Obama's Arab Spring surprise

Barack Obama's Arab Spring dissertation was highly anticipated, but not what the United States (US) media have called his "shocking" acceptance as US policy of that controversial United Nations Resolution 242 which calls for Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders.

Former Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney characterised Obama's statement as throwing Israel "under the bus". Fellow Republican Newt Gingrich, not to be outdone, labelled Obama's speech last Thursday "the most dangerous speech ever made by an American president for the survival of Israel". Romney had gone on to say that it was "disrespectful of Israel for America to dictate terms to our ally".

But these Republicans display a lack of appreciation for the significance of the Arab Spring and what it portends. They seem oblivious to the emerging reconfiguration of the Middle East and North Africa. America wants, finally, to be on the right side of history - the side of the Arab Street, which is determining the shape of Middle East and North African politics. It is the Arab Street, not the palace, which is doing so.

Bin Laden has been executed and a treasure trove of indescribably valuable information on al-Qaeda has been retrieved; rendering that organisation even more marginal in Middle East politics than it had been before. America can more safely pull its troops from Afghanistan and Iraq and can step up its rhetorical support for the people of the Arab world struggling against dictatorships and kleptocracies.

Strategic burden

The fact of the matter is that Israel has been a strategic burden to the United States, as the scholars Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer have so conclusively demonstrated in their book, The Israel Lobby. Now some would say that Obama is being ungrateful to a long-time and trusted ally (as they say he was to Mubarak). We don't need to demonstrate the thesis that Israel has been a strategy liability.

The fact of the matter is that with al-Qaida now weakened to the point of non-viability, and with its ideology discredited even among Islamists and jihadists, and with the US client states in the Middle East and North Africa facing popular revolts, it is wise for the US to smell the coffee and do exactly what Obama did in that well-crafted, powerfully nuanced foreign-policy speech on Thursday: Support popular revolts for freedom and self-determination, issue an ultimatum to friendly dictators, slam supporters of terrorism and lecture the common enemy of the Arab world: Israel.

Only by taking a strong line against Israeli intransigence on settlements and for Palestinian statehood will the US gain the ear the Arab masses. So, Obama and his foreign-policy advisers reason that, if they want to be on the right side of history and to seize the historic opportunity to ride the wave of Middle East and North African ascent to liberation and justice, they have to remove the traditional bugbear: a recalcitrant Israel.

The latest issue of Foreign Affairs (May-June 2011) has an excellent series of essays on 'The New Arab Revolt'. Included is 'The Rise of the Islamists: How Islamists Will Change Politics and Vice Versa' by the fellow at the Saban Centre for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institutions, Shadi Hamid. He says: "Taking a hard line against Israel, for example, has been an effective way for Islamists in opposition to criticise regimes that they see as beholden to Western interests and anti-democratic. Democratic governments reflect popular sentiment, and in the Middle East this sentiment is firmly against Israel and the US hegemony in the region. If the Arab-Israeli conflict persists or, worse, war breaks out, Middle Eastern governments - Islamist or not - will come under pressure to take a strong stand in support of Palestinian rights."

The more the US pushes for democracy, the more the Islamists will emerge. The Islamists are not all opposed to US strategic interests, and they certainly don't all support terrorism. And genuine statehood; once you solve the 'Israel problem' or demonstrate that there is genuine interest in pressing Israel to recognise Palestinian rights, the Islamists, who are not necessarily and blindly averse to strategic calculation, will cooperate with the US.

Says Hamid: "As political systems across the Middle East open up, Islamist groups such as the Egyptian Brotherhood and Al Nahda will likely move from opposition into coalition or unity governments. As the parties compete for votes, the incentives for Islamists to indulge in anti-American posturing to win votes of the faithful will be greater." Anti-American posturing is greatly facilitated by slavish support for the Israeli reactionaries.

