Talk and Wait: Obama and Muslims

U.S. President Barack Obama’s gestures in the Middle East aren’t yet accepted by the Arab world as a new beginning.

The Arab-Islamic world awaits a signal from Barack Obama, America’s new President. An early sign is his quick dispatch of George Mitchell as Middle East negotiator to Egypt, Israel, the West Bank, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.

Former Senator Mitchell strikes a positive note among Arabs because his mother was a Maronite Catholic Lebanese. Another signal was Obama’s choice of the Arab television network al-Arabiya, a Saudi entity, as the venue for his first foreign television interview.

This awakens cautious hope, no more than that, that the new President is setting a tone in Middle East policy previously not heard from Washington. “If countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us,” Obama said. In the interest of peace, the Israelis will also have to make a few difficult decisions, he added.

Additionally, Obama spoke by telephone with the leaders of the most important countries in the Middle East within a few days of taking office. He spoke with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, but not with representatives of Hamas or Tehran.

These indicators, however, aren’t sufficient to change prevailing opinion in Arab countries that a fundamental shift in American Middle East policy, previously based on unconditional support for Israel, is at hand.

Most Arab governments have welcomed Obama’s friendly opening overtures. They have also avoided criticism because they don’t wish to arouse unnecessary animosity in the early days of Obama’s administration. But, attitudes remain skeptical.

The only harsh words came from Ari Larijani, Chairman of the Iranian Parliament, who said America’s silence concerning Israel’s brutality in Gaza had dealt a serious blow to the idea of “change” in the region. He added that a shadow had fallen on Obama’s promise to find new approaches to Muslim countries that would be based on common interests and mutual respect. Many Arabs in responsible positions share Larijani’s opinion, even if they don’t express their agreement openly.

Since most agree that settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian question is necessary in order to achieve a comprehensive peace in the Middle East, logic dictates that success is dependent on including the Hamas movement. Hamas rules Gaza and has gained considerable prestige in the West Bank by withstanding the three week Israeli hail of bombs. As long as Obama refuses to negotiate with Hamas, nothing has changed.

Optimists are hoping that the approach used by independent specialists in Washington will have increased influence. One of those specialists is Richard Murphy, former Under-Secretary of State as well as Ambassador to Syria and Saudi Arabia.

Murphy has warned that the United States would have been more successful in achieving peace between Israel and the Palestinians had it not refused to negotiate with the Palestinian Liberation Organization for 13 years, a danger he says again exists if the U.S. refuses to negotiate with Hamas. Political contact with Hamas is, in the long run, unavoidable.

Pessimists refer to what they see as negative steps taken by Obama. He continues to allow rocket attacks on Pakistani tribal areas and wants to intensify military operations in Afghanistan. The trip to an Islamic nation he will undertake during his first 100 days won’t be to an Arab country, but to Indonesia where he spent his childhood.