U.S. President Barack Obama raised great hopes in 2009 when he addressed the Muslim World and the Arab young generation from Cairo. His words then on ending occupation and halting settlement expansion on occupied land gave many Palestinians and Arabs a sense that there was truly a “new beginning.” A few months later, the hopes were dashed.
I was among several journalists who interviewed the new President in 2009 immediately after his Cairo University speech in June. Having covered the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for a very long time, I believed only strong intervention from the U.S. could help the sides engage in a serious peace process, but I was sure the new U.S. President would have a very hard time translating his words into action and enforce a settlement freeze.
Obama’s speech today, his first since the Arab Spring blossomed, was a major address that outlined the American policy in the Middle East and North Africa, a policy based on backing political reforms and helping nations demanding freedoms and dignity.(http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/19/remarks-president-middle-east-and-north-africa)
He acknowledged that the U.S. had not been an actor in the Arab popular uprisings and articulated America’s policies and role in the new Middle East in a new context now that Osama Bin Laden was killed, and combat troops out of Iraq.
He warned Syrian President Bashar Assad of increased isolation if he continued to use force to quell his peoples’ uprising and bluntly said: “President Assad now has a choice. He can lead the transition, or get out of the way.”
He was also blunt in his call for allies Bahraini leaders to use dialogue and not force, though it was questionable why he stumbled or hesitated while speaking about Bahrain.
I may be skeptical, but I did not find his words on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict sufficient to revive the negotiations that were suspended following America’s failure to enforce a settlement freeze.
I found his words were meant at telling both sides they were expected to make serious concessions to revive the peace talks and end the conflict.
Obama’s public endorsement of a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders is new, but this is not a major U.S. policy change. Former U.S. President George Bush endorsed this, Hillary Clinton stated this before. Actually Israeli leaders, including former Israeli leader Ehud Olmert, were all negotiating a solution based on the 1967 borders with agreed swaps. The disagreement was on the percentage of the land that would be swapped.
The U.S. President’s idea of a solution based on resolving the border and security issues first were not new either because his envoy, George Mitchell, who resigned last week, had worked on this with the Palestinians and Israelis for months but failed to achieve progress because the issue of settlement expansion, especially in Jerusalem, obstructed progress. Condoleeca Rice had also made an effort to reach understandings on territory first.
I believe the more critical and new elements in Obama’s speech were:
- His rejection of Palestinian plans to seek the United Nation’s recognition of a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders.
- His remarks on a full and phased withdrawal of Israeli troops from the West Bank. The Palestinians have repeatedly rejected new interim deals and are seeking a final deal that will end occupation and create a state. The Israelis want to keep a military presence in the Jordan Valley on what it says are security grounds.
- Delaying the sensitive issues of Jerusalem, settlements, and refugees. This might be a non-starter for the Palestinians who have seen how the Oslo interim deals have failed to bring about an end to occupation.
- When Obama lays down the foundations of a peace process and then says: “Ultimately, it is up to Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them, nor can endless delay make the problem go away,” he is basically saying, I will not take serious action to translate my words into action.
Many Palestinians and Arabs are skeptical of Obama’s words on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because he went so high up on the tree in 2009 when he insisted on halting settlements expansion, but then not only did he climb down fast, but he applied pressure on the moderate Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to accept talks without any preconditions. Abbas lost credibility and came under pressure to halt negotiations.
Obama was right to back the Arab revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. He has done the right thing for America by stating his unequivocal support for nations seeking democracy and reforms, but when in the same breath he says: “We will stand against attempts to single it (Israel) out for criticism in international forums,” he raises eyebrows among those same young people who led the revolutions in the Arab world and he may be sending the wrong message.
Israelis tweeted their rejection of Obama’s endorsement of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders and saw this as a major U.S. policy shift.
No comments:
Post a Comment