Is There a Clear American Policy toward the Middle East?

Is there a clear American policy toward the Middle East? To avoid wading through a sea of opinions and dispute, we’d benefit, instead, to ask the question: Is there a clear and specific American policy toward a settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute? Before answering this question, it is important to refer to a revealing incident when, on the eve of the meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, President Obama spent about three days in halls and corridors of the international organization to debate and discuss the most important global issues and challenges.

At the time, the White House distributed an agenda with guidelines that addressed and described issues that most affected American interests and the U.S. policy toward these challenges. It included the American stance on anti-proliferation and Iranian nuclear issues, the stance on the ambitions of North Korea, the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq, and reinforcing the international peacekeeping forces and the situation in Sudan, Liberia, Eritrea, Congo and Sri Lanka. It even mentioned the importance of paying the U.N. the American arrears. Strangely, however, this agenda omitted any references to the Israeli-Palestinian problem or related peace efforts. The Israel or Palestinian-Israeli dispute were not mentioned at all in this agenda, despite the fact that the U.S. has stated, over and over, that this cause is at the top of its priorities list and that a peaceful settlement to the Middle Eastern cause is an American strategic interest.

Omitting such a major issue is probably because the U.S. monopolizes the right to broker the peace process and refuses to involve legitimate international negotiations in any issue related to Israel. The situation is no different regarding the American stance in the IAEA, where the U.S. prevents the international community from exerting any pressures on Israel and its nuclear arsenal. When The Board of Governors met to debate an Arab resolution to include Israel in the anti-proliferation agreement, and to subject its nuclear organization to the same international guarantees, the U.S. used every weapon it had — incentives and threats — to stop the body from adopting the resolution (even though it was a key part of the American call to reinforce the anti-proliferation agreement internationally). That must lead us to ponder either the credibility of the American administration or the possibility of Israel belonging to another world.

In front of the General Assembly, President Obama expressed his country’s desire to realize the two-state vision, and asked Israel, very diplomatically, to maintain its freeze on settlements to forward negotiations; to satisfy the Arab side he referred to the possibility of having delegates representing Palestine as a new state of the U.N, within a year. Despite the American propitiation and begging, time was on Israel’s time, and they refused to respond to the Obama administration. As the clock keeps ticking and the freeze on direct talks is becoming reality, it would be difficult for Washington — while dealing with the possibility of a November midterm, Republican Party takeover of Congress — to exert any pressure on the Israeli side. Even if it succeeded in resuming peace efforts, the baby steps that Washington tends to take would allow Israel to continue adding one obstacle after another until the fall 2011 elections. And, at this point, the pro-Israeli media would play a vital role in restraining any reasonable or semi-fair initiative to solve the Palestinian cause.

Despite the disapproval from some Israeli hardliners on freezing settlements, Washington, unfortunately, didn’t live up to the strong criticism from the Israeli newspaper, Haartz, in an article titled “Freezing Lieberman.” The article called upon the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to sack his extremist foreign minister, Avigdor Leiberman, for making statements that peace with Palestine was not likely in the coming years. The newspaper explained that the Palestinian demand to freeze settlements is not an excuse or condition, but a legitimate grievance. The newspaper continued to wonder, “Why do we demand the Palestinians to abandon a condition supported by the entire international community except for Israel?”

Meanwhile, there has been some disapproval of the Obama Administration’s focus on peace efforts by many prominent officials and experts of the Middle East — from the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, for example. Further, some, like the American policy expert Leslie Gelb, have expressed their surprise that the Obama Administration is still optimistic about making progress toward a peace settlement. Still, others — like Robert Danin, fellow of Middle East and Africa Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations — call upon President Obama to mobilize peace efforts with a strong sense of hope.

At last, can Washington achieve the peace we all hope for without making a thorough and clear plan to settle the Palestinian-Israeli dispute?