Obama's historic win enchants the commentators and provides a golden opportunity for Arab introspection "Obama ends the white man's monopoly over power in the United States," declared the Lebanese writer Selim Nassar. Writing in the London-based pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat, Nassar was characteristic of the Arab commentators' fascination with the magnitude of what President-elect Barack Obama achieved upon becoming the first black man to attain America's and the world's top job when he takes office on 20 January 2009. In the view of a majority of Arab pundits, Obama's triumph was abundant proof of America's flexible political system. When Obama was born in 1961, many American states politically disfranchised blacks, systematically segregated African Americans, and banned mixed-race marital unions and institutionalised racism. Still, it was Obama's political acumen that intrigued the pundits the most. Nassar notes that Obama is a realist and an exceptionally shrewd politician. "After he was elected president, Barack Obama declared that the heavy-handed measures that he intends to implement would not necessarily bear fruit within two years. Indeed, he hinted that they might need a second term in office to bear fruition. This would especially be the case if the financial crisis is exacerbated or if plans for a face-saving evacuation of Iraq fail," Nassar warns. The question uppermost in Arab pundits' minds was how Obama's victory could be translated into Arab gain. Writing in Al-Hayat, Arfan Nizameddin reviewed the chances of the Arabs of gaining advantages in a fast-changing era. "It is true that changes in the US presidency rarely resulted in radical political shifts, and that any US president is restricted by forces that pressure, especially the Zionist influences. Nevertheless, the time is ripe for a change in perspective," the writer observed. Nizameddin concluded that the Arab people pin much hope on the ability of their leaders to make use of these changes and the golden opportunity they offer Arabs to advance their interests. However, he also expressed fears that the Arabs will fail to make good use of this historic opportunity. On a rather different note, "Islamist movements consider the triumph of Barack Obama as their own victory," Elias Harfoush wrote in Al-Hayat. Along the same lines, and also writing in Al-Hayat, Ghassan Cherbel argued that "the world awaits Obama's choices. His choices will determine whether it is possible to remedy the divisions in American-Russian relations and restore cooperation between the [two major] powers. Obama's choices will also determine the shape of American-European relations, given that they suffered from the wrongs committed by the Bush administration. "His choices will also outline the future of disagreement with Iran and the future of Iraq, dialogue with Syria, the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, and the future of Lebanon," Cherbel concluded. Indeed, foreign policy concerns might prove to be Obama's Achilles heel. Still, Emad Abdel-Razeq, writing in the London-based pan-Arab daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi epitomised the upbeat tenor of most Arab commentators. "America overcomes itself and its prejudices. America is the land where everything is possible," Abdel-Razeq pronounced with barely concealed exuberance. "America is it." Tawfiq Al-Seif, writing in the Saudi daily Okaz, could not agree more. "The fact that Obama managed to make it to the White House is yet more proof of the virtue of political liberalism," the Saudi pundit pontificated. "America did not become the world's greatest country because it is the richest and the most advanced in science. The reality is that America is the richest and most advanced country precisely because it believes in equality and liberty, freedom of expression and equal opportunities. This is the lesson to those who are pessimistic about peaceful resistance, those who harbour reservations concerning American liberalism, those who have grave doubts about its efficacy. They should lay these negative sentiments to rest," Al-Seif declared. Well, enough of the America mania. It is rare when a newspaper in one Arab country vehemently defends the official stance of another. The United Arab Emirates daily Al-Bayan was sympathetic to Syria's position vis-à-vis the intensified pressure on Syria to mend fences with Israel. The Syrians have, so far, proved most reluctant to acquiesce to Israel's uncompromising demands. "Two months after the postponement of the fifth round of secret negotiations between Syria and Israel, the patience of the Syrians is fast running out," Al-Bayan noted. Damascus is as determined as ever to stand its ground. "Syria does not need to give Israel proof of its peaceful intentions and is certainly not prepared to give any more concessions to Israel," the paper made clear. And, last but not least, was commentary about this week's Quartet meeting in the Red Sea resort of Sharm El-Sheikh. Writing in Al-Hayat, Dawoud Al-Shorian dubbed as "a fruitless and archival effort after the American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced that it would leave all what the two [Palestinian and Israeli] sides have agreed upon to the coming American administration to decide." The writer added, "there is keenness on the part of some Arabs to attend peace meetings, though they prove to be failures." He also noted that "peace manoeuvres seem to have become an alternative for some Arabs to [military] struggle. In the past, some Arab regimes used the Palestinian cause as a cover to excuse their failings in domestic affairs and the rights of their citizens. They committed political, social, and economic transgressions under the slogan of liberating Palestine. Today, some Arab regimes are following the same path in the name of peace." The writer concluded that "begging peace will not regain occupied Arab territories, and will squander the right of return of the Palestinians."
