Obama Faces The Gaza Crisis
The current crisis in the Gaza strip leaves very little time for the American president-elect, Barack Obama, to define his strategy in the Middle East, faced with the horrible chaos left by the Bush administration in the United States’ relations with the Arab world.
Since the beginning of the Israeli aggression in the Palestinian territory on December 27th, the president-elect of the United States has refrained from calling for a ceasefire, saying that he wanted to leave the execution of American foreign policy to the outgoing George W. Bush. He did promise, however, to “immediately” tackle the problem as soon as he takes office on January 20th. But the crisis deprives him of the time he needs to appoint diplomats and develop a new strategy for the Middle East, one that differs from that of his predecessor.
He will find himself faced with Hamas, now politically strengthened from the conflict with Israel, and the weakening of Washington’s position. The Israeli offensive against the Islamist movement, supported by Iran and Syria, has until now strengthened the anti-American front in Iran and weakened the Palestinian Authority – rival of the Islamist movement, supported by Washington, and partner in negotiations with Israel. This state of affairs risks complicating President Obama’s task of promoting peace in the Middle East.
The Israeli aggression in Gaza has also provoked other collateral damage in the region. Egypt and Jordan, key American partners and sole Arab nations at peace with Israel, are on the defensive after accusations by other Arab states, radical groups, and public opinion that accuses them of doing nothing to stop Israel and tacitly accepting the Israeli attack. For their part, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia accuse Hamas of serving the interests of Iran.
Above all, under these circumstances, President Obama needs to tackle the disastrous legacy left by the Bush administration, which aligned itself plainly behind the Hebrew state’s policies, compromising the interests of the United States and destroying its image in the region.
In the Gaza crisis, Bush was very comfortable with supporting Israel unambiguously and not seeking a ceasefire. In the face of the impasse in the Annapolis peace process launched at the end of 2007, the next president will have to act differently than his predecessor, ending the brazen partiality in favor of Israel.
The new president should keep in mind that Washington will remain an ineffective mediator in the Middle East if it does not learn to impose limits on Israel instead of tagging along with Jerusalem’s policies, as did the Clinton and Bush administrations.
Since the beginning of the Israeli aggression in the Palestinian territory on December 27th, the president-elect of the United States has refrained from calling for a ceasefire, saying that he wanted to leave the execution of American foreign policy to the outgoing George W. Bush. He did promise, however, to “immediately” tackle the problem as soon as he takes office on January 20th. But the crisis deprives him of the time he needs to appoint diplomats and develop a new strategy for the Middle East, one that differs from that of his predecessor.
He will find himself faced with Hamas, now politically strengthened from the conflict with Israel, and the weakening of Washington’s position. The Israeli offensive against the Islamist movement, supported by Iran and Syria, has until now strengthened the anti-American front in Iran and weakened the Palestinian Authority – rival of the Islamist movement, supported by Washington, and partner in negotiations with Israel. This state of affairs risks complicating President Obama’s task of promoting peace in the Middle East.
The Israeli aggression in Gaza has also provoked other collateral damage in the region. Egypt and Jordan, key American partners and sole Arab nations at peace with Israel, are on the defensive after accusations by other Arab states, radical groups, and public opinion that accuses them of doing nothing to stop Israel and tacitly accepting the Israeli attack. For their part, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia accuse Hamas of serving the interests of Iran.
Above all, under these circumstances, President Obama needs to tackle the disastrous legacy left by the Bush administration, which aligned itself plainly behind the Hebrew state’s policies, compromising the interests of the United States and destroying its image in the region.
In the Gaza crisis, Bush was very comfortable with supporting Israel unambiguously and not seeking a ceasefire. In the face of the impasse in the Annapolis peace process launched at the end of 2007, the next president will have to act differently than his predecessor, ending the brazen partiality in favor of Israel.
The new president should keep in mind that Washington will remain an ineffective mediator in the Middle East if it does not learn to impose limits on Israel instead of tagging along with Jerusalem’s policies, as did the Clinton and Bush administrations.