America and Obama: A Sense of Relaxation, but On Guard for Any Suprises
The fourth anniversary of the assassination of President Rafiq Hariri came amidst a flurry of events at the local, regional and international levels. At the local level, the anniversary coincided with all of the myriad conflicts which have turned into a political traffic jam, especially the problems concerning of the political disputes in preparation for the election on June 7th. If what is expected to threaten to hold up this election, and of course all of the things which could unexpectedly happen, don’t in fact come to pass, it would be a first in Lebanese history.
Adding to these variables is the complete mobilization of security measures, media preparation and sheer psychological readiness as the international tribunal gets ready to disclose the names of those responsible for the death of Hariri and his associates, as well as other martyrs, at the Hague on the first of March. It will also be the anniversary of the assassination of Hezbollah’s Imad Mughniyah and with it the prevailing concerns that Israel is willing to use extreme measures in response to the party’s boldness in kidnapping Israeli soldiers.
Exacerbating this problem is the battle that recently broke out over both the legal and illegal phone-tapping of members of the “March 14th Coalition” majority in congress, the Minister of Communications Gibran Basil and, by extension, the congressional minority. The battle centers on their refusal to allow the minister to provide the international commission with intelligence information which had led in the past to the occurrence of certain terrorist attacks and assassinations.
Amid this feverish political atmosphere, more than one side has been waiting anxiously to see the results of the Israeli elections and what will follow. In terms of the election, we can consider the following points:
• The election showed ambiguous results, where no party was able to obtain a majority. Even though the leader of Kadima, Tzipi Livni, received a majority of one vote as compared to the Likud party led by Benjamin Netanyahu, she will not be able to form a new government unless she is able to convince the rest of the center-left parties to enter into a coalition which will give it a numerical majority in the Knesset, or more than sixty votes.
• On the other hand, Netanyahu declared victory in the elections by merit of the fact that right-wing parties did garner a majority of the total votes. This debate will no doubt continue for the coming days and weeks as the process of constructing a new government in Israel will be extremely difficult considering the political splintering caused by the elections.
In testament to the irony of Israeli politics, the leader of the far-right, Avigdor Lieberman, was able to change the political balance just by gaining a few votes. As for the Labor party’s fourth place finish, it has signaled the end of a party which has been a part of Israeli politics since its founding. Among the proposals being offered is one which calls for the rotation of both Livni and Netanyahu into power each for two years.
Regardless of how these deliberations end, we would be continuing the same mistake in our analysis if we were to ask which side would be best to take over the reins of power, whether it be Likud or Kadima or Yisrael Beitenou or Shas. Does not experience prove that all of those who inherit power in the Israeli government are no different or better, regardless of whether they are hawks or doves? If the former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is the example of “moderates” in power, one must remember that it was he who launched the aggression against Lebanon in July 2006 and who ended his political career with the same aggression on Gaza. At the end of the day, it is still all Israel.
This raises several questions on how the Israeli elections will affect the Palestinian side or, in keeping with the current situation, the two Palestinian sides!
At the time of this writing, Cairo was holding a number of meetings and deliberations aimed to establish a truce between Israel and Hamas. President Hosni Mubarak has notified French President Nicolas Sarkozy that the next few hours will bring a ceasefire which will last somewhere between a year and a year and a half. But this will just be a temporary truce in order to give both sides a chance to breath and to give them the chance to find a more suitable approach in dealing with Palestine and especially the Gaza Strip, not to mention the nature of the upcoming deliberations between the government of Israel and the future Palestinian government based in Ramallah. Sa’ab Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, has made no secret of his dissatisfaction with what the Israeli elections will mean for the possibility of achieving any progress in the peace talks.
There is information from a reliable source that French President Nicolas Sarkozy has toured several of the Gulf Arab states with the following proposal: the coordination between France and the United States in order to jump-start every possible path to peace at once and convening an international conference in Paris to assure the seriousness of such a move, which will later move to Washington. Sarkozy hopes to buy time and to give the political process a little momentum, saying that he will be the sponsor of this stage, in order to avoid angering the Americans. Another source has indicated that the French president has talked this proposal over with U.S. President Barack Obama, who would for the time being prefer to avoid any bold or ambitious action until the situation in the Middle East improves. Taking into account recent events, we would like to stress the following points:
• By giving the most extreme groups in Israel the reins of power, we will see the emergence of more radical elements within the Palestinian resistance, which Hamas will be happy to take advantage of in the coming stages.
