As the attention of the world is focused on the Arab region and its overdue democratic transition, the Middle East peace process seems to have completely disappeared from the international agenda and particularly that of the US.
When Barack Obama was elected President of the US two and a half years ago, he seemed intensely interested in solving the Arab-Israeli conflict and establishing a Palestinian state. As he approaches his final year in office, nothing of these proclaimed promises has materialised.
For most Arabs and Muslims, progress towards achieving a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East was the yardstick to measure Obama's success in approaching the change he claimed to be seeking. The record has so far been disappointing. Obama's approach in handling the Middle East peace process was instrumental in creating a pessimistic mood.
His reluctance to put pressure on Israel to solve the colonies' issue raised doubts about whether the US president would invest sufficient political capital to consummate a balanced and equitable final settlement that meets the national aspirations of the Palestinians: chiefly statehood and refugees.
Upon assuming power, Obama warned Israel that it must accept the two-state solution. He also denounced the building of colonies in the Occupied Territories and described it as illegal and illegitimate. He declared the tacit understanding between the George W. Bush administration and the government of former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon concerning the expansion of colonies as null and void. Moreover, Obama started to centralise power in the White House, marginalising the pro-Israel circles in Washington, while offering ever-clearer signs that Israel's status as a close American ally is imperilled. The National Security Council, which is located in the White House, was given the power to set strategy across a wide spectrum of international issues. His former National Security Advisor General Jim Jones was put in charge of all national security matters, including the Arab-Israeli conflict.
General Jones was not a fan of Israel's policies. He had chilly relations with Israel in the past when he served as presidential envoy to examine Israel's colonies' policy. He wrote a report described by Israeli officials as "very harsh, and would make Israel look very bad". Under the Bush administration, the report was deep-sixed. In the early days of the Obama administration, Israel suspected that the report was pulled from a filing cabinet and was about to be used as guidance for Obama's Middle East peace efforts.
Israeli writers complained that Jones was not a favourable choice because of his "blatantly cool attitude" to Israel. As a result, pro-Israel circles in Washington started a smear campaign against him. He was accused of fostering personal trade relationships with Gulf states.
Putting Jones and other ‘unfriendly' people in key positions within the administration, while excluding many of Israel's supporters have caused a great deal of concern in Israel. This picture did not last long, however, taking away much of the Obama administration credibility concerning the shift in policy he promised on the peace process.
Appeasement
Jones was fired and was replaced with his pro-Israel deputy, Tom Denilon. The influence of other friends of Israel in the White House was also enhanced. Furthermore, at the head of a heated presidential election, Obama is increasingly seeking the appeasement of the pro-Israel lobby in Washington.
Obama's personal commitment to set up a viable Palestinian state within the 1967 borders by the end of this year is hence wavering. As time passes by, Arabs are growing wary over the US president's ability and willingness to impose a clear framework for a permanent solution in line with the terms of UN resolutions 194, 242 and 338, as well as the Arab Peace Plan, proposed by King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia at the 2002 Beirut Arab summit. The first resolution calls for the right of return and compensation to all refugees, and the latter deals with the return of Arab lands occupied by Israel in 1967 in exchange for peace and normalisation with the Arabs.
Fear is also growing that under Israeli pressure, Obama might accept the controversial letter of guarantees which his predecessor sent to Sharon in 2004 embracing the notion that "facts on the ground created unilaterally by Israel" are recognised by Washington.
If Obama does that he would be effectively endorsing the legality of colonies on lands occupied in 1967 and claimed as part of a Palestinian state. It would also mean that Obama has completely adopted Israel's position on the final status issues and has thereby put the last nail in the coffin of the peace process.
Front Page Features