No hope of change in the Middle East

Hope and change have been the defining slogans of Barack Obama’s political career. In his inimitable way he has now convinced the American electorate twice that he is capable of ushering in a new era in their country’s history. In the Middle East, however, and Palestine in particular, there is little hope of any change during his second term.

While the Republican-dominated Congress will continue to challenge his domestic policies, a body of opinion suggests that Mr Obama will have relatively more room to manoeuvre in foreign affairs. Whether he chooses to exploit this fully or not, it goes without saying that Israel’s security, prosperity and strategic advantage over its Arab neighbours will remain the cornerstone of US policy in the region. Both Obama and his rival, Mitt Romney, reaffirmed this time and again throughout their election campaigns.

In reality, the style of US presidents may vary but in essence their policies are all determined by the same permanent national interests. Even so, there was resounding satisfaction across the Middle East with Obama’s victory, one that was shared by Europe and Asia. The prevalent view is that a victory for Romney would have cleared the way for the return for the notorious neo-cons and the rise of the extremist Tea Party faction of the Republican Party.

The strong sense of relief has been encouraged by the fact that Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, had supported Romney openly. The latter’s defeat is, therefore, nothing short of a public humiliation for the Israeli leader.

During his first term in office, Obama allowed Netanyahu to outfox and humiliate him repeatedly. His handling of the settlement issue was, perhaps, the most unforgettable. Having now secured a second term, he must restore a measure of respect to the office he holds and to his own reputation. This can be done by delivering the change envisaged in his 2009 speech in Cairo:

“Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.”

Throughout the campaign the election generated as much interest in the Israeli media as it did in the US. A day did not pass without a major commentary on what was the most expensive election ever, anywhere in the world. In the third round debate, Obama referred pointedly to Romney’s visit to Israel where he tried to raise funds. The Republican candidate was unapologetic, vowing that if he won, Israel would be the first country he would visit after taking office. Obama is not expected to do this even if the government in Israel changes.

In politics, as in other walks of life, what goes around comes around. Fearing that a second-term Obama would be an obstacle to his far-right policies, Netanyahu threw his weight behind Romney. The crude manner in which he went about this has exposed his own election campaign to enormous difficulties. Given their absolute dependency on American patronage, Israeli voters will now have to think long and hard before giving their incumbent prime minister a second term; he is a national liability. His rivals have already started to blame him for endangering Israel’s relations with the US. Such accusations are almost certainly going to escalate in the coming weeks.

By attempting to influence the outcome of the American elections in the manner that he did, Netanyahu clearly misread the political calculus in the US; it is no longer about big business and the white political establishment; the demographic map of American society is fast-changing in favour of constituencies not beguiled automatically by Israel and its powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. The presidential election has confirmed that Romney’s blinkered, parochial politics, though akin to the agenda pursued by Netanyahu-Lieberman, have a dwindling appeal in mainstream American society.

Whatever the personal differences between Obama and Netanyahu, though, they are not expected to affect the alliance between their two countries. For this reason, the prospects for change with regards to Palestinian and Arab rights remain virtually non-existent. American military, economic and political support for Israel will continue for the foreseeable future.

Given Obama’s natural inclination not to seek confrontation with the Israelis and their disregard for a just peace settlement, he may concentrate his foreign policy interests on Asia, where China’s military, economic and political influence is rapidly outstripping America’s.

In the interim, the PLO/PA must expect a continuation of Washington’s current policy aimed at sabotaging its efforts for recognition at the UN as a non-state member with observer status. America will not relinquish its monopoly over the one-sided ‘peace process’ readily, in spite of its all too obvious futility.

Faced with this scenario, the ball is now in the court of the rich Arab states. All they need to do to ensure that change does occur is threaten the withdrawal of the contracts and oil that prop up western economies.  Until then, there is no hope of any meaningful change at all.