• Conventional wars like the ones between Israel and Arab states would no longer be feasible between Israel and the resistance movements: Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine.
• All of Gaza’s towns, villages and refugee camps that have been subject to this horrible aggression should be borne by all Palestinians. The slaughter of Gaza assures that Palestinians are destined to move from camp to camp, uprooted by the strong winds that have swept the region in recent days. The concern is that with the continuing bickering between the mini-state in Gaza and the state in Ram Allah concerning projects on the reconstruction of Gaza, the opportunity for cooperation will again be lost because of the various disputes between rival factions. What must be said to all Palestinian factions loud and clear is: when you tire of fighting and bickering, there will be no alternative to renewing the struggle and developing a new framework for action. The Palestinian Liberation Organization, the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, cannot contain within it all of the various factions. It is up to Fatah and Hamas to realize that the nation of Palestine is much larger than any faction.
• At the international level, ever since Barack Hussein Obama assumed office, the U.S. has tried to create a climate of international and regional calm. It is not important whether these feelings are genuine or are exaggerated. The image Obama is hoping to project is one that his administration has described as the culture of dialogue; proactive dialogue as an alternative to the preemptive war philosophy that Bush followed during the last eight years. In an exchange of letters with the custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, Obama wrote: “I am confident that we will work together in a spirit of peace and justice in order to build a more secure world during the next four years. And I look forward to working with you to promote good relations between our two countries.”
The extent of optimism with which Obama’s presidency has extended even to Iran, who strongly welcomed the new American perspective in order to resolve disputes, including those both nuclear and non-nuclear. With regards to the relationship with Lebanon, the American President Obama has made a statement which stressed the U.S. commitment to Lebanon’s independence and sovereignty in a phone call to Mr. Saad Hariri.
In the context of general American movement in the region, Senator John Kerry, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate, is set to tour a number of countries in the region, including Syria. We must remain realistic when dealing with the new America by exercising caution, prudence and vigilance lest we get carried away with daydreaming. But the difference between the Bush administration and Obama’s is that the former’s slogan was “those who are not with us are against us,” and the latter has adopted the theory that “those who are not with us might not necessarily be against us.”
Adding to these variables is the complete mobilization of security measures, media preparation and sheer psychological readiness as the international tribunal gets ready to disclose the names of those responsible for the death of Hariri and his associates, as well as other martyrs, at the Hague on the first of March. It will also be the anniversary of the assassination of Hezbollah’s Imad Mughniyah and with it the prevailing concerns that Israel is willing to use extreme measures in response to the party’s boldness in kidnapping Israeli soldiers.
Exacerbating this problem is the battle that recently broke out over both the legal and illegal phone-tapping of members of the “March 14th Coalition” majority in congress, the Minister of Communications Gibran Basil and, by extension, the congressional minority. The battle centers on their refusal to allow the minister to provide the international commission with intelligence information which had led in the past to the occurrence of certain terrorist attacks and assassinations.
Amid this feverish political atmosphere, more than one side has been waiting anxiously to see the results of the Israeli elections and what will follow. In terms of the election, we can consider the following points:
• The election showed ambiguous results, where no party was able to obtain a majority. Even though the leader of Kadima, Tzipi Livni, received a majority of one vote as compared to the Likud party led by Benjamin Netanyahu, she will not be able to form a new government unless she is able to convince the rest of the center-left parties to enter into a coalition which will give it a numerical majority in the Knesset, or more than sixty votes.
• On the other hand, Netanyahu declared victory in the elections by merit of the fact that right-wing parties did garner a majority of the total votes. This debate will no doubt continue for the coming days and weeks as the process of constructing a new government in Israel will be extremely difficult considering the political splintering caused by the elections.
In testament to the irony of Israeli politics, the leader of the far-right, Avigdor Lieberman, was able to change the political balance just by gaining a few votes. As for the Labor party’s fourth place finish, it has signaled the end of a party which has been a part of Israeli politics since its founding. Among the proposals being offered is one which calls for the rotation of both Livni and Netanyahu into power each for two years.
