Palestine Now: Mahmoud Abbas, Barack Obama, and the Upcoming Israeli vote (Israeli 2013 Election Coverage, 2)

Over a year ago, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas attempted to have Palestine recognized as a full member state of the United Nations; unfortunately, the Americans vetoed this, causing many to lose hope in US President Barack Obama. A little over a year later, Abbas is planning to go back to the UN to rally up support in the General Assembly for a vote on recognizing Palestine as a non-member state. While many Palestinians have lost faith in Abbas, with time, he has shown that he is dedicated to see a Palestinian state established in the shortest time possible.

For many Palestinians, Mahmoud Abbas has betrayed them; two weeks ago, he appeared on Israeli channel two, and declared in Arabic and English that he believed in the two-state solution, and has no aspiration to return to live in Safad (Tzefat), his birthplace which is located in the northern Israel.  He declared that for him, Palestine is the West Bank and Gaza strip, with Jerusalem as its capital (shared with Israel).  This contradicts the will of many Palestinians who believe in the right of return to historical Palestine, to the lands that they lived on before the 1948 Nakbah. 

Realistically speaking, I think we all know that for now the Right of Return is not on the agenda; and if so, it would be for a limited number of people negotiated under a settlement. In any case, we are so far from a settlement that under the circumstances, those who oppose Abbas should reassess their stance. More than any other Palestinian politician, Abbas has systematically demonstrated that he is dedicated to peace and a struggle which is achieved through diplomacy. I would argue that he has made serious progress at placing Palestine on the agenda. Now that Obama has won a second term, Abbas can safely brush off Israeli claims that he is at fault for not making progress towards a peace agreement.   

Over the last almost four years, Israeli PM Netanyahu and his very undiplomatic Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, have demonstrated over and over again that they are not interested in peace (for more on Netanyahu/Lieberman and elections, click here).  While the Iranian threat is real, Netanyahu has used it as a way to divert attention from the Israeli occupation and the continued colonization of Palestinian lands. Furthermore, Lieberman has not missed an opportunity to try to delegitimize Abbas and the Palestinian authority. More recently, Israel is threatening the Palestinian authority that if they go to the UN for recognition, Israel will hold back revenues it owes them.    

The real test now begins for Barack Obama to push the Israeli government to either work towards a two-state solution, or accept the consequences: a shared state with Palestinians; in other words, a bi-national state. With the Israeli elections only two months away, a major speech concerning the Middle East is more important than ever, and if Obama does have something in mind, it needs to be stated even before the second inauguration. Let us not forget that concerning foreign policy, Obama has a golden opportunity to make change; not like domestic politics where his hands are tied by the Republican house, with foreign policy he is free to set the agenda on his own.  If he were to do this, the Israeli electorate would have the chance to see that the game of stalling is over and the time has come to take a major step at ending the occupation, or to bear the consequences. By doing this, Obama will place the peace process back on the agenda, breathing debate into the Israeli society concerning its future.  

Revolutions, a Film, and Obama: A Look at the recent anti-US Protest in the Middle East

Recently, news from the Middle East does not look good.  Last week, anti-American riots broke out in Egypt as the result of an obscure cheaply produced amateur film degrading Muhammad, the Muslim prophet.  Parallel to this, and seemingly not related to the film, an anti-American group of fighters (perhaps motivated by al-Qaeda) carried out a well planned attack on the American consulate in Libya, killing the US ambassador, Chris Stevens. Following the riots and the killing of the ambassador, a wave of commentary has emerged questioning whether or not the Arab uprisings, coined the Arab Spring, was “good” for the US, Europe, or even the Arabs themselves.

The fickleness demonstrated by so many concerning the Arab Spring is not new.  After the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate, Muhammad Mursi, in the Egyptian Presidential elections, some western news outlets covering the elections made it sound like it was doomed to become another Islamic Republic of Iran.  Now that Syria has fallen into a civil war, some in the world long for the days when Syrians never dared make a peep about their unhappiness with Bashar Assad’s totalitarian regime.     

If one supports, or does not support, the Arab uprisings, we all need to recognize the fact that there was no alternative to the revolutions, and we cannot turn the clock back. Revolutions happen not because one party supports one way or the other. They emerge due to deep desperation and the will of the people to make change. Yes, the Middle East has been thrown into a tumultuous and chaotic period; however, this should be expected due to the fact that for decades a tight lid was kept on their societies with their leaders ruling through coercion and corruption, losing all legitimacy in the eyes of their people. 

The short film, Innocence of Muslims, which sparked off the anti-American riots is not the source of hate for the US, only the catalyst.  While the killing of the ambassador is sad and frustrating it should not come as a surprise. The Americans are not a neutral partner in the unfolding of events and they cannot expect to remain unscathed.  The US is an integral part of the old order, which the masses rebelled against.  It was the US that propped up for years the late Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. It is the US that has not been able to pressure Israel to move towards a peace agreement and end its 45 years of the occupation of Palestinian lands.  It is the US, which invaded Iraq on false pretensions and left the country in shambles, which under their command introduced new levels of violence to the region.

For those who keep criticizing the Arab uprisings and asking if they were good for the West, don’t forget this revolution belongs to the Arab people, not to Washington, or NATO. For the US to regain the trust of the people, taking measures at damage control will not suffice, but rather a serious reassessment of the US role in the Middle East which treats the regimes as equals and not as their cronies.  In the mean time, the US will also have to bear the backlash of violence and anger that they themselves sowed. 

On the flip side of the coin, the new Arab governments have shown that they are interested in stability and retaining relations with the US.  Moreover, we can breathe a sigh of relief because until now violent protests against the US have been directed at government offices and not at its citizens who reside in these countries. 

If Obama is reelected, the US will have a golden opportunity to show the region that they are serious about change, something way beyond the reach of Mitt Romney and the Republicans.  Moreover, President Obama will have the perfect opportunity to show the world that he did not win in 2009 the Nobel Peace prize in vain. A second term will allow him to make his stamp on the future of the Middle East, hopefully, one with an independent Palestine. What is for sure, time is not on his side.