No pet-and-powder Business

There is no way the US can continue to 'pet and powder' Israel and expect to be on the right side of history in the emerging Middle East. Obama recognises this and last Thursday decided that he had to do what he had to do. The American right wing, which has long been wedded to Israel uncritically and mindlessly, has reacted with rhetorical violence and anger. Michele Bachmann, Tea Party celebrity who is egging to run for the presidency, said Obama's call for Israel to return to its pre-1967 Six Day War borders was a "shocking display of betrayal" to Israel. She went on to say, "Today, Barack Obama has again indicated that his policy towards Israel is to blame Israel first." Michele, Sarah Palin and their ilk are not expected to understand the rigours of foreign policy.

It is not just the Islamists and jihadists who foment strife against Israel. It is the general antipathy towards Israel among ordinary Arabs which feeds the Islamists and jihadists. In 2005, a Pew Global Attitudes Poll showed that 100 per cent of Jordanians had unfavourable views about Israel. (Jordan is a major client state of the US.) In Morocco, home to the largest Jewish population in the Arab world, 88 per cent of those polled had unfavourable views.

Concludes Hamid in his piece: "The Middle East provides much fertile ground for public posturing against Israel that many groups - not only Islamists but also leftists and nationalists - seek to outdo one another in demonstrating their dislike for Israel."

But why should the US pander to this motley group? some would ask.

The point, Obama would argue, is not that the US is cynically and opportunistically deserting Israel. It is that, objectively and empirically, right-wing stubbornness and theological dogma have stood in the way of values which are dear to Americans - at least in their official ideology. The values of justice, fairness, self-determination. Obama was even-handed and fair in his assessment of the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate.

"Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace and prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realise their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist. For the Palestinian efforts to delegitimise Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state."

Two-state solution

It is not true that Obama is insensitive to Israel's existential and security needs. Indeed, his point is that it is precisely that which are threatened by continued intransigence and belligerence on the part of Israel. It is the continued failure to broker a sustainable Middle East peace which is the greatest threat to Israel Only. A two-state solution can provide the basis for lasting peace.

"For decades, the conflicts between Israelis and Arabs have cast a shadow over the region. For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children will be blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes and the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them."

Obama's message is clear: Two things are needed. "A viable Palestine, a secure Israel." The US cannot continue to endanger the security of the world and its economic interests by mollycoddling Israel, particularly this obstinate and arrogant Netanyahu regime. Yes, I am acquainted with the arguments from the Jewish right wing. I read the papers and monographs by the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs. They produce some good work but the blinders need to come off.

The Arab Spring will turn into a winter of discontent if the Israeli-Palestinian issue is not moving in the right direction. The US must step up the pressure on Netanyahu at the same time it insists that the Palestinians must renounce terrorism and commit to peaceful negotiations. But if the Palestinian Question is not answered decisively and with justice, the US will lose in the Arab Street as well as the palace, and this double loss would be disastrous for not just US foreign policy but for international peace and security.

Tough stance

Obama's tough language to the dictatorial regimes which the US has traditionally supported was welcome and laudable. He said, significantly: "We have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the self-determination of individuals;" a profound distinction not often made in the foreign-policy history of the US.

He continued: "The status quo is not sustainable. Societies held together by fear and repression may offer the illusion of stability for a time, but they are built upon fault lines that will eventually tear asunder." Which is exactly the point made poignantly by Nassim Nicholas Taleb (famous for his Black Swan book) and Mark Blyth in their essay 'The Black Swan of Cairo: How Suppressing Volatility Makes the World Less Predictable and More Dangerous' in the May-June issue of Foreign Affairs.

Continued Obama in that excellent foreign-policy speech last Thursday: "So we face a historic opportunity. We have the chance to show that America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw power of the dictator."

It was a speech that delicately balanced ideals and interests. It explicitly warned client states Bahrain and Yemen and sent the strongest warnings yet to Syria's Assad. He never mentioned Saudi Arabia, his major client state, but his message to all dictatorships was clear. He needs to take that message to Beijing to show that he does not elevate economics over ethics. But as far as the Middle East and North Africa are concerned, Barack Obama is on the right strategic track.

Ian Boyne is a veteran media practitioner. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and ianboyne1@yahoo.com.