Obama, Israel and Palestine: The “change” that never came

For Muslims and Arabs, the speech, perhaps the first of its kind, showed a humble America ready to make right the many wrongs of the past few decades. Obama’s words on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and especially the Israeli-Palestinian conflict injected new hope into the hearts of people all over the world, irrelevant of cultural and religious affiliation. Many believed this would be the man to change the face of US foreign policy, particularly in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

In order to solve the conflict which had haunted many former American presidents, Obama appointed George Mitchell as special envoy to the Middle East, followed by the selection of Dennis Ross as a special adviser to the president, some months later. These appointments were seen as an attempt to bring experience to the table, intended to further prove the president’s commitment to Israeli-Palestinian peace. However, this strategy failed miserably and after two fruitless years, Mitchell resigned earlier this year and the resignation of Ross last month.

Despite the state of domestic affairs and in stark contrast to his predecessor, Obama’s first step was an attempt to considerably improve America’s image amongst the Muslim world. Hoping that this would enhance America’s credibility in the region and ultimately lead to a more favourable outcome in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Siniver, 2011). The Cairo Speech and the unprecedented Nowruz message to the Iranian people was proof of this ‘new’ America. Despite being in office for less than five months, during his Cairo speech Obama promised to “personally pursue” a resolution to the conflict:

“..the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two
states where Israeli’s and Palestinians each live in Peace and security. That is in Israel’s interest, Palestine’s interest, America’s interest and the world’s interest.

“That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires.”

The process would be based on the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, normalising all ties with Israel in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from all those territories which were occupied during the six day war in 1967.

Despite the elaborate rhetoric things did not go as planned for the Obama administration. After a fruitless 10-month partial settlement freeze the president pleaded with Netanyahu to extend the freeze for a further two months. In return offering a range of incentives from guaranteeing no further requests for extension, promising the status of settlements would be part of final-status negotiations and promising to veto any United Nations resolution regarding Israel over the next year. Despite these guarantees the Obama administration was unable to persuade the Israeli government to halt the construction of settlements in the occupied territories and the process was once again in crisis.

It is now apparent that the elusive peace continues to remain as elusive as ever, like his predecessors Obama also failed to deliver. However unlike some of his predecessors, Obama cannot be criticised for not trying. It would appear the obstacles facing his administration, and even previous administrations, dictate the outcome of all peace efforts in the region.
Despite Obama’s desire to bring experience to the table, his choice of Middle East envoy and presidential advisor showed a lack of imagination and contradicted his talk of change. Mitchell spent far too much time discussing prerequisites to negotiation while ignoring the main issues of the conflict - refugees, settlements, Jerusalem and borders. Ultimately frustrated by the lack of success Mitchell resigned in May this year, his last trip to the region was 6 months earlier.

The appointment of Ross also showed a return to tried and failed methods. Ross’ pro-Israeli bias caused a more sympathetic attitude towards the Israeli government and caused some friction with Mitchell and the Palestinians. If Obama was attempting to gain the trust of the Palestinians, the appointment of Ross did little, if anything, to advance that objective.

After the Israeli elections in 2009, Netanyahu, leader of the right-wing Likud, formed a coalition with the support of smaller ultra nationalist and ultra-orthodox parties. The majority Likud party have until now shied from the acceptance of a independent, sovereign Palestine, and curbing the Iranian ‘nuclear programme’ has appeared to have been more important than making concessions for peace with the Palestinians. Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beitenu’s hold racist policies towards Arabs and are in favour of swapping Israeli land with a majority palestinian population for Jewish settlements in the West Bank. While Shas and Jewish Home, are not prepared to negotiate over Jerusalem, and the latter is opposed to giving up land for peace and believes Jordan should be the homeland for the Palestinians.

Under these circumstances it was increasingly difficult for the Obama administration to push the Israeli government for any compromises.

American domestic policies could perhaps be the most influential factor and explanation of why peace talks have failed to this day. The existence of pro-Israel interest groups within the US political system has a significant impact on US foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. One of the most influential of these interest groups is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), who according to the former Congressman Mervyn Dymally AIPAC is “without question the most effective lobby in Congress”.

The expensive elections and poorly regulated campaign contributions to candidates are part of the reason such interest groups gain influence. While such groups constantly direct American foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction, current and future administrations will lack the power to exert serious pressure on the Israeli government, rendering all peace negotiations a failure.

Despite his heart-warming words to the Muslim world, in reality there was no change but simply a continuation of previous foreign policies with a new man in charge. However in my opinion this is more the result of the American political system, that is why this pattern has appeared through various administrations. What makes Obama culpable is promising what he could not possibly deliver.

As Rashid Khalidi, the Palestinian-American historian, points out , in respect to certain key issues, Obama has been as bad as the Bush administration and even worse on occasion. He also encourages the Palestinians and Israelis to negotiate directly, stating that American involvement only makes matters worse.
“America is more Israeli than the Israelis – why do you need them? Of course Israel wants them because it doubles Israel’s power and strength – but from a Palestinian perspective? Anybody or nobody is better.”
© Islam Times