How Do We Contribute to the Debate in Washington?
Major U.S. newspapers noted that American President Barack Obama is adopting new U.S. views regarding the Middle East. For example, the New York Times stated that a phrase used by Obama is reflective of changes in American views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, signaling the U.S. administration’s intent to work hard to push forward a peace agreement. This phrase is Obama’s statement that resolving the protracted conflict in the Middle East is a “vital national interest of the United States” and that this conflict “is costing us significantly in terms of blood and treasure.” According to the Times, the president is drawing a connection between Islamic extremism and targeting of American soldiers resulting from this conflict. These remarks are close to those that General David Petraeus, Commander of U.S. CENTCOM, who is overseeing the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, made in a statement recently.
These statements are not entirely new, as they were previously voiced by Condoleezza Rice and other officials in 2006. The Iraq Study Group, also known as the Baker-Hamilton Commission, expressed similar views during that same year. However, there is disagreement between makers of U.S. foreign policy, according to what the Foreign Policy Journal and the New York Times revealed. We can conclude that the debate revolves around two main issues: first, the extent of the link between the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the security and interests of the U.S. in the Middle East and the world; and the second, is the course of action if indirect negotiations were to fail (which does not seem like they started, or will be starting in the near future).
The staunchest traditional supporters of Israel in the Democratic Party circles, such as Martin Indyk and Dennis Ross, refuse to make a significant linkage between the issues of the Middle East. Meanwhile, Ross and George Mitchell refuse the idea of an integrative U.S. initiative, while it is supported by National Security Advisor, James Jones.
Israel is engaged in a counter campaign through its allies in Congress calling to put an end to subjecting Israel to pressure, although there does not seem to be any real pressure on the horizon. It appears that the real intent is not to criticize the Israeli government, headed by Benyamin Netanyahu. In return, a position like the one confirmed by King Abdullah II during his recent visit to the U.S. that America is not immune to the problems of the region, will undoubtedly serve to heighten the motivation of the American president to move forward in the peace process.
Obama has achieved a significant victory, both domestically and on a personal level, through passing the health care bill recently, as well as demonstrating a successful presence in summits and recent meetings on issues of nuclear proliferation. It seems that he has passed the stage of proving to the world that he is different from his predecessor, George Bush. But, the possibilities are currently there for allies of Netanyahu and his government at the White house, to succeed in bolstering positions that minimize interest in the negotiating process, and in a different U.S. role than the past, thus leaving matters as they were in past years. Even more dangerous, would be for the Obama administration to believe that what is needed is any settlement process, even if it was not genuine, to be achieved by pressuring the Arab and Palestinian sides.
If the U.S. policy toward the Middle East is truly undergoing an internal American debate, and if Obama, as reported by the New York Times, was upset with the lack of progress in the peace process, and if he had decided, as these reports indicate, to increase his focus during the coming months on foreign policy; then a positive reaction necessitates that we adopt policies and actions to influence the debate and these policies. Among other things worth considering, in addition to an intensified campaign of Arab diplomacy, is the heightening of Palestinian actions and activities on the ground, that lead to amplifying popular resistance, in addition to widespread Arab diplomacy by writers, intellectuals and political thinkers, to send messages in different ways that says solving the Palestinian issue, is indeed, a fateful issue for international peace.
These statements are not entirely new, as they were previously voiced by Condoleezza Rice and other officials in 2006. The Iraq Study Group, also known as the Baker-Hamilton Commission, expressed similar views during that same year. However, there is disagreement between makers of U.S. foreign policy, according to what the Foreign Policy Journal and the New York Times revealed. We can conclude that the debate revolves around two main issues: first, the extent of the link between the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the security and interests of the U.S. in the Middle East and the world; and the second, is the course of action if indirect negotiations were to fail (which does not seem like they started, or will be starting in the near future).
The staunchest traditional supporters of Israel in the Democratic Party circles, such as Martin Indyk and Dennis Ross, refuse to make a significant linkage between the issues of the Middle East. Meanwhile, Ross and George Mitchell refuse the idea of an integrative U.S. initiative, while it is supported by National Security Advisor, James Jones.
Israel is engaged in a counter campaign through its allies in Congress calling to put an end to subjecting Israel to pressure, although there does not seem to be any real pressure on the horizon. It appears that the real intent is not to criticize the Israeli government, headed by Benyamin Netanyahu. In return, a position like the one confirmed by King Abdullah II during his recent visit to the U.S. that America is not immune to the problems of the region, will undoubtedly serve to heighten the motivation of the American president to move forward in the peace process.
Obama has achieved a significant victory, both domestically and on a personal level, through passing the health care bill recently, as well as demonstrating a successful presence in summits and recent meetings on issues of nuclear proliferation. It seems that he has passed the stage of proving to the world that he is different from his predecessor, George Bush. But, the possibilities are currently there for allies of Netanyahu and his government at the White house, to succeed in bolstering positions that minimize interest in the negotiating process, and in a different U.S. role than the past, thus leaving matters as they were in past years. Even more dangerous, would be for the Obama administration to believe that what is needed is any settlement process, even if it was not genuine, to be achieved by pressuring the Arab and Palestinian sides.
If the U.S. policy toward the Middle East is truly undergoing an internal American debate, and if Obama, as reported by the New York Times, was upset with the lack of progress in the peace process, and if he had decided, as these reports indicate, to increase his focus during the coming months on foreign policy; then a positive reaction necessitates that we adopt policies and actions to influence the debate and these policies. Among other things worth considering, in addition to an intensified campaign of Arab diplomacy, is the heightening of Palestinian actions and activities on the ground, that lead to amplifying popular resistance, in addition to widespread Arab diplomacy by writers, intellectuals and political thinkers, to send messages in different ways that says solving the Palestinian issue, is indeed, a fateful issue for international peace.