NEW YORK - US President Barack Obama
braves a highly controversial visit to the West
Bank, much to the chagrin of Israeli politicians
mourning the defeat of his republican challenger,
Mitt Romney, who tried to woo the Jewish votes by
declaring a complete surrender to Israel's wish
lists, including bombing Iran.
Of course,
such a visit is a figment of this author's
imagination and bears little or no resemblance to
the dominant thinking in the White House, which
all but ignored the "Palestinian issue" during
Obama's first term.
Released from the
limitations of re-election, Obama theoretically
can now compensate for that policy lapse by
adopting a more energetic approach toward what is
commonly referred to as the "deadlocked Middle
East peace process". He could appoint a new
envoy, receive
Palestinian officials, visit Israel and raise the
issue - or he could continue his political
expediency by turning a blind eye to the Israeli
atrocity of relentless land grabs and systematic
denial of Palestinian rights.
The second
of these is the most likely scenario - unless, of
course, Obama wants to play co-conspirator with an
Israeli war on Iran, in which case the antidote of
making some pro-Palestinian gestures may lessen
the negative impact in terms of the US's image in
the Muslim and Arab world.
This is not
likely either, given the present rifts between
Washington and Tel Aviv, the different assessments
of Iran nuclear threat on their parts, and Obama's
unwillingness to drag the US into another war just
as he is trying to finish the decade-old war in
Afghanistan.
So, the real absence of a
compelling motive to trigger a sudden burst of
energy on the peace process explains why we may
not witness any discontinuity in Obama's Middle
East policy other, perhaps, than some cosmetic
changes. In other words, don't look forward to
seeing the headline, "Obama meets Mahmoud Abbas in
West Bank". But, for a moment let us consider the
likely results of such an improbable visit:
First, it would highlight the plight of
Palestinians, of which the world is constantly
reminded, if it listens, by the former US
president Jimmy Carter, who has visited the area a
number of times and is strongly opposed to the
"Apartheid wall" that has chewed up some 10% of
Palestinian property.
Second, an Obama
visit would spotlight the massive expansion of
Jewish settlements that have sprung up in
violation of international law and with the tacit
blessing of Western governments that have failed
to reprimand Israel for the illegal expansionist
policies.
Third, although the pro-Israel
US pundits would jump on this to eat Obama alive,
the rest of America may appreciate his initiative
and put its weight behind the president's earnest
attempt to find a cure for the "Palestinian
problem" that is now decades old thanks mainly to
the Western inaction and complicity with Israel.
Fourth, Obama would also gain popularity
not only in the Arab and Muslim world as a result
of this action, his visit to the West Bank would
earn him the respect of the international
community which has supported the Palestinian bid
for statehood at the United Nations.
On
the con side, there are political risks to
alienating the powerful Jewish lobby and a move
towards Palestinian concerns might backfire
against the whole Democratic Party. Still, since
most Democrats are ardent supporters of Israel,
this is more likely to introduce inter-party
fissures and nothing more.
What matters,
however, is Obama's ability to exert political
leadership and do so on the principled basis that
the US has a special obligation on this matter,
which goes back to Carter's singular efforts
during the Camp David talks. Carter back then in
1977 became personally involved in the detailed
discussions and had educated himself about the
whole territorial issue.
Not so Obama, now
basking in the glory of his narrow victory, thanks
in part to Mother Nature and Hurricane Sandy,
which brought a halt to political campaigning for
a few precious days while allowing Obama to
monopolize TV air time as "commander in chief of
disaster relief".
A quintessential
political opportunist, Obama is not Carter and he
has shown little of Carter's deep moral
commitments to issues of global justice, which is
really an issue of international ethics.
Henceforth we should expect business as
usual instead of a brave new era of US engagement
in the dead waters of Middle East peace efforts.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
