The Change That Isn’t

The world and its governments have been optimistic about Obama’s coming to power in the U.S. Obama carried the slogan of change and authored expressions of friendship and coexistence with the international community that made the countries of the world hasten their hands toward him, hoping for a special relationship that would take the form of partnership, cooperation or even recognition.

French President Nicholas Sarkozy is eager to begin working with Obama in order to try to change the world with him — as he put it. German Chancellor Angela Merkel is greatly optimistic, calling the day of Obama’s inauguration a very special day. And Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi expressed great hopes and expectations for President Obama.

In our region, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki expressed his optimism about Obama’s arrival in a letter, which prepared for cooperation and coexistence rather than a state of tension and discord. Ahmadinejad, Assad, and Mubarak quickly followed suit with letters of congratulations to Obama. Even some religious organizations and clerics welcomed Barack Obama, sending him congratulatory messages.

Obama’s arrival to the presidency was surrounded by an atmosphere of optimism and openness, indicating he would bring a renewed era and would liberate America from its history of victimization, evil, and aggressiveness. Obama has mastered his role. He has included Republicans in his government, despite being a Democrat, as he seeks to collect intellectuals and veteran politicians in his government without regard to their partisan background or their perspectives that may diverge from his own, such as those of Hilary Clinton. The American people follow Obama as they did their beloved John F. Kennedy.

But if Obama truly wanted substantive change that would maintain the American strategic policy while reflecting a climate of change, partnership and openness, then why didn’t he bring new faces of fresh personalities to his government?! Why did he go backward, filling his government with the old personalities of past administrations that he vowed to get rid of?

By scrutinizing Obama’s foreign advisors and foreign political directors, we see that the U.S. policy of the past sixty years will not change. Obama’s ministers are not newcomers to politics. Instead, they are experienced U.S. politicians who demonstrated their competencies in the previous Democratic administration. Obama’s administration includes Tony Lake, who was working as the national security advisor in the Clinton administration; Susan Rice, the assistant secretary of state under Clinton; Jark Craig, the former director of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Planning; Eric Holder, the former deputy attorney general; Richard Danzg, the former navy secretary; and C. Stenberg the deputy national security advisor.

Obama’s team includes a number of former members of Congress, such as David Bourne, the former chairman of the Select Committee of the Senate Intelligence; and Lee Hamilton, the former chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the House of Representatives and the deputy chairman of the Committee on 9/11. The group of candidates for the next administration are experienced in foreign policy.

Obama kept Robert Gates on as secretary of defense and appointed the former negotiator and architect of peace in Northern Ireland, George Mitchell, to the position of special envoy for Middle East peace. Mitchell had taken over the position of special envoy for the Middle East within the administration of former U.S. president, George Bush.

Obama appointed the architect of peace in the Balkans, Richard Holbrooke, as a special adviser on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Holbrooke was in charge of Asian affairs under President Jimmy Carter, and European affairs under President Bill Clinton.

Sources report that the former envoy to the Middle East, Dennis Ross, who held the same position in previous administrations will be the special envoy to deal with a number of issues relating to Iran, including: “the nuclear program and Tehran’s support of terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.”

From the above, it appears that Obama and his administration will not abandon the policy of colonial America or stop serving the interests of U.S. companies. Rather, it is expected that the Obama administration will increase its colonization of the world’s nations, with a superficial amendment to the previous policies, giving the world space to breathe from the Bush policy of unilateralism.

Obama’s own words support this, saying that he would seek to change the image of America in the word. Indeed, he will change the image of America, not its reality. Moreover, he is careful to collect former experts and old cadres of political action. He will not compromise the strategic interests of America in the world, and never has. He has not suggested that he will abandon oil and leave Iraq and Afghanistan. But all that is on his mind is how to succeed in stabilizing the U.S. in the Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan, as Bush failed to do.

And now let’s return to Palestine to see what Obama and his team prepared for the issue of Palestine!

The Jewish Lobby in the United States gave American Jews the green light to elect Barack Obama. When he was accused during his election campaign of being “the son of Hussein” or any Muslim son, he replied that his name (Barack) is from the Hebrew “Baruch.” When he visited Israel, he placed the Jewish skullcap on his head and visited the memorial for the victims of the Nazis. He refused to visit the West Bank and Gaza Strip and then vowed to ensure the security of Israel, which he considers to be part of the security of America. He pledged to keep Israel stronger than all of its Muslim neighbors and that Jerusalem would be the eternal capital of Israel!

In a 4 June 2007 interview about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Obama condemned the position the U.S. administration had taken, saying: “a resolution to the conflict and a better life for all people is something that can be achieved, but it’s going to require some soul-searching on the Palestinian side. They have to recognize Israel’s right to exist; they have to renounce violence and terrorism as a tool to achieve their political ends; they have to abide by agreements. In that context, I think the Israelis will gladly say, ‘Let’s move forward negotiations that would allow them to live side by side with the Palestinians in peace and security’.”

In a September 2008 speech, Biden pledged to put Israeli security at the forefront of any talks, saying: “I am chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I give you my word as a Biden, I would not have given up that job to be Barack Obama’s vice president if I didn’t in my gut and in my heart and in my head know that Barack Obama is exactly where I am on Israel. And he is…I promise you … we will make Israel more secure.”!!

As for Hilary Clinton, secretary of state, she lavished many promises onto the Jews and Israel in the form of competition with Obama in order to win their votes.

Thus it is obvious that Obama and his team will not bring anything new to the issue of Palestine. He is like his predecessor, especially in his relationship with Israel, both in his heart and his mind. He tries to convince the people that change benefiting Palestine can be obtained, but this is only a piece of ash in the eye, marketing agreements and compromises before they have been obtained.

Muslims should not be fooled by these false slogans and the rhetoric of leaders of the West, which is led by America. The movements, especially the Islamic movements, should not believe Obama’s invitation for cooperation or coexistence, which he seeks to use it as a method of containing them. We will not reap the thorns of the grapes of the Jewish State that Britain created and the U.S. and Europe supported. The West considers this Jewish State their base in the Middle East. It will not allow anything to weaken it or to allow its enemies to escape. It’s essential that the world understands that decisions in America are not made by individuals but by political institutions and schools. These decisions are made in terms of American interests.