Obama and Bush: Fundamental Differences

Even though the president of the United States of America is considered the strongest man in the world, his powers remain restricted by the Constitution. In spite of that, the personal, ideological and religious background of the president plays a substantial role in his approach to foreign policy.

Under the previous president, George Bush, we saw the impact of the extreme right wing religious side reflected in foreign policy and its effect on the world, which he himself explained after he discovered the tragedy. The talks and comments about the religious dimensions of Bush’s fruitless and destructive wars that affected Arab and Islamic countries, and with the increasing violence and killing of civilians during the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, public hatred of American policy increased. All this contributed to decrease in Bush’s popularity to an unprecedented level, and earned Bush the title of the worst president in the history of the USA.

In contrast, we find that Obama is a pragmatic man, in harmony with the American mentality, whom practically the whole world fell in love with. Since his election campaign, unprecedented in the USA in terms of organization and planning, Obama proved that he is not only a savvy politician, but also as a public relations man, using modern technology to reach the base of the populace, enthralling America and the whole world with his charisma.

Wherever he went, the man was able to attract crowds and financial donations that broke all previous records. He is also the first black American to become president. He is also relatively a young man, 46 years old, who was able to penetrate the world of fame and politics with unequaled speed. He was able to become a presidential candidate only four years after arriving in Washington in 2004. He also had the courage to make some hard decisions, like his opposition of the Iraq War in 2002 and his call for dialogue with countries like Iran and Syria.

His great rhetorical abilities have been praised by his opponents and his supporters alike, and he is unique in that he stresses positive thinking, the future, hope, American values and the search for a better America. His rejection of polarization and extremism and internal American political fights paved the road for him to become an international American leader, not just a president of the USA.

Obama, however, faces big issues and bigger expectations. As for the Iraq issue, the difference between him and Bush was fundamental from the beginning. While the previous administration made the stability of a secure environment a requirement for withdrawal from Iraq, Obama’s declarations do not include such a condition.

As to the Iranian issue, there is a difference. While both presidents agree that a nuclear Iran is not acceptable, Obama, in contrast with Bush, calls for an end to boycotting Iran and beginning dialogue without demanding that it halt its nuclear program in advance. However, neither president ruled out the military option.

On the Syrian front, however, the difference is fundamental. The Bush administration was not enthusiastic about talks between Syria and Israel, while Obama stated clearly that dialogue with Syria is needed, because as long as Israel thinks that talking to Damascus is in the interest of Israel, Washington has no choice but to accept that position and put all the effort it can muster to keep the dialogue moving.

As for Palestine, Obama approves of the Annapolis accord (2007) and the two-state solution, but he refuses to talk to Hamas before they accept the conditions set by the Quadripartite Committee. Like Bush, Obama says he will try his best to help solve the Palestinian problem. So far, there is no difference in the wording of their statements.

The major differences between Obama and the right wing government of Netanyahu have begun to stand out. Obama made statements calling on Israel to stop establishing new colonies, to evacuate some settlements and to offer the Palestinians some leeway. He admitted in a news conference from the White House that the new Israeli government will not make peace with Palestinians easier, adding that “all we know right now is that the current situation is intolerable,” warning Netanyahu that the U.S. will exercise pressure in favor of establishing a Palestinian state whether Israel wants it or not.

Despite all of this, we have to be realistic in our expectations. It is obvious that the process of peace will continue. However, we emphasize that the U.S. policy toward the Arabic-Israeli conflict is strategic, beneficial and institutionally oriented. It cannot always be characterized as Republican or Democratic, liberal or conservative.

Accordingly, the difference between these presidents’ approaches is actually the limited room they have to maneuver. The question here is not a moral issue, in spite of the obvious moral dimensions of the problem. The U.S. was not, and most probably never will be, an honest and impartial broker. It has a clear strategic commitment to Israel, which it hides neither from the Arabs nor from others.

Despite all that, the vast majority of the concerned parties accept the U.S. involvement in this process because there isn’t any other party in the world who can play that role. Our understanding of this fact is essential to understand what America can offer in support of the process. The U.S. is probably the only country which has the ability to translate accords to reality, just as it also has the vision to shape of the final agreement.

Obama’s goals are not necessarily different from any other American president; what is different is his approach and how much room he gives himself to work with. All American presidents pursue the same goals; however, each president tries to achieve them his own way. Bill Clinton’s approach, for example, was better than that of Bush, even though both had identical goals and strategic stance toward Israel. Clinton tried to achieve some of his goals by applying the theory of soft politics, a method that most Democratic presidents apply. This is probably the only difference between Democratic and Republican presidents.

In this context, we ask the dual, and very important, question: “Can Obama really change the policies of the U.S.? Can the man who dazzled the whole world with his charisma dazzle the world again by overcoming the reality of his country and sail with it upstream?”

The direct answer to this question is that we do not think so, for we live in a world where miracles have ceased to happen. While we do not think that Obama is capable of changing strategies, he is can learn from this important historical opportunity. His personal and political character and the nature of this period in time mean that he will have to apply American strategy and keep his eyes on American, not Israeli, interests. The announcement a few days ago from his representative, George Mitchell, that the two-state proposition is the best solution, is an indicator that Obama is already leaning in that direction.