In need of a foreign policy achievement

George S. Hishmeh

The first nine months of Barack Obama’s tenure at the White House were pregnant with thought-provoking ideas and commendable aspirations aimed at improving the tarnished U.S. image and bringing the world closer together in every way possible, especially in the Middle East where the unresolved Arab-Israeli conflict has been brewing for more than 60 years.
But as the delivery on the ideas of this inspiring American president seems far away, there is increasing fear in Europe and the Arab world that the much-needed promise may turn out to be stillborn.

“Transatlantic relations are again clouded by doubts,” reports The New York Times on the eve of the United States-European Union meeting in Washington this week.

“Europe and the United States remain at least partly out of sync on Afghanistan, the Middle East, Iran and climate change.”

Coincidentally, President Barack Obama will be addressing next week major Jewish organizations in Washington, where many hope he will put an end to the hesitation within his administration over the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The signs so far are not encouraging, and skepticism will not be put to rest unless the American leader will implement his promises, once and for all.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has turned the table upside down this week with her inelegant pronouncements in the Middle East, a development which makes one wonder whether she realizes that she is no longer the senator from New York, having to cater to her large Jewish constituency, but a senior official of the Obama administration, which has been committed to a “new beginning” with the Arab and Muslim worlds.

The spontaneous Arab anger was touched off by Clinton’s untimely and senseless statements, followed by immediate backtracking, upon meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when she glorified him for taking what she said was an “unprecedented” gesture in the hope of starting peace negotiations with the Palestinians. It turned out, however, that the exaggerated gesture would allow Israel to continue building 3,000 housing units on the occupied West Bank over the next nine months. It would also deny international monitoring of its “ethnic cleansing” from within the Holy City where more than a quarter million Palestinian Arabs reside.

How she failed to see Netanyahu’s unpalatable offer is mind-boggling.
Hardly 24 hours had passed when she qualified her remarks to appease the Arab world. She said that Netanyahu’s offer fell short of Obama administration’s position on the illegal settlements which, in effect, did not differ from all past administrations.

In turn, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was this time around the first Arab leader to reject the Israeli offer when he met Clinton in Abu Dhabi, last week, on her way to the tumultuous trip to Pakistan, Israel and Morocco for a meeting with Arab foreign ministers.

How the Obama administration can lean once again, and so heavily, on the hapless Palestinian leader who had just seemingly survived an earlier ill-considered American move is anybody’s guess. In the first go around, the lackluster Palestinian leader was pressured to shelve for several months consideration by the U.N. Human Rights Council of a blunt U.N.-commissioned report by Judge Richard Goldstone who examined the Israeli invasion of Gaza earlier this year. Israel and Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group in control of Gaza, were accused of war crimes committed during the 23-day Israeli assault. Palestinian and widespread Arab outcry compelled Abbas to reverse his decision in order to expose the Israeli brutality.

The report is now scheduled to be addressed by the U.N. General Assembly, which may refer it to the U.N. Security Council for action. In obvious reaction and encouraged by the Israeli lobby in the U.S., the U.S. House of Representatives called in a non-binding resolution on Obama to oppose any endorsement of the Goldstone commission’s report, a step that could cripple any U.N. action because of the U.S. veto.

Wherever this tug-of-war will lead, the mess, in part precipitated by Clinton, will henceforth be in Obama’s lap.

But the American president may feel he cannot do much since he needs all the support he can get to overcome his serious domestic problems - new and costly healthcare programs and rising unemployment.

On the other hand, Obama can take courageous steps when he addresses a convention of American Jewish groups and compel Israel to come clean to the negotiating table. After all, he needs major achievements in foreign policy as well, and Israeli compliance with American wishes is one way this can be achieved. Else, the two will lose in the long run since the deadlock could lead to another Palestinian Intifada or precipitate a one-state solution.



*Published in Jordan's THE JORDAN TIMES on Nov. 6, 2009.