The US has taken a big step forward in its outlook on the Arab-Israeli conflict and how to resolve it, ending decades of complete adherence to Israel's stance. It has begun to sense the need to look into the demands of Arabs, i.e. into the demands of the other party to the conflict. Perhaps for the first time in the history of the US dealing with the conflict in the region, Presidential Envoy George Mitchell expressed a truth the Arabs have been pointing out for decades: peace in the Middle East is in the US's interest, with the Arab peace initiative constituting one of its bases.
Thus President Barack Obama's administration would have come closer than ever before to a comprehensive notion of peace, one that goes beyond the security and protection of Israel to take into consideration the demands of Arabs to liberate their land and establish a Palestinian state.
Israel has grasped the meaning of this big change in the US's stance. It understood that the Obama administration is devoting itself to formulating such a strategy, that it is on the verge of taking action on its basis, and that it is no longer useful to conceal the nature of the conflict by fabricating fictional threats (terrorism, Iran, etc...) or through the campaigns of the Jewish lobby in the United States. Indeed, the American message was clear, through Mitchell's discussions with Israeli officials and through the advice given by US officials, most prominently White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, signifying that there is no going back on the two-state solution and on the land for peace principle, and that the relationship between the White House and the Israeli government is tied to the latter's stance of the new US outlook on the conflict. Leaks in the Israeli press indicate that Netanyahu's government has become aware of the limits of its ability to maneuver in this respect. Its choices have become restricted to trying to come out with a stance that would not harm the historical relationship with the United States, which now has an interest in peace.
Of course, one can hardly wager on an American-Israeli confrontation. And certainly Washington will seek to provide Israel with many economic, security and procedural guarantees. Yet what is also certain is that such guarantees will no longer necessarily be at the expense of the owners of occupied land and of the Arabs. This has become tied to how the Arabs deal with the change that is taking place in the US policy towards the region.
Considering the behavior of President Obama and his administration at the recent Latin American summit, it is no longer unlikely to expect surprising decisions from Washington, decisions that are based on a critique of past experiences, such as what took place with regards to its neighbors in the South, particularly Cuba. This means that Obama's promises in the region that is most sensitive for Washington have begun to find their way to implementation, as long as the opposing side is able to move in their direction. The same conclusion is true for Iran, with which the language of boycott and sanctions is no longer the only one employed to stop its military nuclear program. In fact, Washington offers it direct dialogue without preconditions, taking into consideration legitimate Iranian interests.
Nothing so far calls for making the Arab-Israeli conflict an exception in this overall US revision. One could wager that such a revision is a priceless opportunity to drive the peace process forward, if the Arabs are able to make use of the US coming closer to their demands, and to engage in the political process on this basis. This seems to be what Jordanian Monarch King Abdullah II will try to do in the first Arab-US summit meeting in Washington, which comes after Mitchell has heard similar discourse in the Arab capitals he visited, discourse stressing on Arab readiness for peace by the terms of the Arab Peace Initiative.
Yet such prudent optimism will not reach its expected results, except in the case of the Arabs strongly entering into the peace process, on the basis of the ability to meet the new US direction, which in turn meets international approval and support. The possibility of the entire peace process breaking down still stands if such a climate is not created. This could occur through the parties to which the peace process is harmful, in Israel or on the Arab side, resorting to fabricating instability and military escalation in order to do away with this new opportunity.
Front Page Features