By appointing an envoy to push for Middle East peace, by recognising the two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli problem, by receiving Arab and Israeli leaders at the White House and by coming to the region to meet with more Arab leaders, US President Barack Obama is already taking significant steps to activate peace efforts.
Some analysts have argued that Obama will give his utmost attention to the current economic crisis and that Middle East peace will occupy a back seat. Obama is proving these analysts wrong.
It is obvious that Middle East peace is a priority for the present American administration.
And it should be for, achieving peace in the Middle East would help solve or defuse many other regional and global problems.
Obama’s focus on the Middle East, however, does not mean that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be resolved immediately and smoothly. There are many challenges standing in the way: the intransigent Israeli position on many issues, and its government’s elusive and subversive policies; the intra-Palestinian fighting; the other thorny issues in the conflict: refugees, the future of the Israeli settlements, etc.
The road to peace is long, even with the active involvement of Obama. This should be clear to all.
However, there is a real window of opportunity at this point in time. The Arab world has done well by adopting the Arab Peace Initiative, and by being responsive to Obama’s gestures and optimistic about the prospects for peace.
What the Arab world needs to do in the days ahead, however, is to capitalise further on America’s current positive stance, in order to keep the momentum of peacemaking going. The parties involved should not give up or lose patience when challenges and setbacks begin to emerge.
Furthermore, a delicate balance needs to be struck between insistence on basic demands (those over which there can never be any compromise beyond the compromises already made), and flexibility and faith in the peace process, and in peace partners and patrons.
Of course, there will always be cynics, nihilists, rejectionists and extremists.
However, the majority of Arab decision makers should unite to crystallise not just a unified Arab position (which, some would argue, has already been crystallised) but also a unified strategy to keep the American administration involved and to push for what they want to happen.
Also a degree of faith in the present American administration’s sincerity about peace is required.
There are those who argue that all American administrations work within the same framework of policies and strategies, and that they are all more or less the same. I beg to differ.
Each administration is made up of individuals who have their own sense and vision of how to go about making things happen, or not happen. And each and every administration has its own priorities and style of implementation.
This is certainly true of Obama, who has an impressive way of making what he thinks very clear and transparent, and who has an air of sincerity and dignity, which makes him a qualified and reliable peace broker - this in addition to his diligence, of course.
Both Arabs and Israelis will certainly lose if they let this historic opportunity slip by.
How many US presidents are there who give a lot of attention to the Middle East conflict from the earliest days of their administration and who are able to push for things to happen?
How many US presidents are there who hold a balanced view of the Middle East conflict?
Now that Obama has made his position clear, and that he has a mechanism for Middle East peace, both Israelis and Arabs (especially Israelis who seem to give priority to illegal settlements over legal peace) need to live up to the challenge that Obama poses.
Front Page Features