Does the World Change with American Policy? (Part Two of Two)
The biggest change in American policy for us as Arabs is that Obama’s policy toward Israel differs from that of Bush. While Bush considered Israel to be a close friend and essential ally, Obama has strived to distance himself from Israel in certain areas, including his lack of support for former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, who was favored by Israel; his continuing insults of Netanyahu; and his repeated threats to stop supporting Israel at the UN and to pull back the curtain on Israel’s nuclear position.
In fairness, these charges come from Israel’s supporters, who exaggerate when they blame Obama for inciting the Palestinians against Israel — as though the Palestinians need reminding of their rights and claims. The Jews, however, say that Obama is the first to demand Israel to withdraw from Jerusalem — something former American presidents never dared to do. [Former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert] Gates commented that this has nothing to do with Obama’s own convictions. Rather, it is about the U.S.; the president who succeeds Obama will surprise the world with more withdrawals and concessions, perhaps even going so far as to return to the Monroe Doctrine (Monroe was the fifth U.S. president), which stated that America should be for Americans and that external affairs should not be of concern to them.
Supporters of Israel, fearful of the erosion of the American president’s international power — the umbrella that guarantees their ability to make a racket — say that Obama is encouraging the Palestinians in their declaration of statehood at the end of 2011. They say that he is the first to have demanded that the Palestinians insist on Israel committing itself to accepting the 1967 borders before entering into negotiations. The Israelis also say that Obama has not opposed the Palestinian commitment to the destruction of Israel, but instead encouraged the idea of the refugees’ return. All of these remove Obama completely from the framework established by George W. Bush.
Experts expect that Obama will withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan as a prelude to a policy of retreat, distancing itself and turning in on the U.S.’ internal problems. These are reaching alarming proportions, particularly problems in health, education and social cohesion.
In regards to relations with other states, proponents of foreign policy change believe that Washington will not go beyond talking about sanctions, which Israel — the greatest instigator of wars — thinks are inadequate. They also believe that Obama’s relationship with Russia is an extension of the position of Bush, who saw the importance of not clashing with Russia. Likewise, Obama is intent on achieving a rapprochement with Syria, regardless of the ruling regime there.
One of the most prominent changes is Obama’s decision to leave Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak in the lurch. This is in line with what Bush and Condoleezza Rice said about “creative chaos” and democratic transformations, and a tangible change from the typical American policy that positions itself where there are direct American interests.
As for what Obama has done in Libya, this is evidence of his taking unprecedented positions. The War Powers Resolution, enacted 30 years ago, stipulates that the president must consult Congress before entering any war. In the Libyan case, Obama did not consult anyone before entering into a war that does not serve the American national interest.
Gates has criticized the American intervention in Libya, saying in an interview that “Moammar Gadhafi posed no threat to U.S. interests and that no vital U.S. interests are served by the U.S. mission in Libya.” This raises the question: Is American foreign policy a result of Obama’s personal views, or is it a reflection of the imperative of change, which no individual or administration can avoid? Gates’ interview revealed part of the answer when he confirmed that major shifts are underway in U.S. policy and in the world.
If we consider what president Obama says about himself — that he has come to change the U.S. and that he considers this more important than winning a second term — then we can be certain that behind the withdrawal are winds of change and storms; ahead are domestic problems, the largest of which is a universal health care program, which he has insisted upon even if its price is electoral defeat. He also intends to introduce substantial amendments to immigration legislation, labor policy, social security and environmental policy.
But the area that gives the U.S. president the most opportunity for change and amendment is foreign policy. For this reason, huge shifts are expected in Iran and Afghanistan — from which Obama has announced the intention to withdraw, like he did from Iraq. He is also striving for a peace deal with the Taliban, something the Republicans consider to be a clear defeat for the U.S. There is talk about the role of Gates’ successor, Leon Panetta. It is said that his role will largely be in reducing the defense budget, which will render the U.S. incapable of performing the tasks of a feared superpower.
