Three Middle East hot spots are thawing, no thanks to Washington, writes Rasha Saad In the London-based Asharq Al-Awsat, Bouthaina Shaaban quoted an article in The New York Times written by Hussein Agha and Robert Malley in which they discussed the eventual thawing of three crises in the Middle East, without virtually the help, or even the presence, of the United States. The writers referred to the Doha agreement regarding Lebanon, and to Egypt's effort with regard to Gaza, and to the enunciation of the Israeli- Syrian peace negotiations sponsored by Turkey. The writers, said Shaaban, considered this a clear indication that with an intent to isolate its foes, the United States has instead ended up marginalising itself. They read major events in the Middle East as proof of the degeneration of the credibility of the United States. Shaaban added that soon after that, we all listened to American presidential candidates speaking to AIPAC and totally ignoring the Arabs and their rights, lands and future. The next big item in the news in the Middle East was the so-called security agreement between the United States and Iraq which will ensure that Iraq remains under the thumb of the Americans for a hundred years to come. According to Shaaban, all these subsequent events prove that the Arabs "have no place in the dictionary of American foreign policy. Rather, they further prove that American politicians are prepared to do whatever it takes in order to ensure that Israel has the upper hand in the region no matter how many and ugly crimes it perpetrates against the Arabs and their children. "The Arabs possess the essential factors of their own strength, and they are the only ones who can change the course of events in favour of their historic rights. That is to say, the keys of their problems are in their own pockets, and not across the Atlantic," Shaaban concludes. Also commenting on Barack Obama's speech at AIPAC Abdel-Rahman Al-Rashed wrote in Asharq Al-Awsat that even the Israelis cannot believe the promises which Barack Hussein Obama, the US Democratic presidential candidate, made to them and the affection he displayed. Al-Rashed quoted Ophir Pines-Paz, an Israeli Labour Knesset member, in an article in Maariv titled "I respect him but have doubts about him". According to Al-Rashed, the Israelis have doubts about Obama because he told them more than they had sought to hear. In his article Al-Rashed tries to analyse why Obama poured lavish promises and sweet talk on Israel which none of the former US presidents had done. According to Al-Rashed, even if Ismail Haniyeh, the Palestinian Hamas leader, himself ran for the US elections, he would do the same as Obama did. He explains that no one who aspires to the US presidential post can ignore the important Jewish vote in the elections, particularly in the decisive states, nor reject the funds necessary for an election campaign and its success. We, argues Al-Rashed, cannot blame Obama for supporting the US stand [on Israel], although we are right to be surprised and shocked. Al-Rashed adds that some might say that Obama introduced himself as a man of principle, so why should he side with one party against another, particularly when the other is unjust and an occupier of others' land? "The answer requires an understanding of both the nature of the US political system and personal motives. Obama does not represent only himself; he is responsible for the Democratic candidates in the general congressional elections and on the level of states and governors. If he loses, he will not be alone; he may cause the Democratic ship to sink," wrote Al-Rashed. In an article in the London-based Al-Hayat entitled "American ideals" Mustafa Zein referred to a study published in the recent issue of Foreign Affairs by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called "Rethinking the national interest: American realism in a New World". In the study Rice, wrote Zein, affirms the incompatibility between interest and democratic values. Rice says that a "marriage of convenience" does not conflict with this interest, acknowledging at the same time a conflict between the two, but one that is fleeting. "But what about the interests and ideals of others? What about the US stand against these interests? What about its aborting, with its 'friends', all of the attempts to end authoritarianism and build democracy?" asks Zein. These questions, argues Zein, did not occur to Rice when she was writing her quasi-academic piece, for many reasons. According to Zein, perhaps the most important is the Americans' failure to acknowledge the histories of other peoples. There is also, Zein adds, the arrogant view of these peoples, who must serve the interests of Washington, even when they are opposed to their own interests. This cannot be hidden, whether the language is biblical -- talking about "God's chosen people," world peace, vision and "inspiration from heaven" according to Bush's beliefs -- or academic, as in Rice's article. Zein also points out that linking ideals and interests has failed and reality has won out, with all of its contradictions. He explains that it is a reality that confirms the US is in pursuit of its interests, and those of Israel, by dividing Iraq into sectarian cantons that might decades later "democratically" make peace with each other, by setting half of Lebanon against the other half in the run-up to a civil war, and by pitting Syrians against Syrians and Iranians against Iranians. "It involves creating explosive areas so that terror can surface and be fought, or approved of and supported, if this serves the country's interest," Zein charges. For Raghida Dergham, also in Al-Hayat, ordinary Americans will show no interest in the details that preoccupy ordinary Arabs. They have no interest in understanding the details of the bilateral security treaty with Iraq because this is a matter that concerns the administration and the Congress. Neither are they interested in scrutinising the implications of the Grand Bargain, if it materialises, with the Iranian regime. "Details are too much of a hassle for the American individual, unlike the Arab who digs too deep into the details to the point of missing the big picture." Occasionally, however, not always. "Arabs dwell on American elections, not for entertainment, but in aspiration, fear or desire for change, just as the majority of Americans do but for different reasons although the starting point is common, namely the war in Iraq and its impact on American and Arab public opinion alike," wrote Dergham.
