Obama’s Speech a Repositioning into Tranquility after bin Laden and the Arab Spring

Even though it is not a “product of America,” Barack Obama supports the Arab Spring as a phenomenon that conforms to the values and interests of the United States. In offering his complete support, he urges the allied regimes to begin democratic reforms and to structure a foundation for a solution between Israel and Palestine. Thus, he wishes to produce a compromise which balances American values and interests and clearly corresponds to his speech before AIPAC and Benjamin Netanyahu’s response on May 22.

Obama continues with his strategy of repositioning through tactical military retreat and the conservation of oversight in areas under U.S. influence, particularly the Middle East. With all of this, we should not forget about the politics of protection against terrorism. Following the operation that brought the death of Osama bin Laden, Obama, with manifest confidence, continues his approach of using “soft power” by confirming the pursuit of military retreat in Afghanistan and Iraq through expressing his will to end the costly conflicts and accompanying the democratic ambitions on Arab streets.

The reception of the speech varied considerably from one country to another. If Tunisia and the Libyan insurgencies commended Obama, the speech did not have the same reception in Iran, which criticized the American president, accusing him of wanting to conceal failures in the Middle East. For the Syrians, they criticized the sanctions while Hezbollah, who mixed him with assassinations and car bomb attacks, castigated Obama. Saudi Arabia is keeping mum, especially regarding Obama’s denunciation of the situation in Bahrain.

Israel, the ally called to order

In harmony with American diplomacy, Obama sees the solution between the two states as the only commonly acceptable one, but his support is more precise: He wants a demilitarized Palestinian state extending onto the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since June 1967 with a possibility of negotiable compromises. However, Netanyahu’s rejection is bitter and categorical. The Israeli polls give him support, but this barely hides the domestic debate in Israel.

At the very least, this reveals two points of view. One the one hand, following in the footsteps of the Kadima party’s founder, Ariel Sharon, party member Tzipi Livni declares herself in favor of “the plan to withdraw from occupied territories” in light of preserving the Jewish character of the State of Israel. One the other hand, Netanyahu prohibits a retreat to the June 1967 borders. According to him, the opposition from the left salutes Obama’s speech. Ehud Barak, the Minister of Defense, believed that the speech “was not that bad,” downplaying the divergences and differences. The alliance with Washington is a red line not to be crossed.

Hamas, reconciliation and the diplomatic voice

The Palestinian authority applauded Obama’s speech, considering it a politically innovative move. President Mahmoud Abbas favorably accepted it in keeping open his diplomatic option to obtain UN recognition of the Palestinian state declared in 1988. Within Hamas, while asking for a “tangible change” and also emphasizing the “contradiction” in Obama’s speech, the Palestinian Islamists’ debate gradually creeps towards negotiation, be it a return to Arafatism or political realism.

A breach opened in this sense; by insisting on the necessity for Hamas to recognize Israel, the Turkish Prime Minister, Tavep Rejeb Erdogan, came to Obama’s rescue. By removing Syria and Iran from the incubator and signing the peace agreement with Fatah in Egypt, Hamas proves to have a certain pragmatism. One thing is certain: By setting Turkey as a role model from now on, Hamas seems more open to the idea of the creation of the state of law. Moreover, the tragic end of bin Laden and the failure of his vision and his tactics facilitate this option.

Embarrassed by their alliance with the Syrian regime, a no-thank-you enemy whose ideological parents are the Muslim Brothers, and by the weakening of its other ally, Iran (which sparks fear among the Sunnis and is experiencing a domestic crisis), Hamas opts for reconciliation and the choice of a diplomatic voice.

Double the recognition

Obama’s message is innovative and very clear: The United States should not unconditionally rely on the Arab despot powers anymore, so henceforth, it is in favor of the dual Palestinian ambition to be liberated from occupation and to achieve freedom within a democratic regime.

In this sense, the American president promotes the solution of two autonomous states: a demilitarized democratic Palestinian state with a militarized Israeli state while assuring protection of Israel’s Jewish identity. At the same time, revealing his will to subject Israel to the American strategy, he pointed to the Israeli right wing that it is no longer the military superiority of Israel that could protect them, but rather a longstanding peace with the Palestinians.

The heart of Obama’s message is that the conflict lost its geopolitical importance, even though it has a considerable symbolic charge. By rejecting the readings of the Israeli and Palestinian right, Obama made democracy the central question in the Arab world.