ACMCU Opinion Pieces
By John L. Esposito
(Re-printed courtesy of the Huffington Post)
I recently returned from Turkey where Barack Obama managed to take the country by storm and, as he had signaled at his inauguration, also reached out to the Muslim world. Why was he so successful? What was his message and does it matter?
Coming off the G-20m, the President and Michelle Obama scored a second success in Turkey, a bridge between Europe and the Middle East. In his first visit and address as president in a Muslim country, Obama's performance in Turkey was flawless; he met the expectations of his admirers and won approval from many skeptics. His schedule reflected his distinctive style, combining not only meetings with the president, prime minister and other senior government officials and delivering a major address to Turkey's parliament but also closed sessions with religious leaders and with university students as well as visits to major religious sites, the Blue Mosque and Hagia Sophia. Obama balanced charisma and charm with candor and substance as he addressed not only the Turkish people but the Muslim world.
In many ways, Turkey reflects issues that are so frequently raised post 9/11: "Is there a clash of civilizations?" and "Is Islam compatible with modernization, secularism, democracy, and pluralism?" Established as a secular state by Mustafa Kemal, Attaturk (popularly known as the Father of the Turks), Turkey's political elite and military often defined and implemented their brand secularism (laic) as a hardline secularism, more autocratic than democratic, that was often anti-religion with little space for Islam in the public square. To wear a headscarf or be openly religious restricted access to university, government buildings and many positions in society.
Turkey today grapples with and reflects both its authentic secular and Muslim heritage and its role in the international community. it is both a secular republic, long dominated by its military that has intervened in politics, and a budding democracy; its identity is secular and Muslim; its location and orientation are West and East, Europe and the Middle East/Muslim world; it is a Western ally and NATO member as well as a leader in the Muslim world and an example of the synthesis of Islam and democracy.
Obama caught that balance: "Turkey's greatness lies in your ability to be at the center of things. This is not where East and West divide -- it is where they come together: in the beauty of your culture; in the richness of your history, in the strength of your democracy." In a surprise move, he took a position at odds with France's Sarkozy and some other members of the EU, declaring, "The US strongly supports Turkey's bid to become a member of the European Union.... "Europe gains by the diversity of ethnicity, culture and faith - it is not diminished by it. And Turkish membership would broaden and strengthen Europe's foundation once more."
While praising Turkey and its leadership, he did not shrink from addressing sensitive issues like Turkish-Armenian relations, the Kurds and religious minorities, acknowledging the current government's accomplishments but underscoring the need for continued progress.
Although he did not choose to give a major address to the Muslim world, Obama did take the occasion to continue his dialogue with the Muslim world, referring many times in his public statements to Islam and Muslims explicitly. He spoke directly to the widespread beliefs among Muslims during the Bush administration that the war against global terrorism had become a war against Islam and Muslims and that the West did not respect Islam and denigrated Muslims. Acknowledging that the war in Iraq had sown widespread Muslim mistrust of America, Obama affirmed "The U.S. is not, and will never be at war with Islam." Praising Islam's contributions to civilization, Obama reiterated his desire for a new partnership, rooted not just in opposition to terrorism but broader engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect and on common goals.
Moreover, he stressed both America's and his personal connection with Islam, noting "our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world -- including in my own country. The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country -- I know, because I am one of them."
But what does this all mean and does it matter? Despite his knowledge and experience, growing up in Indonesia and in his family, of Islam and the Muslim world, Obama's image among many Muslims who admire and supported him is of a candidate who remained silent or distanced himself from Muslim issues and American Muslims. Although he did reach out in his Inaugural and Al-Arabiya interviews, his track record and that of his administration on Muslim issues from Gaza to American Muslim civil liberties has been minimal at best. His visit to Turkey as president, acknowledgment of its political and religious significance, and acknowledgment of his personal connection to and admiration of Muslim accomplishments hit the right notes. But they also create a set of expectations as well. As one senior prominent Middle East diplomat said to me with a smile: "His words are wonderful but we still have not seen much action."
President Obama faces a Muslim world where he enjoys great respect but also one that has great expectations. As we know from polls of Muslims globally, in particular Gallup World polling representing the voices of a billion Muslims, the widespread growth of anti-Americanism was due to Bush foreign policy not to a clash of religion, values of cultures. Indeed, a great reservoir of admiration for American principles and values exists despite the perception of a double standard in U.S. support for self-determination, democratization and human rights in the Muslim world.