Some analysts have described Obama’s foreign policy as naive, inadequate and leaning toward weakening the U.S., humiliating it and destroying its morale. Maybe the expectations of some people have been realized — perhaps because of pressure from his opponents, especially Israel, which is pushing hard to make more gains.
In fairness, these charges come from Israel’s supporters, who exaggerate when they blame Obama for inciting the Palestinians against Israel — as though the Palestinians need reminding of their rights and claims. The Jews, however, say that Obama is the first to demand Israel to withdraw from Jerusalem — something former American presidents never dared to do. [Former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert] Gates commented that this has nothing to do with Obama’s own convictions. Rather, it is about the U.S.; the president who succeeds Obama will surprise the world with more withdrawals and concessions, perhaps even going so far as to return to the Monroe Doctrine (Monroe was the fifth U.S. president), which stated that America should be for Americans and that external affairs should not be of concern to them.
Supporters of Israel, fearful of the erosion of the American president’s international power — the umbrella that guarantees their ability to make a racket — say that Obama is encouraging the Palestinians in their declaration of statehood at the end of 2011. They say that he is the first to have demanded that the Palestinians insist on Israel committing itself to accepting the 1967 borders before entering into negotiations. The Israelis also say that Obama has not opposed the Palestinian commitment to the destruction of Israel, but instead encouraged the idea of the refugees’ return. All of these remove Obama completely from the framework established by George W. Bush.
Experts expect that Obama will withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan as a prelude to a policy of retreat, distancing itself and turning in on the U.S.’ internal problems. These are reaching alarming proportions, particularly problems in health, education and social cohesion.
In regards to relations with other states, proponents of foreign policy change believe that Washington will not go beyond talking about sanctions, which Israel — the greatest instigator of wars — thinks are inadequate. They also believe that Obama’s relationship with Russia is an extension of the position of Bush, who saw the importance of not clashing with Russia. Likewise, Obama is intent on achieving a rapprochement with Syria, regardless of the ruling regime there.
One of the most prominent changes is Obama’s decision to leave Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak in the lurch. This is in line with what Bush and Condoleezza Rice said about “creative chaos” and democratic transformations, and a tangible change from the typical American policy that positions itself where there are direct American interests.
As for what Obama has done in Libya, this is evidence of his taking unprecedented positions. The War Powers Resolution, enacted 30 years ago, stipulates that the president must consult Congress before entering any war. In the Libyan case, Obama did not consult anyone before entering into a war that does not serve the American national interest.
Gates has criticized the American intervention in Libya, saying in an interview that “Moammar Gadhafi posed no threat to U.S. interests and that no vital U.S. interests are served by the U.S. mission in Libya.” This raises the question: Is American foreign policy a result of Obama’s personal views, or is it a reflection of the imperative of change, which no individual or administration can avoid? Gates’ interview revealed part of the answer when he confirmed that major shifts are underway in U.S. policy and in the world.
If we consider what president Obama says about himself — that he has come to change the U.S. and that he considers this more important than winning a second term — then we can be certain that behind the withdrawal are winds of change and storms; ahead are domestic problems, the largest of which is a universal health care program, which he has insisted upon even if its price is electoral defeat. He also intends to introduce substantial amendments to immigration legislation, labor policy, social security and environmental policy.
But the area that gives the U.S. president the most opportunity for change and amendment is foreign policy. For this reason, huge shifts are expected in Iran and Afghanistan — from which Obama has announced the intention to withdraw, like he did from Iraq. He is also striving for a peace deal with the Taliban, something the Republicans consider to be a clear defeat for the U.S. There is talk about the role of Gates’ successor, Leon Panetta. It is said that his role will largely be in reducing the defense budget, which will render the U.S. incapable of performing the tasks of a feared superpower.
Some analysts have described Obama’s foreign policy as naive, inadequate and leaning toward weakening the U.S., humiliating it and destroying its morale. Maybe the expectations of some people have been realized — perhaps because of pressure from his opponents, especially Israel, which is pushing hard to make more gains.