Musa Keilani

Despite any level of objectivity it may have and of understanding American politics, it is difficult to find fault with the Palestinian Hamas’ assertion that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has confirmed US “hostility” to Arabs and Muslims in a speech to the pro-Israeli lobby in Washington. That “confirmation”, if you will, underlines the reality that prospects for Middle East peace remain as grim as ever even if Obama makes history by becoming the next president of the US.

Indeed, Obama was only reaffirming the steady and consistent political line adopted by almost every US presidential candidate, whether Democrat or Republican, when he told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on Wednesday that he supported Israel and that occupied Jerusalem should “remain” the “undivided” capital of the Jewish state. It was only expected of him to say so, particularly at a forum like AIPAC, without whose support no presidential candidate stands any chance of making his way to the White House, as past elections have shown.

However, it was disappointing to see and hear Obama, the first black American to secure nomination as presidential candidate representing one of the two major parties in the US, follow the same line, given the assumption of many that he has his own mind when it comes to dealing with foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East.

Hamas responded immediately, saying it considered Obama’s statements “to be further evidence of the hostility of the American administration to Arabs and Muslims”.

Hamas leader Sami Abu Zuhri said Obama’s statements on Jerusalem “confirm the consensus of the two American political parties on unlimited aid to the (Israeli) occupation at the expense of Palestinians and Arabs”. The speech, he said, “destroys any hope for change in American policies towards the Arab-Israeli conflict”.

Such thoughts are of course shared by a majority in the Middle East. The Arab world is resigned to the reality that nothing the Arabs do - short of blindly accepting Israel’s terms and give up most of their legitimate rights - would ever lead to any shift in the present US approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Of course, Hamas could not claim it has offered anything new and has met the minimum requirements of any hope in a change in the US policy. That was underlined when Obama reiterated that he would not deal with Hamas until it recognises Israel and renounces “violence” - read armed resistance against the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian lands. He added that engaging Hamas would only take place at a time and location chosen by the United States, and would only go forward if it served US foreign policy goals.

Well, the rest of the world is wondering about what US foreign policy goals are and whether those goals have any relevance to the foundations for international conduct and the rights of people and countries.

It was also a stock phrase that Obama used when he said he would push for a negotiated settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict if he were elected to the White House in November and declared that “Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable”.

The catch here is rather simple: Israel’s security is not determined by whatever parameters the international community considers as the basis for any country’s security. Israel has set its own “security” parameters and considerations and refuses to budge, a position that is wholeheartedly endorsed and supported without question by the US.

Reason, logic, fairness, objectivity and international legitimacy are not applied to question Israel’s insistence that occupation of Arab territories is vital to its “security”. Indeed, Hamas is only strengthening Israel’s argument by repeatedly declaring that it is not ready to enter a permanent peace agreement with the Jewish state and that the best it would accept is a long-term truce.

To be fair to Obama, he displayed a clear understanding of the situation on the ground in the Middle East in one part of his AIPAC speech.

He said: “Hamas now controls Gaza. Hizbollah has tightened its grip on southern Lebanon, and is flexing its muscles in Beirut. Because of the war in Iraq, Iran - which always posed a greater threat to Israel than Iraq - is emboldened, and poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States and Israel in the Middle East in a generation. Iraq is unstable, and Al Qaeda has stepped up its recruitment....”

Obama blamed the Bush administration’s policy and approach for the setbacks Washington suffered in the Middle East. However, he used it as a weapon to attack his Republican rival John McCain, who is known to be an ardent supporter of the Bush administration’s policy and approach in the Middle East.

We in Jordan and elsewhere in the Arab world would have been elated had Obama referred to the fundamental flaws in the decades-old US approach to the Middle East and pledged to address them in a just and fair manner so that his country could regain the trust, respect and admiration it once enjoyed as the “leader of the free world”. Nowhere in his statements have we found any such hint, and that only adds to the pessimism over prospects for fair and just peace in the Middle East under a possible Obama administration.


* Published in the JORDAN TIMES on June 8, 2008.