Muslims, like many others, will be watching carefully to see how this charismatic president with his deep faith and commitment to diversity and social justice not only talks but also walks. The range of concerns and opportunities includes the Obama administration's appointment as well as foreign and domestic policies. But these are also opportunities. At present, despite their numbers, education and professional skills, the presence of Arabs and Muslims in government agencies and as ambassadors is minimal to non-existent. The administration has a strong pool of potential candidates for positions including the inclusion of an Arab or Muslim American to its Middle East negotiating team. Palestinian-Israeli negotiations will be difficult, given the current Palestinian leadership and the newly elected hardline Israeli team of Netanyahu and Lieberman and their refusal thus far to freeze the construction and expansion of Jewish settlements Israelis and honor their international commitments. However, an Obama administration that takes a strong "even-handed" approach, even if not successful in the short term, will strengthen its image and respect in the Arab and Muslim world and broader international community.
The administration has moved constructively in reaching out to Iran while remaining firm in its concerns. Iran's upcoming elections could provide a more pragmatic and less militant Iranian president. But a major potential challenge will be avoiding the pitfall of another Iraq. Assuring that the modest increased American military involvement in Afghanistan strengthens the Afghan government, brings greater security and stability and avoids significant "collateral damage" will be a tall order. However, Obama can score a success if the U.S. can train and work with Afghan forces to create a more stable involvement conducive to significant American and European economic and educational development. Finally, although less in the news, despite the announced closing of Guantanamo, the Obama administration's Justice and Homeland Security Departments have seen little reform of Bush policies to balance legitimate concerns about national security with the protection of civil liberties and human rights of Arabs and Muslims in America.
By John L. Esposito
(Re-printed courtesy of the Huffington Post)
After the decades-long failure of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, compounded by eight years of George W. Bush policies that alienated Muslims globally, President Barack Obama moved quickly to distance himself from the Bush legacy, declaring: "To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect." Obama emphasized a readiness "to listen" rather than to dictate and his desire to restore "the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago." But will there be a new paradigm, a significant shift in American foreign policy?
Thus far, Obama's track record is mixed. He announced the phased closing of Guantanamo and sent former Senator George Mitchell as special envoy to the Middle East. However, these decisions were quickly counter-balanced by the administration's response to the firestorm and smear campaign of unsubstantiated accusations in response to the appointment of Chas Freeman, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Assistant Secretary of Defense, to be Chairman of the National Intelligence Council. The Israel lobby, including AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and its supporters in Congress viciously attacked the reputation of Freeman, a distinguished former diplomat and sometime strong critic of Israel's policies in Palestine. Leading the attack was Steven Rosen, a former official of AIPAC, recently hired to run the Washington office of Daniel Pipes' Middle East Forum. Ironically, Rosen himself is currently under indictment for passing secrets to Israel. Publications such as the National Review, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, and the editorial page of the Washington Post and members of Congress followed suit.
In the end, Chas Freeman withdrew his nomination. President Obama accepted his resignation, choosing not to fight the media attack; he remained silent as he had done during the Israeli invasion and war in Gaza. These incidents have much broader implications for Obama's credibility in forging his new way forward in relations with the Muslim world. As a presidential candidate, he had distanced himself from the Arab and Muslim community and courted the Israeli lobby in his concern to get the American Jewish vote. While many understood the political necessity of his position in a closely contested election campaign, the critical question today is whether President Obama will now make key decisions without bowing to domestic pressures from the powerful forces of Congressional members, lobbies and interest groups. Will he take the political risk and reverse the historic lack of even-handedness in American foreign policy in the Middle East, reflected most recently in the Bush administration's policies and the undue influence of the Israeli lobby, hard-line Christian Zionists on the White House and Congress and the administration's responses to the Israeli invasions of Lebanon and most recently Gaza?
The potential blowback from the war in Gaza cannot be underestimated. While Obama's closing Guantanamo is important, its significance in the Arab and Muslim world is nothing compared to America's policies in Gaza. Gallup Polling (Oct 2008), prior to the Gaza war, found that while closing the Guantanamo detention facility would improve attitudes in the Arab world toward the United States, it did not match the level of support for U.S. pressure on Israel. Respondents rated the Israeli/Palestinian issue more important to perceptions of the U.S. than closing down Guantanamo. Significant numbers of citizens in many Arab countries (such as Tunisia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon - all American allies) said their view of the United States would improve "very significantly" by increased U.S. pressure on Israel." President Bush's subsequent uncritical support of Israel in the Gaza war and then presidential candidate Barack Obama silence failed the test.
