The Middle East peace process never depended on the personality of the occupant of the White House. Had it, we might have seen some progress over the past few decades. Some presidents have tried to solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; others have ignored it under various pretexts. All have one thing in common: no one ever tried to impose a solution, and the current president, Barack Obama, is no exception.
The period between Obama s official inauguration and the present moment has not yet witnessed any developments in terms of US policy on the peace process. Although Washington was quick to dispatch its new envoy, George Mitchell to the region, the statements and foreign policy principles declared so far reveal a lot and confirm the above-mentioned paradigm.
The first indicator can be seen in the new US administration agenda as published on the White House webpage under Foreign Policy – Renewing American Diplomacy . This states that on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Obama and Biden will make progress … a key diplomatic priority from day one. They will make a sustained push – working with Israelis and Palestinians – to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security.
To see the new US administration state from the start that it intends to assist and work with Israelis and Palestinians toward a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state reflects clear US support for the Israeli position against the right of return of Palestinian refugees to their homes and properties inside Israel. Such an agenda also undermines the presence and rights of Palestinians already living in Israel. Living in a Jewish state will not be easy for any Muslim or Christian Palestinian and facts on the ground show that Israel, without yet being formally recognized as a Jewish state by the world, is already acting like one, offering no equal rights to its non-Jewish citizens.
The second alarming point lies in Obama s inaugural speech where he addressed the Muslim world and didn t mention the Middle East at all. Geopolitically and demographically, one cannot satisfactorily classify the Middle East simply under the Muslim world . The current Middle East and all its peoples are divided into two main blocs: one moving within the sphere of the United States and another moving outside it. Each bloc includes Christians, Druze, Shia and Sunnis (Lebanon and Palestine are the best examples) and in some cases even Jews. The polarization in the region was never based on religion but on political positions regarding the Palestinian-Israeli and Arab-Israel conflict. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are Muslim countries but it is clear that Obama was not referring to them when he promised relations based on mutual respect with the Muslim world.
The third warning came in President Obama s interview with al-Arabiya TV. In several instances during that interview it became clear that Obama would not veer from US foreign policy constants in dealing with Israel, a strong strategic ally , or the peace process. Thus, for example, the recent visit of George Mitchell would, according to Obama, see Mitchell talk to all the major parties involved . But Mitchell did not visit Gaza or Turkey, both crucial players in the current situation.
Vis-a-vis the Saudi peace initiative, Obama also did not diverge much from the line of his predecessor. He said that while the initiative was a positive step, I do not agree with every aspect of it. Why not? Yet no Arab regime dared question President Obama at this delicate moment in time, for fear of closing all potential signs of hope this new administration might bring.
Most importantly, however, Obama has adopted the position of his predecessor, George W. Bush that, ultimately we cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what is best for them. They are going to have to make some decisions. But the Palestinian side has clung to the Palestinian national constants throughout all phases of negotiations with the Israeli side and it is clear that the Israeli side will never accept them even after 100 years of negotiations. This leaves outside intervention, read US intervention, as the only hope for the sides to reach agreement.
The last point deals with the meeting that took place between George Mitchell and Israeli PM Ehud Olmert who reportedly revealed to Mitchell his comprehensive peace plan last Wednesday. The plan denies the right of return to Palestinian refugees and would maintain the large settlement blocs (similar to the assurances Bush offered former Israeli PM Ariel Sharon in his famous letter). Mitchell didn t make any comment on the plan, leading one to believe that the plan had his quiet acquiescence.
Thus, even after only 12 days in office, it appears clear that Obama will follow his predecessors lead on the peace process. This leaves Palestinians to at least another four years of suffering and humiliation under Israeli occupation. Dispatching Mitchell so quickly was only an attempt to put a new face to the old sales pitch.
Khader Khaderis a media analyst with the Jerusalem Media and Communications Center. This commentary is published by DAILY NEWS EGYPT in collaboration with bitterlemons.org.
