Obama, Change and Israel

Barack Obama may have won the presidency because he possessed the ability to explain to each American voter how his mantra of “Change” applied to their likes and wants. American political analysts and columnists, who supposedly express the political, economic and societal trends and currents, etc., which are spread out among the country, are moving in different directions regarding to the promises Obama made in his campaign.

What is clear is that Obama has caused a deep division among American progressives, which was something that George W. Bush could not do. The split is between two kinds of progressives: those who can see the change that Obama has promised is coming and who view the steps that he is taking in governance as carrying him towards his promise, and then there are those who see the first steps that Obama has made since taking office as leading away from the change that they had expected from him.

Without even looking, we can see that this split between progressives is along the “skin-color dividing line”; we’ll call it that in order to avoid using the term “racial dividing line.” Most bla ck progressives rally with Obama with enthusiasm for everything. A large percentage of white progressives express disappointed in him, what he does and what he has decided to do up until this point. Black support for Obama is not limited to the issues that concern them, much like the white progressives who express their disappointment.

It is very clear that the Arab observers of American affairs, whether within the United States or in the Arab homeland, are still waiting to take a position in regards to Obama. However, Arab progressives (or Leftists) tend to disapprove of the intellectual and political trends of progressives in general.

There is no doubt that the Arab ruler announced in the beginning and continue to say that they will cooperate with Obama and his administration in all cases. In principle, they are submissive because they have no other choice. This does not mean that Arab leaders lack information or that indicators are leaning them towards Obama’s view, especially in regards to Middle East issues. They are also aware that American political analysts wh o are covering Middle East issues have a limited stance regarding what Obama decides to do or announce.

The American analysts have always been and will always be the source of knowledge for Arab leaders in regards to the structure, thinking and plans of American leadership. The reports from Washington that come from their embassies and diplomats are limited in regards to gaining an understanding of the American administration. So, the only additional information that Arab leaders have comes through those reports in the American press.

Except for the split which Obama has created between progressive analysts, there are other analysts who stick with their beliefs. For instance, those who are with Obama for various reasons say that they remain with him because of his statements and decisions. And those who are against him still lament the George W. Bush years and some of them still lament the years led by Ronald Reagan, who Cardinal of right-wing American politics. All of them, whether they are with Obama or against him, use their deepest thoughts to explain the change that is coming with Obama or to accept the change against their will. As if they could say there is no Obama at all. Others say there are multiple Obamas with various faces. Isn’t that true? Couldn’t we just extract a single Obama from the various descriptions and statements?

There is only one way to extract a single Obama; this extraction is not a photo copy, so there should be an awareness of a sort to track his practical steps regarding the fundamental challenges that he faces. These surely refer to the Middle East. As a matter of fact, Obama has conducted early, practical steps regarding the region.

First, he assigned George Mitchell, a frequent visitor to the Middle East, as a special envoy to the region. Secondy, he has made sure that he or his spokesmen who are loyal to the Congress endeavor to achieve the goal of establishing a two-state solution to solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict; Israel and Palestine both commit to peace regarding Israel and respect for its security, borders and agreements. It even accepts the refusal to permit refugees to return and to remain as an unarmed country, with only enough weapons to al-Safeer

Obama, the Change, and Israel

By Sameer Karam

Barack Obama may have won the presidency because he possessed the ability to explain to each American voter what he means by his mantra of “Change,” according to their likes and wants. The American political analysts and columnists, who supposedly express the political, economic, and societal trends and currents, etc, which are spread among Americans, are moving in different directions regarding to the promises made by Obama in his electoral campaign.

What is clear is that Obama has made a deep division between American progressives, which was something that George W. Bush could not do… The split is between two kinds of progressives, those who can see that the change that Obama promised is coming and who view his steps in governance, that he is taking, are carrying him towards his promise, and there are those who see the first steps, that Obama has taken since his taking office, as leading away from the change that they had expected from him.

Without even looking, we can see that this split between progressives is along the skin-color dividing line; we’ll call it that in order to not use the term racial dividing line. Most black progressives rally with Obama with enthusiasm in everything that they right. And a large percentage of white progressives express disappointment in him and what he does and what he has decided to do up to this point. Black support for Obama is not limited to the issues which concern them. Additionally, white progressives who express their disappointment are also not limited to the issues that are important to them.

It is very clear that the Arab observers of American affairs, whether within the United States or in the Arab homeland, are still waiting to take a position in regards to Obama. However, Arab progressives (or in other words –Leftists) tend to disapprove of the intellectual and political trends of progressives in general.

There is no doubt that the Arab rulers announced in the beginning, and continue to announce, that they will cooperate with Obama and his administration, in all cases. They are submissive, in principle, because they have no other choice. This does not mean that Arab leaders lack information, or that indicators are leading them towards Obama’s view, especially in regards to Middle Eastern issues. They are also aware that American political analysts, who are assigned to Middle Eastern issues, have a limited stance regarding what Obama decides to do or announce.

The American analysts have always been and will always be the source of knowledge for the Arab leaders in regards to the structure, thinking, and plans of American leadership… the reports which come through Washington from their embassies and diplomats are limited in regards to gaining understanding of the American administrations; so the only additional information that Arab leaders have comes through the reports of political analysts in the American press.

Except for the split which Obama has created between progressive analysts, there are other analysts who stick with their beliefs. For instance, those who are with Obama for various reasons say that they remain with him because of his statements and his decisions. And those who are against still lament the George W. Bush years and some of them even lament the Ronald Reagan years… who was the right-wing Cardinal or American politics. All of them, whether they are with Obama or against him, use their deepest thoughts to explain the change that is coming with Obama or to accept the change although it is against their will. As if they could say, there is no Obama at all. Others say, there are multiple Obamas, with various faces. Isn’t this true? Couldn’t we just extract a single Obama from the various descriptions and statements?