We are quickly approaching a time when President Obama can no longer say that he "inherited" this or that "mess" -- he must lead, given the cards he has, and lead now. The brutality of the war in Gaza, with its disproportionate death toll (1300 Palestinians to 13 Israelis), massive destruction of Gaza's neighborhoods, universities, schools etc. and tragic toll on the lives of innocent women and children, has become a symbol in the Arab and broader Muslim world for America's perceived double standard in the promotion of democracy and human rights. If the Obama administration is to effectively distance itself from the Bush administration, then it will need to "walk the way it talks." Obama's commitment to a "new" policy and "to listen" will require that the US meet, listen and work with all the major players in Palestine, not just Fatah and Israel but also HAMAS, a leadership chosen by the Palestinian in free and fair democratic elections in 2006.
Equally important, the Obama administration cannot effectively pursue a new paradigm unless the primary players and regional powers are committed to the need for a new paradigm. The Palestinian leadership, including HAMAS, must make clear and demonstrate that it, too, is ready not only to negotiate for a free and secure Palestinian state but also recognize the existence and security of Israel. Palestinians and the Israelis must be ready to acknowledge that both have legitimate claims, that a military option is no solution and that diplomacy and negotiation are the way forward. Given the current realities, recent Israeli election results and a Netanyahu-Lieberman government, the leadership divisions in Israel and Palestine, and the realities of American politics, the road to peace will be steep and extraordinarily difficult.
Senator Mitchell's credibility and effectiveness as a mediator will heavily depend on whether President Barack Obama (and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton) can transcend the fears of most American politicians and the pressure groups that support hard-line Israeli policies. America's policy of "Israeli Exceptionalism," privileging Israeli interests and thus failing to pursue an even-handed policy, would have to be supplanted by a more balanced policy that held Israel to the same standards as other states in the international community, including compliance with United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding the return of Palestinian territory taken in the 1967 war and subsequent annexation of land and building of "illegal" settlements.
Will Obama rise to the occasion, embarking on a bold new paradigm and policy?
Only time will tell. The future direction of the Obama administration remains unclear as does that of the Israeli government and the Palestinian leadership. That President Obama has the desire, vision and intelligence to reach out to the broader Muslim world is without doubt. But will he do what no recent American president has done and take the political risk to resist pressures, in the words of Chas Freeman, of "a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government," and its supporters in Congress? Only time will tell
By Muqtedar Khan
(Re-printed courtesy of the Daily Times of Pakistan)
A few months from now, words alone will not be enough; America will be judged by its actions, not by its promises. Indeed, these ambitious promises of change will make the judgment even harsher
US Vice President Joe Biden unveiled America’s new foreign policy at the 45th Munich Security Conference, held January 6-8. Key events preceding the conference underscored the challenging atmosphere that the US faces in the world today.
Just few days before the event, Iran launched its first homemade satellite into orbit, advertising the rapid development of its rocket/ballistic capabilities. Iran, a state that has now emerged as America’s principal international rival, is celebrating the 30th anniversary of its Islamic revolution, which ended American imperial control of Iran’s politics, and most recently is pushing to end American hegemony in the Middle East.
For thirty years, the US has imposed sanctions against Iran, threatened it with war and worked diligently to overthrow its regime, without much success. Iran is a reminder of the continuing failure of US foreign policy.
Also, just before the Munich conference, Kyrgyzstan announced that it will close vital US air force base in Manas, reportedly under pressure from Russia. Russia lately has begun pushing back at growing US influence in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, regions that Russia considers part of its sphere of influence.
Thus, Biden went to Munich — even as the American economy continues to suffer and America faces new and more energised challenges in the international arena — to convince Europe that America has changed.
For the past seven years, Europe had watched impotently as the United States under George W Bush ignored the American tradition of consulting and working in consort with Europe. For years they hated Bush and America not just because of American unilateralism and arrogance, but because America had so strikingly exposed the absolute inability of Europe to either moderate or restrain American foreign policy.
Bush reminded Europe the extent to which it was dependent on the US for its global pre-eminence, and how without American support they were incapable of making a difference on the global stage. And they hated him for it.
At Munich, they were hoping that a weakened America would once again return to them, seeking help and in the process restoring their own influence.
Biden did just that. He said, “The threats we face have no respect for borders. No single country, no matter how powerful, can best meet them alone. We believe that international alliances and organisations do not diminish America’s power — they help us advance our collective security, economic interests and values. So we will engage. We will listen. We will consult. America needs the world, just as I believe the world needs America.”
