August 04, 2008
By Ramzy Baroud
The exit of Bush from the White
House is already anticipated in the Arab region with sighs of relief. But what
is ahead under the next US president; more of the same, regardless of who wins,
or change?
True, Obama has promised some degree of withdrawal from Iraq and a level of
communication with Iran. But even these promises are ambiguous and can be easily
modified to fit political interests and lobby pressures at any time. Any
military redeployment in Iraq would, now we are told, be matched with greater
military build up in Afghanistan, a sign that the militant mentality that
motivated the war hawks in the Bush administration is yet to change; the
valuable lesson that bombs don't bring peace, yet to be heeded.
Even talking to Iran is an indistinct promise. To begin with, various officials
in the Bush administration have already been talking to Iran -- in less touted
meetings, but they have engaged Tehran nonetheless -- in matters most pertinent
to US, not Israeli, interests (i.e. the Iraq war). Moreover, in what was widely
seen as "a shift of policy", senior US diplomat William Burns joined envoys from
China, Russia, France, Britain, Germany and the EU in their talks with Tehran in
Geneva 19 July. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad praised US participation
and the "respect" the US envoy had shown during the meeting.
Obama's statements to assure Israel on his proposed talk with Iran are most
alarming. He has tirelessly repeated that the "military option" remains on the
table to ensure Israel's security. Isn't this the exact same policy trademark
infused during the Bush administration, which eventually led to the war on Iraq?
The US will exhaust every diplomatic channel, but the "military option" remains
on the table. This was the gist of the message repeated by the warmongers of the
White House through Bush's two terms. Does one need any proof of why such an
attitude is not reflective of well-intentioned diplomacy?
What is equally dangerous in Obama's uttering is that he might be, and is
already, feeling pressured to balance his seemingly soft attitude towards Iraq
and Iran by exaggerating his country's pro-Israel stance in a way that will
derail any possibility for a peaceful solution to the Palestinian- Israeli
conflict, at least during his term. In fact, ominous signs of that pressure, and
his succumbing to it are ample, the last of which was his statement, prior to
his visit, that Jerusalem must remain undivided, a position that negates
international law and the consistent tradition of various US administrations,
including Bush's.
One need not repeat what Obama has said during his visit to Israel, for such
rhetoric is becoming most predictable. His "commitment" to Israel and to the
ever "special relationship" that unites both nations were generously invoked.
Obama promised to do his utmost to keep Israel secure and to stop Iran from
obtaining the atomic bomb. As for the Palestinians, he seems keenly interested
in engaging their non-democratic forces and shuns those who dare to challenge
his country's biased official line that has contributed in myriad ways to the
ongoing conflict.
Obama insists on disregarding the US official blind spot that has continued to
destabilise the Middle East for generations. If he is indeed interested in
straightening the distorted course of his country's foreign policy in this
region, then he is certainly viewing it from an Israeli looking glass, the same
as that used by the Bush neoconservative clique that led America into an
unrivalled downfall in Mesopotamia.
But Obama is not alone. If he wins the presidential race he will join a growing
club of Western leaders who refuse to heed to common sense and who behave
erratically, even against the wishes of their own people.
Starting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel's visit to Israel last March, to
French President Nicolas Sarkozy's in June, to British Prime Minister Gordon
Brown's in July, no one has failed to deviate from the predictable mantra:
Israel first and foremost. True, some like Sarkozy dared voice some criticism of
Israel's settlement policy in Jerusalem -- one that Obama cannot dare repeat,
even in private -- but the underpinnings are the same: Israel, a country of a
few million, remains the primary concern of the West in a region of hundreds of
millions. Those leaders' brazen "commitment" to Israel, regardless of the
consistently brutal policy carried out by the latter, is surely bizarre to say
the least; bizarre, and in fact non-Democratic.
An international poll, conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org examined the views of
people from 18 countries, including France, the UK and the United States. The
findings of the poll were released 1 July and were most telling. In 14 countries
"people mostly say their government should not take sides in the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Just three countries favour taking the Palestinian
side (Egypt, Iran and Turkey) and one is divided (India). No country favours
taking Israel's side, including the United States, where 71 per cent favour
taking neither side." The entire hoopla about the "common cause" and "special
relationship" and "promised land", and the fear mongers of the Armageddon crowd,
failed to sway the views of the great majority of Americans.
Why then, doesn't the "candidate of change", Obama, listen to his people and
truly change his government's destructive path regarding Palestine and Israel?
Why doesn't the UK's Brown and France's Sarkozy listen to their peoples,
considering that an equal percentage in both of their countries -- 79 per cent
-- is beseeching them to do the same? These results have of course been
consistent with public opinion in Western countries for years. It might behove
these leaders to respect the cannons of democracy in their own countries before
lecturing others.
Following his Israel trip, Obama kick-started a European tour that took him to
Germany, France and the UK. The moods were described as "cheerful" and the
expectations as "high" everywhere the senator went, including Israel. As for the
Palestinians, it's more of the same for them: the same arrogant demands, same
unfair policies, and ever-historic bias.
In the southern Israeli town of Siderot, widely grinning Obama receive a t-shirt
that read, "Siderot loves Obama". Obama, of course, didn't visit the Gaza
concentration camp to find out what Palestinians there thought of him,
considering his ardent defence of Israel's brutal policies against the Strip in
recent years. One can only imagine what a Gazan t-shirt for Obama might have
read.