Obama and the Promise of Change

It was on Tuesday, January 20th, 2009 when the whole world, along with the four million Americans who flocked from the four corners of America to Washington D.C. in such an unprecedented manner since the Civil War, to attend Obama’s inaugural ceremony. They paid much heed to the address he gave so as to derive what implies any evidence of his keeping the promise to being the herald of change. The world, Americans included, is dissatisfied with the policies of the past American president and is thirsty for a gesture of change, giving Obama no chance to lag behind.

On the other hand, everybody yearned to know how Obama would deal with the thorny Palestinian cause which supposedly should have rushed to the top of his preponderances, especially with the recent aggression on Gaza, which was neither a crisis nor clash, but rather a war that stirred anger and condemnation feelings, in the light of his not previously talking about any plans and sufficing with the declarations of two states, an Israeli and a Palestinian one, living in peace and an American active mediation to defuse the tension. However, no one is ignorant of the pressure each and every American president is brought under the Jewish lobby and organizations that have the means to directly affect the entities of political decision-making in U.S.

Still, if the genuine keenness to bring about change is there, America will have to adopt more balanced policies in the region with which it has enormous strategic interests and in which Israel violates international law and UN resolutions but regrettably gets backed, thoroughly and partially by the U.S. and do not mention what the Israeli practices might be. And here, I can quote what David Aaron Miller, who took part in the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, who said Israel was exploiting the American efforts to the extent of destroying America’s credibility. Something else in the Princeton report of the post-Bush American strategy, forwarded by 400 veterans of foreign policies, including some American Secretaries of State, to the effect that America is no longer a fair mediator between Israel and the Arabs.

Conspicuously speaking, the imbalance of the American attitudes during the past eight years went beyond all the reasonable, acceptable and legitimate extremes into an era of colonization that the world had never witnessed for a very long time, was almost revived by the Americans not only supporting Israeli practices in Palestine, but also defending them. Yet, nobody thought of drawing a relationship between the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories and what happened in the colonies of Africa and Asia, which were recognized the right to resist the invader, instead of fallaciously defying logic, international rules and law and the peoples right of enjoying their liberty.

And to be right about that, this might be the main reason behind the U.S’s increasing lank of credibility and Anti-Americanism feeling according to American and European polls in the Islamic world that is talked about among European and Asian allies of the U.S., world, Europe and Asian allies of US, a serious development that Obama and his advisors confessed of knowing and regarded as urgent due to its threat to American national security. Accordingly, Obama is supposed to break his silence after being inaugurated as president to handle the reasons for such a development. And there is no other way except adopting balanced and fair views.

Indeed, the questionable silence of Obama on the recent events of Gaza might not be a sign of a radical change in attitudes. However, many are still betting on some of Obama’s team, known for their criticism of Israel even if there are supporters of the Zionist invader.

American foreign policy, so the argument goes, is governed by the equivalence of powers and change is not a wish to be readily fulfilled. Certainly, this change can be a vital goal to which many peoples of our Arab world aspire and would only be met by their strong will and capability to lobby in addition to that policy, dealing with America in light of a clear-cut strategy and relationship.

In short, I still do remember what Herman Ielts quoted in a conference I attended in Washington 1998 as he was giving a lecture at the military base of West Point on October 6th, 1973(the great day, marking the start of Egypt’s war to evacuate Israeli forces out of Sinai). He was astonished by the attendants’ applause of what the Egyptian forces did in breaking into Israel’s “unconquerable” defense line, Barlif, to their Sinai!

This was the reaction of Israelis allies and friends and an indication of how America highly esteems the strong with which it shall have different accounts.