Biden’s speech had more for those who sought more humility from the world’s sole superpower. He promised that America would not abandon its values, that it would not torture, and that it would work to restore the transatlantic alliance.
Making up with Europe and Russia was not the only item on Biden’s agenda. He reiterated President Obama’s assertion that America would “extend a hand to those who unclench their fist.”
All of this sounds great and the Obama administration should be applauded for convincing the world that things are about to change. But it is hoped that it recognises the danger it is placing itself in. A few months from now, words alone will not be enough; America will be judged by its actions, not by its promises. Indeed, these ambitious promises of change will make the judgement even harsher.
So far, America has demanded that Russia, Iran, the Taliban, Hamas and Hezbollah — the primary sources of resistance to American interests overseas — surrender to American demands, which remain the same. The only difference is that while the Bush administration threatened and used force, Obama has promised more diplomacy.
But why would they submit to Obama given that they did not to a more threatening America, when it was definitely more powerful than it is now? Moreover, if these players perceive current American predicaments as a direct result of their collective defiance, they are likely to stand their ground more firmly now than they did before.
The promise to listen implies empathy. How does the Obama administration seek to extend empathy to its principle challengers? Forget the rivals; is it ready to listen to its allies? Will it listen to NATO ally Turkey on the Arab-Israeli issue?
There is something important missing from Obama’s new strategy, a realisation that perhaps it needs to revisit the goals of American foreign policy vis-à-vis its nemesis, not just its tactics.
Muqtedar Khan is Director of Islamic Studies at the University of Delaware and a Fellow of the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding
by John Esposito
(Re-printed courtesy of the The Immanent Frame)
President Barack Obama has moved quickly to follow up on his inaugural statement: “To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.” He appointed and sent his special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, to the region on an eight day trip. Then on January 28, on Al Arabiya, the prominent Arab satellite TV network, Obama addressed the Arab and Muslim worlds in his first televised interview from the White House.
For many Muslims, eight years of the Bush administration’s war against global terrorism has looked more like the use of terrorism, WMDs and then the promotion of democracy to legitimate a neo-colonial design to redraw the political map of the Muslim world. Conscious of the popular perception and fear that the U.S. has been fighting a war against Islam and Muslims, President Obama sought to counter soaring anti-Americanism and reassure Muslims that “the Americans are not your enemy.” Signaling a shift from the perception globally of U.S. arrogance and interventionism, Obama declared that while “we sometimes make mistakes,” America is not a colonial power and hoped for a restoration of “the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago.”
Obama’s message did strike many of the right chords. He spoke directly to the peoples of the Muslim world, not to its rulers. He communicated a sense of respect, humility and at the same time confidence and conviction. His message was one that emphasized the importance of mutual understanding and respect for the peoples of the Muslim world, declaring “my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people…My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy.” Obama also emphasized a new readiness to listen rather than to dictate.
The 2007 Gallup World Poll findings in more than 35 countries, extending from North Africa to Southeast Asia, underscore the importance of Obama’s addressing the sense of powerlessness, humiliation and lack of respect. (See John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think.) When asked in an open ended question what the West could do to improve relations, the most frequent response was respect Islam and Muslims, not consider them inferior. Obama clearly spoke to this concern both in his inaugural and on Al Arabiya: “in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I’ve come to understand is that regardless of your faith—and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers—regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams.”
Obama’s message of self-criticism and restraint, diplomacy and peace, partnership not unilateralism, resonates with the vast majority of Muslims who like Americans want peace, not war, security, not instability and terrorism, leadership based on partnership, not unilateralism. But they also want to see a respect that is reflected in even-handedness and justice.
The president is correct in stating that “We can have legitimate disagreements but still be respectful.” However, in a post-Gaza Middle East, the U.S. cannot signal a new approach to U.S.-Middle East foreign policy that has credibility if, while rightly reinforcing America’s commitment to Israel and condemning terrorist attacks, Obama says nothing critical about Israel’s war in Gaza and its use of violence and terror. Israel did not simply attack terrorists and destroy their infrastructure, but Gaza’s elected government and its society. The unrestrained violence and terror unleashed on the people of Gaza, the destruction of much of Gaza’s infrastructure and institutions (homes, neighborhoods, universities and schools, mosques, police stations, hospitals), and the disproportionate loss of civilian life and casualties (1,300 Palestinians, including at least 700 civilians vs. 10 Israeli soldiers and three civilians) threatens to radicalize a generation of Palestinians.