Regardless of how these deliberations end, we would be continuing the same mistake in our analysis if we were to ask which side would be best to take over the reins of power, whether it be Likud or Kadima or Yisrael Beitenou or Shas. Does not experience prove that all of those who inherit power in the Israeli government are no different or better, regardless of whether they are hawks or doves? If the former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is the example of “moderates” in power, one must remember that it was he who launched the aggression against Lebanon in July 2006 and who ended his political career with the same aggression on Gaza. At the end of the day, it is still all Israel.
This raises several questions on how the Israeli elections will affect the Palestinian side or, in keeping with the current situation, the two Palestinian sides!
At the time of this writing, Cairo was holding a number of meetings and deliberations aimed to establish a truce between Israel and Hamas. President Hosni Mubarak has notified French President Nicolas Sarkozy that the next few hours will bring a ceasefire which will last somewhere between a year and a year and a half. But this will just be a temporary truce in order to give both sides a chance to breath and to give them the chance to find a more suitable approach in dealing with Palestine and especially the Gaza Strip, not to mention the nature of the upcoming deliberations between the government of Israel and the future Palestinian government based in Ramallah. Sa’ab Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, has made no secret of his dissatisfaction with what the Israeli elections will mean for the possibility of achieving any progress in the peace talks.
There is information from a reliable source that French President Nicolas Sarkozy has toured several of the Gulf Arab states with the following proposal: the coordination between France and the United States in order to jump-start every possible path to peace at once and convening an international conference in Paris to assure the seriousness of such a move, which will later move to Washington. Sarkozy hopes to buy time and to give the political process a little momentum, saying that he will be the sponsor of this stage, in order to avoid angering the Americans. Another source has indicated that the French president has talked this proposal over with U.S. President Barack Obama, who would for the time being prefer to avoid any bold or ambitious action until the situation in the Middle East improves. Taking into account recent events, we would like to stress the following points:
• By giving the most extreme groups in Israel the reins of power, we will see the emergence of more radical elements within the Palestinian resistance, which Hamas will be happy to take advantage of in the coming stages.
• Conventional wars like the ones between Israel and Arab states would no longer be feasible between Israel and the resistance movements: Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine.
• All of Gaza’s towns, villages and refugee camps that have been subject to this horrible aggression should be borne by all Palestinians. The slaughter of Gaza assures that Palestinians are destined to move from camp to camp, uprooted by the strong winds that have swept the region in recent days. The concern is that with the continuing bickering between the mini-state in Gaza and the state in Ram Allah concerning projects on the reconstruction of Gaza, the opportunity for cooperation will again be lost because of the various disputes between rival factions. What must be said to all Palestinian factions loud and clear is: when you tire of fighting and bickering, there will be no alternative to renewing the struggle and developing a new framework for action. The Palestinian Liberation Organization, the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, cannot contain within it all of the various factions. It is up to Fatah and Hamas to realize that the nation of Palestine is much larger than any faction.
• At the international level, ever since Barack Hussein Obama assumed office, the U.S. has tried to create a climate of international and regional calm. It is not important whether these feelings are genuine or are exaggerated. The image Obama is hoping to project is one that his administration has described as the culture of dialogue; proactive dialogue as an alternative to the preemptive war philosophy that Bush followed during the last eight years. In an exchange of letters with the custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, Obama wrote: “I am confident that we will work together in a spirit of peace and justice in order to build a more secure world during the next four years. And I look forward to working with you to promote good relations between our two countries.”
The extent of optimism with which Obama’s presidency has extended even to Iran, who strongly welcomed the new American perspective in order to resolve disputes, including those both nuclear and non-nuclear. With regards to the relationship with Lebanon, the American President Obama has made a statement which stressed the U.S. commitment to Lebanon’s independence and sovereignty in a phone call to Mr. Saad Hariri.
In the context of general American movement in the region, Senator John Kerry, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate, is set to tour a number of countries in the region, including Syria. We must remain realistic when dealing with the new America by exercising caution, prudence and vigilance lest we get carried away with daydreaming. But the difference between the Bush administration and Obama’s is that the former’s slogan was “those who are not with us are against us,” and the latter has adopted the theory that “those who are not with us might not necessarily be against us.”