General Obama

More than two years ago, in July of 2008 to be exact, I wrote an article that was published in Al-Quds Al-Arabi entitled “Upon You We Rely, Obama.” This sarcastic title was an indication of the content of the article, which mocked the thinking of the Arabs up to that time. They heaped their burdens upon the shoulders of Obama, known for being a black-skinned candidate for the American presidency. Like an incantation, many Arabs incessantly repeated their delusions and pipe dreams that Obama’s Muslim origins would prove fortuitous for them, expecting some manner of blessing at his hands — in other words, that he would seek to resolve the Palestinian question.

What has become clear after more than two years — but which really needed no additional clarification, after all — is that the apple does not fall far from the tree as far as presidents and their relationships with Israel are concerned. The United States of America is not some kind of humanitarian organization; what is going on between America and Israel is a case of full strategic integration. When the name of the inhabitant of the White House changes, it does not make a great deal of difference in this matter. Obama, since becoming president, differs from his predecessor George Bush in many ways, but when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict, he is merely a colored copy of the haughtiness of Bush the white.

Many Arabs were optimistic — although we were not among them — owing to the sweetness of President Obama’s tongue. His capacity for dazzling rhetorical excess was occasioned in his two noted speeches: to the Turkish parliament and at Cairo University. In these instances, he expounded upon his understanding of the injustice done to the Palestinians and his desire for friendly relations with the peoples of the Islamic world. All of this was nothing more than a public relations campaign. The American ruling establishment merely wanted to build up Obama’s personal merits by employing him as a media commodity designed to win hearts and minds, and thus improving Washington’s image in the opinion surveys that are conducted every year according to America’s methods.

It appears that Obama himself became rather infatuated with this role; that is, he spoke openly to us and even undertook some actions toward Israel accordingly. He publicly contended with Netanyahu’s government, speaking extensively about the necessity of stopping or freezing Israeli settlements in Jerusalem and the West Bank. Obama wanted to appear cold in his interactions with Netanyahu during his visit to the White House some months ago. Obama wanted to continue the role, and to demonstrate exemplary sustained seriousness. Yet, at some point, the reality shocked him, as it would soon shock those of us who put our faith in him.

The reality is that Israel is a red line for the American administration, regardless of the name of the president or his skin color; the relationship with Israel is — pardon the expression — the holiest of the holy in U.S. foreign policy.

There was nothing for Obama to do but retrace his steps back to the zero point and behave like his predecessor, Bush, who described Sharon as a teacher. Obama has not described Netanyahu — at least not yet — as a teacher, but he has manifested all manner of warmth and excessively correct obedience, going to great lengths to welcome the Israeli prime minister during his most recent visit to the White House. Obama gave Netanyahu the initiative when he vowed to expend all of the American administration’s efforts to force Abbas to return to direct negotiations, without any conditions or demands on Israel, and even without formulating a goal or timeframe for negotiations. Obama talks — in the same manner as his predecessor, Bush — about the two-state solution in a timeframe such that there will be no end to the negotiations.

Immediately after Netanyahu’s triumphant return from Washington, the large American newspapers were reporting the defeat of Obama at the hands of Netanyahu. Israeli newspapers took to satirizing Obama and his kind words to Arabs and Muslims, which now seem to be gone with the wind. Obama was quite busy emphasizing his friendship with Israel, pressuring Turkey to stop the deterioration of its relationship with Israel, and further polishing pronouncements of America’s absolute commitment to Israel’s security, replete with hypocritical talk of the “greatness” of Israel, and about its special security requirements. Tacitly included within that was “Israel’s nuclear arsenal,” which the U.S. has promised to make inaccessible to the inspection of any international body dealing with this issue. Obama touched on this subject in a manner that is unprecedented for any U.S. president since the establishment of the existence of Israel.

The cause of all this is not the coalescence of new pressures upon the American president. There are numerous factors to consider: the interests of his party, the Democratic Party; the approach of the mid-term Congressional elections and the expectation of large victories for the Republicans; the desire of President Obama to earn the friendship of the Jewish lobby, which is influential in all U.S. elections; the aim to re-build a positive relationship with Israel’s supporters, smoothed by Obama’s desire for a further victory for a second presidential term. All of these are important factors, of course, but they do not suffice to explain what has gone on. Obama has not expressed this change in attitude in an inconspicuous way, but rather his public pronouncements alone are sufficient to demonstrate that a change has occurred.

Obama had demonstrated some criticism of Netanyahu’s intransigence, then went on to praise him to an excessive degree. He undertook not one serious measure to pressure Netanyahu, and did not follow the example of George Bush (the father), who punished Yitzhak Shamir in the early 1990s by stopping security assistance grants valued at more than ten billion dollars. Bush wanted to ensure the primacy of U.S. decision-making in the relationship with Israel. He succeeded right away in that, pushing Shamir into going to the Madrid conference, only for Bush the father to fall in the following presidential election. This is the result Obama does not want to repeat. He is expending every effort to improve his image with Israelis, giving primacy of decision-making to Tel Aviv in its relationship with Washington, especially in cases where U.S. interests do not appear in danger.

The rulers of the Arab world are in the coat pocket of the American president, and Palestinian President Abbas is wrapped around the tip of Obama’s finger. The lowest employee of the U.S. State Department is good enough to pass orders to the Arab League, with the results known in advance: our leaders have become so submissive that they immediately obey whatever they are ordered.

The optimists among the Arabs — those who are enslaved by their own emotions — pictured Obama to be close to the image of Jesus Christ. The actual reality is hidden from them. Obama might be a black man with a white heart, but the American establishment is white with a black heart, especially toward us. The establishment has managed to turn Obama’s image from that of Christ to one of a general, endowing him with the genes of despising the weak and respecting the powerful. American policy does not rest with right simply because it is right, and does not stand against the untrue merely for the sake of truth. For the United States, might is right. It does not review an error except under the pressure of bloody violence.

George Bush Jr. resolved to withdraw from Iraq under the pressure of the blows of the resistance, and Obama followed him in that regard. Obama is comfortable trying his luck on what is, in reality, a lost victory in Afghanistan: weakening his armed forces; igniting a war that is ridiculed today; and ultimately, hastening the decision to withdraw from Afghanistan. On the other hand, nothing seems to bother him now on the face of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Israel is setting out to test its martial luck with Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. Israel is promising Obama a success that will make up for the heavy U.S. losses in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would appear that this is why the issue of Iran — not of Palestine — has primacy of place in Obama’s consultations with Netanyahu. It is not a secret that ongoing military coordination now goes on between Washington and Tel Aviv, and that the smallest details of war plans are being perfected.

The only difference of opinion is — up to now — whether it is zero hour. Israel is in a rush to get there, whereas Washington is still somewhat ambivalent. Israel does not want to go alone into war, as it is not confident of victory. The results of its latest wars in Lebanon in 2006 and in Gaza in 2009 did not bring news of certain victory. Israel wants the public support of the U.S., and maybe its direct participation by force of arms. Obama appears reluctant, but the American establishment — as it appears thus far — has resolved its decision. The plan bearing the title “a return to negotiations” is just camouflage obscuring its preparations for war.