Obama characterized his approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and his advice to George Mitchell as: “So let’s listen. He’s going to be speaking to all the major parties involved.” This “new” policy will require that the U.S. work with all the players: HAMAS, the PNA and Israel. Whatever it may think of HAMAS, a reality-based, pragmatic American foreign policy, must remember and respect the fact that the people of Palestine (in the West Bank as well as Gaza) made their choice in democratic elections in 2006, electing a HAMAS-led government. The Muslim World remembers that subsequently, the U.S. and Israel chose to boycott and blockade Gaza in an effort to undermine and overthrow the democratically elected government.
As the Gallup World Poll found, both the mainstream Muslim majority and a minority of potential extremists want better relations with the West, coexistence not conflict. Most admire America’s basic principles and values of self-determination, freedoms, democracy and human rights. At the same time, Obama and the U.S. face a Muslim world in which many have deep fears and grievances, fear of Western intervention, invasion, and domination, and the belief that the West, in particular the U.S., uses a double standard in its promotion of democracy and human rights.
While many Muslims are critical of the policies and actions of the U.S., Israel and their own governments, the wars in Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza, authoritarian regimes, lack of freedoms and human rights, the majority also reject extremism and terrorism as a response. To restore America’s global image, moral stature and leadership and further weaken the extremists, the Obama administration must both listen to—not necessarily agree with—and not dictate but also seek to work at non-governmental levels with mainstream Muslim organizations and NGOs in addressing these concerns and injustices.
By John Esposito
(Re-printed Courtesty of the Huffington Post)
After eight years of the Bush administration, the Arab and Muslim world and many others in the global community greeted an Obama presidency with great expectations. Obama himself in his inaugural address subtly distanced himself from the Bush legacy and expressed the desire that America re-emerge as a global and principled leader. He spoke of a departure from "our legacy," the sacrifice of principles and values, in the name of fighting a war on terrorism and the need to exercise our power wisely and morally: "Our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. ... our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint." Finally, he called for a reappropriation and return to our legacy, "We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more [return to], we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort -- even greater cooperation and understanding between nations.
Speaking directly to the Muslim world, Obama called for a new way forward: "To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect."
But how should Obama reach out to the Muslim world post Gaza?
The U.S. will need to reemphasize its support not only for the existence and security of the state of Israel but the creation, security and support for a Palestinian state as well as criticism of illegitimate acts of violence and terror not only committed by Palestinians but also by Israelis. Successful negotiations will require that both Hamas and the Israeli government stop the use of violence and terror. However, the process can not begin with preconditions such as a one-sided pre-condition that HAMAS change its Charter, formally recognize Israel's right to exist etc. This would then require an equivalent precondition that Israel recognize the HAMAS government, its (Israel's) occupation of Arab lands, the refugee issue, and its building of illegal settlements.
Qatar and Turkey as well as Saudi Arabia and non-state actors can play a role. Qatar and Turkey in particular have relations with Israel but also been outspoken in their criticism of Israeli policies in Palestine and harsh in their denunciations of Israel's war in Gaza. Qatar's Emir has pledged significant financial support for rebuilding destructed areas of Gaza. Massive demonstrations by Turks protesting the war in Gaza and Erdogan's statements have had a deep impact on the Arab psyche at a time when the masses in the Arab world are in search of leadership.
In terms of inter-Palestinian reconciliation between HAMAS, Fatah and other organizations, the newly appointed US envoy, former Senator George Mitchell, may wish to adopt Northern Ireland model he developed in those negotiations.
The Obama administration will need to move quickly to redress the Bush administration's engagement in a policy of "moral exceptionalism" and abuse of power in the name of national security which has not only undermined America's moral authority and standing abroad but the civil liberties of countless individuals and groups at home. Following up on his inaugural speech, it should lead with diplomacy--whenever possible--rather than the threat of military intervention or force. It should move quickly to reach out and listen to not only with governments but with the Muslim mainstream: reformist and opposition leaders and organizations, and civil society organizations. Partnership with mainstream Muslims is essential to isolate or marginalize the terrorists.
The U.S. faces a Muslim world with deep grievances. However, it both feels disrespected and fears Western intervention, invasion, and domination, but also admires the West, the U.S., in particular for its technology, freedoms, and democracy. As the Gallup World Poll, the largest, most systematic poll of the Muslim world found both the mainstream and potential want better relations with the West, coexistence not conflict. However, many believe that the West, in particular the US, uses a double standard in its promotion of democracy and human rights.
