Previous <<-- Table of Contents -->> Next

Dateline: Middle East
Volume 25 • Winter 2008
Published by The Student Coalition for a Just Peace in the Middle East

OBAMA AND THE MIDDLE EAST
Max Margulies

Only days into his presidency, Barack Obama has already taken big steps towards differentiating his Middle East policy from that of his predecessor. Following weeks of fighting between Israel and Hamas, Obama appointed former senator George Mitchell as special envoy to the Middle East. True to his promises to make the Middle East a priority and to engage in more dialogue, Obama sent Mitchell on a tour of the region to listen to the issues regional leaders wished to discuss.

This already demonstrates a drastic departure from Bush administration policies that have made little progress towards peace. Whereas Bush preferred not to get involved in negotiations directly, Obama hopes the Mitchell mission will provide him with the proper information to “actively and aggressively” pursue peace. In an interview with Al-Arabiya TV, Obama described the purpose of the Mitchell mission as a way to gather information from all the parties involved before deciding on the best course of action.

So far, it seems, Obama chose the right man. Mitchell, who brokered the 1998 Good Friday agreement in Belfast, enjoys the confidence of both Israeli center-left and Palestinian leadership. A strong proponent of a two state-solution, his 2001 Mitchell Report recommended a freeze on Israeli settlements and withdrawal
from West Bank towns. Although this makes Mitchell an unpopular choice in far-right communities, President Shimon Peres gave a better indication of the Kadima government’s optimism when he declared his opinion that Mitchell “will contribute greatly to the peace process.” Similarly, chief Palestinian negotiator Ahmad Querei also praises Mitchell for his objectivity and experience in the Middle East.

However, there are still many obstacles to achieving a lasting settlement. While the Obama administration recognizes the importance of Israel’s right to self defense and the necessity that Hamas stop firing rockets into Israel, Obama’s new envoy also believes that opening Gaza’s borders for commercial goods would decrease weapons smuggling and contribute to the peace effort. This latter condition is unlikely to be met until the dispute between Fatah and Hamas ends, as only the Palestinian Authority can monitor its side of the border. Moreover, Prime Minister Olmert told Mitchell that opening borders was contingent upon the return of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit. Hamas refuses to include the return of Shalit, whom they captured in a deadly
cross-border raid in June 2006, as part of a deal to open borders, and refuses to sign a truce until borders are opened.

The Obama administration intends to do what it can to provide humanitarian aid in Gaza and to strengthen the Fatah/Abbas government. Unfortunately, given Fatah’s powerlessness in Gaza, this U.S. support can only go so far. As opening the borders is not really an option, the U.S. must use its influence elsewhere for now.

There are other options for peace in the region. If Obama plans on increasing dialogue, there is reason to assume he will try to engage Syria. In a January 31 op-ed piece for the New York Times, Nicholas Kristoff suggested that, with the PA in disarray, the U.S. should focus on forging peace between Syria and Israel.
By broadening its ties with Syria, he argued, the U.S. could weaken Syria’s relationship with Iran. Then, “Iran’s subversive influence would be reduced, Hamas might be moderated, and there would be momentum for further gains.” Whether this optimistic view is possible remains to be seen, given Syria’s dependence on
Iran and, especially, in view of a possible right-wing coalition government following Israel’s recent election.

Top of the Page

Previous <<-- Table of Contents -->> Next