Obama Different thanEight Predecessors in TacklingIsraeli Settlements?

Former American president, Dwight D. Eisenhower (January 1953 – January 1961), is still favored by Arabs, if we compare his policies regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict to policies of other United States presidents. Following Eisenhower as a favorite is George H. W. Bush (January 1980- January 1993). Due to the fact that both were Republicans, Arabs generally consider all Republican presidents to be better than their Democratic peers.

However, there were also two Democratic presidents, James Earl Carter (January 1977 – January 1981) and Bill Clinton (January 1993 – January 2001), who were viewed positively by some Arabs. Yet, these two presidents were not sufficient in changing Arab preference for Republican heads-of-state. This is because a majority of Arabs viewed the Egyptian-Israeli Accords negatively, even though Carter achieved great success through the Camp David agreements. Moreover, the great effort exerted by Clinton to solve the Palestinian issue was squandered by the harshest confrontations to erupt in the occupied territories since 1967. Furthermore, after Benjamin Netanyahu became the prime minister of Israel for the first time in 1996, Clinton’s positive impact amounted to nothing.

As a result, one can wonder if Obama, in the view of Arabs and Muslims who cheered for President Obama and his policies (or even our own view of these policies) will eliminate the impression that Republican presidents are superior. Even though some argue that Americans are partial to Israel, Obama’s revolutionary policies counter this argument, when compared to his predecessors.

Eisenhower, himself, was opinionated about the tripartite aggression against Egypt in 1956 and insisted upon Israel’s withdrawal from Sinai in 1957. These views were inextricably associated with the policies of expanding an American hegemony to the Middle East and liquidizing the remains of colonization. It is certainly understood that if the inhabitant of the White House had been a Democrat during those times, he would have also adopted Eisenhower’s position, or, at least, something similar!

Regardless, Republican presidents still rank above Democrats. Take, for example, the issue of Israel’s settlements – Obama’s attitude stirs tangible Arab and Islamic optimism. So far, George H. W. Bush is still the strongest contributor in this issue. He not only criticized Yitzhak Shamir’s administration in 1989, when it insisted on expanding its settlement activities; he punished it. He did this by withdrawing guarantees for the American loans Israel desperately needed to contain the large influx of Jewish Soviet immigrants. Moreover, contact with the Israeli government was severed. This was further enforced by the fact that then-Secretary of State James Baker commented that Israeli officials knew U.S. State Department phone numbers by heart!

Even Ronald Reagan, who was considered one of the worst American presidents for his attitude towards Israel, acted relatively well in 1986. At that time, he publicly refused Shamir’s request to close two unofficial bureaus of the Palestinian al-Tahrir (Liberation) Organization in Washington and New York. Shamir’s demands came after a strong Palestinian operation, in response to settlement activities. Reagan, however, was the first to stop using the expression, “illegitimate settlements.” This is the same expression used implicitly by Lyndon B. Johnson and then by Richard Nixon after the 1967 war. The effect of this expression was that any change that occurred in the occupied Palestinian territories during the 1967 War was considered to be illegal.

Yet, Johnson’s and Nixon’s words were nothing but an automatic application of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, which restricts territory occupants from transferring any of its civilians to the territories that it currently occupies.

But again, no American administration attempted to hold Israel to this position [of viewing the settlements as illegitimate, even theoretically]. The only thing the U.S. did was to “softly” criticize Israel for not committing to the Fourth Geneva Convention. George H. W. Bush was the first American official to criticize Israel for this violation, while he was U.S. Envoy to the U.N. in 1971.

Obama’s attitude regarding settlements is not enough to make him preferable to George H.W. Bush or Eisenhower, at least for the time being. Obama is preceded by the [above-mentioned] eight presidents including the president most widely considered to be the worst American president of all time: George Bush, Jr.. In his speech on April 4, 2002, George Bush, Jr. said that he was resolved to disengaging Palestinian and Israeli states and stopping Israeli settlement activities.

What is new in Obama’s attitude, however, is that he has redirected American policies to follow James Carter’s path. He openly declared that continued settlement was not only unacceptable, but also illegitimate. These activities do not only conflict with the requirements of a peaceful solution, but also clash with international law. And in his most recent speech at Cairo University, Obama said that the U.S. cannot accept the continuation of Israeli settlements.

So, if Obama wishes to be different [from other Democrats], he must succeed in pressuring Israel to freeze its illegitimate actions. If he does this, he will maintain the sweeping admiration he currently enjoys in the Islamic world, regardless of his ability to reach a satisfactory solution.

However, neither Obama nor anyone else in the U.S. can compensate the Palestinian people for their great loss. This includes the losses incurred as a result of a slow American response to Israel’s continued increase in settlements. Settler numbers have grown to 300,000 on the West Bank, alone, and to nearly 190,000 in Jerusalem. This seriously complicates problems that were simpler two or three decades ago.

Obama is preceded by eight presidents who opposed Israeli settlements, but few were disturbed by Israel’s continued building of more settlements. Obama can rise above all these presidents, if he manages to stop Israel’s activities today, rather than tomorrow. However, over the next two years, Netanyahu’s cabinet will make this difficult for the Obama administration.