Therefore, U.S. public diplomacy should address not only public relations (through educational initiatives and exchange programs) but also key foreign policy issues. Gallup findings (See, John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think) indicate a desire for the respect (reflected in Obama's inaugural speech). When asked what the West could do to improve relations, majorities reported that it should respect Islam and Muslims, not consider them inferior, and provide technological, economic assistance. Coming on the heels of the devastation in Gaza, major development projects (technological, economic and educational) should be initiated in Gaza and expanded in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the West Bank.
A new approach to diplomacy will reach out and talk to friends and critics, to those with "clenched fists" and those Middle East governments whose iron fists are often hidden in velvet gloves. Military aid (weapons, training and funding) should be carefully reviewed and limited since more often than not as we have seen in Arab countries and Israel/Palestine, such aid is not simply used for defense. The administration should pressure and incent our authoritarian Arab allies to build up strong civil societies.
Both before and even more in the aftermath of the war in Gaza, Israel-Palestine looms large as a major grievance and obstacle to peace in the region and improvement in U.S.-Muslim world relations. As Gallup Polling (Oct 2008), pre Gaza war, found while closing the Guantanamo detention facility would significantly improve attitudes toward the United States, it did not match the level of support for U.S. pressure on Israel among many in the Arab world and beyond. Majorities of citizens in countries like Tunisia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon said that increasing pressure on Israel would improve their view of the United States "very significantly." Thus, the Israeli/Palestinian issue rates as more significant to perceptions of the U.S. than closing down Guantanamo.
The Obama administration will have to transcend America's policy of "Israeli Exceptionalism," privileging Israeli interests. A more even-handed policy would require that Israel as well as HAMAS and the Palestinians be held to the same standards to respect and comply with international law and U.N. resolutions. A more balanced and credible approach will begin to restore America's image in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Obama will also have to avoid a legacy of political engineering (a preference for putting in and or supporting our guy to elections) that predates George W. Bush but was also adopted by his administration in countries like Iraq and backfired in Palestine.
Bush sought to marginalize Yasser Arafat purportedly to promote democratization. Initial support for the Palestinian presidential election of 2005 and Mahmoud Abbas' victory backfired with the election of Hamas in January 2006 in free and fair elections. In an attempt to "bolster moderates" and marginalize Hamas, the U.S. supported economic sanctions and a blockade and siege by Israel, while funding and supporting the electoral loser, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
A reality-based, pragmatic American foreign policy, whatever it may think of HAMAS, must remember and respect the fact that the people of Palestine made their choice in democratic elections. It was not just a choice but, for many, a protest vote against Fatah, the PA and corruption. The vote also reflected the belief that negotiations had produced nothing and armed resistance and violence brought Israel's disengagement from Gaza.
The Obama administration's new policy should seek to work with all the players, HAMAS, the PNA and Israel. The current Palestinian and Israeli leadership and Olmert's successor, Benjamin Netanyahu will not make this easy. Ignoring, marginalizing or attempting to eliminate HAMAS and simply recognize or perhaps more accurately resurrect Abbas ignores the realities on the ground. As the 2006 presidential elections demonstrated: Abbas did not enjoy widespread respect or support. He has been further weakened by his anointing by the Bush administration and the Israeli government and the continued failings and corruption of the PNA. The perception of Abbas as the US and Israel's man in an attempt to eliminate Hamas, and the perception of Abbas as submissive if not compliant in the Gaza war have only served to erode Abbas's legitimacy among his people.
As for HAMAS, it is not simply a militant (terrorist or resistance) organization based in Gaza but, as its electoral victory demonstrated, a political movement that also enjoys significant support in the West Bank. The Gaza war has rallied Palestinians and Arab and Muslim populations to a totally unexpected degree, one that could affect the region for decades.
The conflict and HAMAS resistance has captured the Arab political imagination and discourse. Gazans and HAMAS enjoyed widespread sympathy and support not only among Islamists but also Arab nationalists, secularists, leftists, and Christians. The 24/7 coverage by the Arab Media with its gruesome scenes of death and destruction, the galvanized public opinion across the political spectrum. The war in Gaza may prove to be the nail in the coffin of Arab nationalism. The Arab League and the Palestinian Authority, and many Arab governments have drawn widespread criticism for their failure to respond and act decisively. As a result, HAMAS and Islamists in general are in a position to consolidate their long-held claim as the only viable option to entrenched authoritarian regimes, secular elites, and the defenders of Palestine and Jerusalem.
View all posts in the archive.