Obama's words will have to be matched by deeds for the US's image in the region to improve, writes El-Sayed Amin Shalabi* During the US presidential election campaign, and even after he got elected, many questioned Barack Obama's interest in the Middle East. And with the global financial crisis in full swing, few saw the Middle East as a top US priority. Then Obama phoned Mahmoud Abbas, his first ever call to a foreign leader. And he talked to Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and other Arab leaders to drive home the point that the Middle East mattered. On his second day on the job, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton named a special envoy to the Middle East, as well as one for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Memorable, too, was the star status given to the new envoys, who were toasted at a special ceremony in the Department of State, a sign that their missions were forcefully backed by Obama and Clinton. In the speeches made on that occasion, I wish to call your attention to the following: First, the secretary of state spoke of a "new era" of US foreign policy, totally in keeping with the message of change that brought Obama to the White House. That Clinton used this particular expression at an event concerning the Middle East is rather significant, for it is a sign that the US administration intends to deal with the region differently from before. Second, Clinton said that the US will pursue a vigorous and forceful diplomacy, which means that the days of the inconclusive and belated diplomacy of the previous administrations are over. Third, the man chosen as presidential envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, may lack the regional experience of veterans such as Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk, but he is no stranger to the Middle East. In 2001, Mitchell was commissioned by Bill Clinton to submit a report on the region. In that report, he called for a halt in settlement building and chastised Sharon for provoking Palestinians at Al-Aqsa Mosque. Mitchell is the man who brought peace to Northern Ireland. Fourth, Obama did his best to stay even-handed on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, asserting the need to protect Israel's security while voicing sympathy with the Palestinians. He said that the Gaza crisis was heart-rending and called for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. Fifth, the US president made reference to the Arab peace initiative, noting that it has merits. However, he called on Arab countries to normalise ties with Israel without referring to Israel's withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories. Sixth, Obama pointed out that the US role is not confined to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict but extends to the Arab-Israeli conflict, which means that Syria and the Golan are back in business. Finally, the US president commended the Egyptian role in mediating a ceasefire, saying that he expected Egypt to continue playing this role and give support to the Palestinian Authority. He also lauded Jordanian efforts in this regard. Although these are all positive signs, we need to remain cautious. Anyone who has been following the peace process knows that a long line of US negotiators made it to the region and left with little to show for their effort. The only explanation for this is that the Israelis refused to budge, and that the Americans were too eager to placate them. What the Middle East needs is not new envoys, but a new policy. The Obama administration will support Israel, but it must not support Israel's expansion and settlement building. At some point, the US administration will have to come out and state clearly its views on a final peace deal. Obama needs to make it clear that the US will not condone Israel's occupation of the West Bank and doesn't approve of Israel keeping any settlements there. Unless Obama gets firm with Israel, Washington will have no chance of regaining its position as a primary mediator in the conflict. Perhaps this is the reason Mitchell sounded pessimistic when he met Israeli politicians, including Benyamin Netanyahu, the frontrunner for prime minister. Mitchell, who said that the situation was "hard and complex", is expected to visit the region regularly in search of a breakthrough. As for the Islamic world, the signs are encouraging. Obama made favourable remarks about the Islamic world and US-Muslim relations in his inaugural speech. Obama reaffirmed mutual interests and respect in a later interview with an Arab television channel. But it is hard to be optimistic yet. The Islamic world has no problem with the US. On the contrary, most Muslim societies have nothing but admiration for US culture and values. The problem is that US policy on various conflicts in the Islamic world leaves much to be desired. And until a change takes place, Obama's promises will remain mere rhetoric. * The writer is executive director of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs.
