
It is a bleeding, psychological wound that has radicalized and militarized Arab politics and been a destabilizing force within the entire region. From Nasser to Hafez Assad, Saddam Hussein and bin Laden, Palestine has been a rallying cry, one which has frequently been used effectively for other ends.
Israel is widely viewed as a Western fortress in Islam’s heartland, similar to Crusader fortresses, and its occupation of Muslim lands is a constant reminder of European and, now, American domination and subjugation of Arabs and Muslims.
In particular, the US is considered responsible for allowing Israel to oppress and humiliate the Palestinians. Strong anti-American sentiments stem largely from the long-simmering Arab-Israeli conflict. As president the relatively small risks Obama would take in working for a lasting settlement are worth the likely enormous rewards.
A U.S.-brokered Arab-Israeli solution and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state would ease tensions in the entire region, facilitate America’s political engagement with Iran, Syria and other countries, lessen the attraction of religious fanaticism and assist enormously in addressing a wide range of problems, from Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Western Sahara to Indonesia.
Perhaps most important of all, a peace settlement will make possible an end to the chronic suffering, poverty and agony of the Palestinians, bring lasting security to Israel and make possible the economic and political transformation of the Middle East.
Obama might go down in history as the man who brought peace to the Holy Land. Will he have the moral courage, diplomatic skill, political acumen and the means to transform US policies in the Middle East? Only time will tell.

Hillary Clinton and Mahmoud Abbas