There is only one way to extract a single Obama. This extraction is not a photo-copy; so there should be awareness for the sort to track his practical step regarding the fundamental challenges that he faces. And, these challenges surely refer to the Middle East. As a matter of fact, Obama has conducted early, practical steps regarding the Middle East.

First he assigned George Mitchell as a special envoy to the Middle East, who has been to the Middle East frequently. Secondly, he has made sure that he, or his spokesmen who are loyal to Congress, endeavor to achieve the goal of establishing a two-state solution to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; Israel and Palestine, by its side commits to peace with Israel and respect for its security, borders and agreements. It even accepts the refusal to permit refugees to return and to remain as an unarmed country, with only enough weapons to ensure interior security. Third, he emphasized his detailed rejection of Hamas, meaning no negotiations, no recognition, no demands made to Israel, no obvious participation with the Palestinian Authority unless by previous conditions already approved by the Authority. Fourth, Obama has sent direct and indirect notifications to countries in the Arab homeland regarding democracy, terrorist organizations and their strongholds, and the nuclear aspirations of some of these countries like Syria. These notifications are also related to Washington reports on the regional roles as a whole regarding peace and U.S.- related issues.

These indicators need to be read clearly and soundly. This shows that, without digging deeper, Obama must not hesitate in emphasizing U.S. foreign policy goals regarding the Middle East. Why hesitate in all of the plans that have been made and announced over and over by the Bush administration? These are even the same goals that were followed without exception by all of the former administrations, starting with the administration of Harry Truman.

These notifications clarify Obama’s stance on the Arab-Israeli conflict (or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, however you wish to define it). The notifications also clarify his stance on Iran. He has continued to reaffirm the goals of the Bush administration, but has tabled the use of force, something which Bush had overused and which was not effective except for economic sanctions.

“Change,” as Obama depicts it, does not necessarily mean dealing directly with American interests, but rather dealing with the means to achieve those interests. The means appear to be more subtle. Obama is careful to ensure the stability of American interests through selecting personnel who are known for their strong opinions all the way from the Bush Administration period. We could also say that he avoided placing certain people in executive positions which could be interpreted as abandoning American interests. This applies to the selections of Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emanuel, Dennis Ross and George Mitchell.

Obama is no different in the way that he deals with these issues – or rather, his challenges – in the field of domestic policy. The word in the financial world is that the Obama administration is intending to nationalize banks which have failed during the financial crisis, which forced him to make a statement declaring that he has no intentions to take such a socialist step which has annoyed the experts who are one hundred percent capitalists who have said that nationalization is inescapable.

Might we say that Obama acts as if he were a gentleman cowboy who is armed to the teeth, while Bush was thoughtlessly and recklessly shooting bullets in every direction?

You could almost depict Obama’s stance on the Israeli war against Gaza as rude. During the days of the war and throughout the Israeli atrocities and crimes, the President-elect remained silent because, as he noted, “America has only one president.” So, would his stance change once he was installed as America’s only president?

Obama did not change his stance, but an Israel ceasefire decision in Gaza came about a few hours before Obama’s inauguration. Could this be because of the “change” that Obama intends to bring? The direct answer indicates that Israel continues its suffocating siege on Gaza and continues to carry out attacks from time to time. When Senator Kerry went to Gaza and saw the total devastation in the Gaza Strip, he did consider it brazen to say that Israel has a right to protect itself. It would have been impossible for Kerry to say this if he were not precisely expressing the policy of the Obama Administration.

No change at all. Serious strategic reports clearly confirm the inevitable presence of the United States in the region to prevent the rise of a dominating force that can create potential global challenges. In the case of the Middle East, this means the bilateral and multi-lateral policies of the seven key regional players: Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Syria, Egypt and Turkey (Please note, that this order is neither alphabetic in Arabic nor English.

This is what the fifth chapter of the Stratford Institute (the section regarding the Middle East) stated about the foreign policy of the Obama administration. This confirms the first report on American national security strategy, which was published by the White House in the second year of the Bush presidency, in the wake of the September 11th attacks. In regards to Israel, the report stated that the basis for Israeli-US relations remains strong, and that as strategic allies they have agreed on the need to preserve the political, Arab-Muslim fragmentation of the Middle East. However, there are concerns in Israel about Obama’s plan to go beyond the diplomatic efforts of the Bush administration with Iran. The goal of the new administration is to improve ties with the Muslim world.

Concern has risen in Israel concerning Obama’s plans, as indicated in brochures passed out by the Zionist (Israeli) Lobby within the United States, which criticize the decisions of least impact that the Obama administration has made which affect Israel, such as the agreement to sell spare parts for two old Boeing aircraft owned by Syria. Brochure number 858, dated February 13th, 2009, of the Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs states that the first problem is that the administration’s policy appears ambiguous regarding what should be done and what benefit can be achieved from countries with rising levels of importance in exchange for American gifts offered to those countries with troublesome governments. The second problems is that by doing so America is jeopardizing its smaller allies, making them more vulnerable, throwing them under a bus so to speak.

The momentum of the Israeli lobby is not sufficient to scare the American Administration away from approaching countries that are antagonistic towards Israel. The Israeli Lobby has warned the both new and old U.S. administrations both with reasons and without reasons. It is a firm policy that each and every Israeli government dictates continued pressure from the Israeli Lobbies, which in turn would dictate the message to the American governing elite. Passed experience indicates that Obama’s administration will be no exception.