“There is no shortcut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades” ventured President Obama at the United Nations General Assembly, few days before Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas presents his bid for UN membership. In the same speech, Obama praised the revolts in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya hailing the way Arabs in these countries seized their freedom. These contradictions in Obama’s policy towards the Middle East jeopardize US leading role in the peace process, expose the imbalanced approach in the American politics towards this issue and endanger US interests in the region.
For two decades before the Arab uprisings, consecutive US administrations have maintained that a Palestinian state was “inescapable”; a position that Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, reiterated in March 2009 after only a few months in office. However for Barack Obama, the rhetorical president whose worldview espouses the notion that there will be no calm in the Mideast without a Palestinian state, the issue of Palestinian statehood seems to have remained the subject of an academic debate with little regard to the suffering of a people deprived of legitimacy for more than 50 years.
Mr. Obama’s UN speech offered no vision, no alternative and no timeline to advance the peace process; just a critique of the Palestinian bid. With an eye on his re-election next year, Obama seemed to care less about the politics of making peace but made sure that his speech would not upset Israel and its friends in the US. That may fare very well with the Israeli government - Netanyahou said that Obama deserved a badge of honor - but isn't necessarily good for Middle East peace. In light of the changes surrounding Israel, from Egypt to Turkey, such a position is likely to harm US interests more than help Israeli security.
On the other hand, French President Nicolas Sarkozy took the lead as the Middle East peace broker making it clear that no one country alone, be it the largest one, or a small group of countries can solve a problem of such complexity. In sharp contrast with the position of the United States, Sarkozy urged a compromise that would initially give the Palestinians enhanced status as a non-member state - like the Vatican - and a timeline that would allow them within one year to finalize a “definitive agreement” with the Israelis. He also warned that a veto at the Security Council as proposed by the USA risks engendering a cycle of violence in the Middle East.
The United States has taken a backseat to its European allies throughout the Arab Spring and summer. It is time for Mr. Obama to step out of his safety zone and put America’s welfare ahead of his immediate personal gains. Taking back the reins of the Middle East peace politics will reassert US leadership in this process and protect its interests in the region; this will not happen if Obama votes against what he always advocated and vetoes the Palestinians’ request for statehood. With so much at stake, the conflict must not be allowed to endure another decade - just to avoid a shortcut!
Comments