It wasn’t his choice, but the Arab-Israeli crisis is presenting itself as the fundamental test of Barack Obama’s new diplomacy.
Will the first black president, one bearing the name Hussein, succeed at putting the peace process in the Middle East back on track? It is anecdotal evidence, but still fairly encouraging: they are no longer speaking of the “peace process,” but rather just “peace” at the White House.
The reason behind this is that the successor of George W. Bush has taken on the objective of the creation of a Palestinian state, to be accomplished by the end of his term.
That the Israelis live under the most right-leaning government in their history has not discouraged Barack Obama. To preface his first meeting today with Benjamin Netanyahu, he gave a voice to his administration: Washington demands an end to the colonization in Palestine, the dismantling of “savage” colonies and the start of negotiations on the “two-state” solution.
The Israeli Prime Minister keeps to the most extreme positions, refusing to even utter the words “Palestinian state.” He is supported by his alliance with the anti-Arab demagogue that he has named (whether out of provocation or for his skill, only time will tell) the head of diplomacy, Avigador Liberman, who is opposed to all solutions discussed.
When presidential candidate Obama briefly met Netanyahu in Jerusalem last July, he had told him that they had in common the fact that they were perceived as being much more radical than they actually are, one to the left and the other to the right. It was a gamble on the pragmatism that the Israeli PM had demonstrated during an early exercise of power.
Against the backdrop of an acute crisis with the United States, the head of Likud could fold. Others have done the same before him: Menaghem Begin, during the Camp David Accords with Egypt, and Yitzhak Shamir, at the Madrid Conference in 1991.
Barack Obama refuses to believe that the Iranian nuclear threat serves as a pretext for avoiding concessions to the Palestinians or Syrians; much to the contrary. The new American strategy looks to build alliances as wide-reaching as possible to isolate and win over the most hard-headed adversaries. If the U.S. wants to isolate Iran, it must first unite the Arab states. And thus, for this same reason, resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Current discussions depend on the propositions for the Near East that Barack Obama will make on the 4th of June during his big speech in Cairo to the Muslim world.
His election reestablished America’s image in an incredible way, and his first activities have not disappointed. He needs results, however, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, and with respect to Iran and the Arab world.
Addressing peace in the Middle East again constitutes his first test of credibility. If he gets there, he will be able to advance his extraordinarily ambitious agenda. If he fails, the future will be even more difficult than it already is.
I have a question. Why, for the last few decades, has it been the held opinion of U.S. presidents, the American people, the Middle East powers, and pretty much the whole world that the responsibility for sorting out problems in the Middle East should fall on America’s leaders? Who started this? Is it because national borders in the area were rearranged by the victors of WW2? One more question – if the world is going to complain about America being a global policeman, then why do they keep placing expectations on America to solve global problems such as the Middle East conflict?