Daily Times

When enquired about Barack Obama’s recent trip to the Middle East, most Palestinians will probably reply that they would have been better off without it. The general feeling among Palestinians is that they were let down…again. Palestinians hoped that Mr Obama would persuade the Israelis into imposing a freeze on settlements so that peace talks could be resumed. They also anticipated freedom for Palestinian prisoners as well as a clear and concise schedule for positive conclusion of peace discussions between the two sides.

None of these wishes came true. In fact, contrary to Palestinian aspirations, Mr Obama took a U-turn from his oft-repeated policy of bringing settlement activities to a halt. In Ramallah, the president boldly announced to the media that the Palestinian condition of a settlement freeze for restarting talks may not be realistic. Moreover, Mr Obama called Israel “the historic homeland of Jewish people”. The remark left Palestinians with little more than their pride.

When the White House announced plans for Mr Obama’s trip to the Middle East, it was widely anticipated that the president has finally taken it upon himself to devise a formula that will bring Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table. It is now evident that Mr Obama came to the region for a completely different set of reasons. The main reason seems to be his eagerness to confirm to the Israelis, and the Israeli lobby back home that he, like his predecessors, is a loyal supporter of Israel. Barack Obama not only succeeded in achieving this objective but also got ahead of himself by becoming the first US president to visit Theodor Herzl’s grave.

The only spoiler of the otherwise perfect trip transpired in the form of Rabeea Eid, a Palestinian audience member, who invoked the memory of Rachel Corrie during Mr Obama’s speech in Jerusalem. Corrie was an American peace activist who was crushed to death by an armed Israeli bulldozer in Rafah on March 16, 2003. The president, determined not to be moved by such a nuisance, hailed the episode as an example of the lively debate that was allowed in the state of Israel. The implication being that such a debate was not allowed in Israel’s Arab neighbours. The crowd went into a frenzy as Ms Eid was dragged out of the hall. There was, of course, no mention of Corrie during the rest of the speech and thereafter. So much for the lively debate!

America’s Middle East policy is viewed by the majority of the people in the region as heavily tilted in Isarel’s favour. However, it is also widely accepted that the US commands immense influence in the region and a statement from the US president or the White House has the potential to affect not only the incumbent governments but also the very lives of ordinary people. That is why in 2009, Mr Obama’s speech in Cairo University was interpreted as a sign of possible change in America’s policy towards the Arabs in general, and Palestinians in particular.

These hopes were quickly decimated in the wake of the Arab Spring when, in the initial stage of the revolt, the US was visibly reluctant to support popular anti-government protests. Whatever support came from the US in the later stages was selective, verbal and lacked concrete resolve, leaving the Arab street to wonder if the US could still play a decisive role in the region.

President Obama’s tour received wide media coverage in the US, and his performance was praised as a daring attempt to revive the peace process. Palestinians, however, saw it quite differently. Most of them described Mr Obama’s discourse as ineffectual and hopeless.

For the sake of fairness, it must also be acknowledged that President Obama did present a few bitter truths to the Israeli audience. He declared that Palestinians deserved justice, an implicit acknowledgement from the top US official that Palestinians were, in fact, unjustly treated in their own land.

Following the president’s visit, the US announced that it will provide aid of $ 500 million to the Palestinian Authority, which had previously been withheld by the administration. Taking the cue, Israel also announced resumption of tax revenues to the Palestinians. The money will translate into immediate easing of economic hardship for Palestinians.

Barack Obama also played an important role in bringing Israel and Turkey together. Relations between the countries were severely strained after the bloody raid on a Turkish flotilla in 2010.

Another interesting aspect of the presidential visit, and perhaps the most important one, is Mr Obama’s re-tuning of his relationship with the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Conventional wisdom compels us to think that better relations between the US and Israel will not bode well for the Palestinians. However, during the past two years, tension between the two countries and personal animosity between Mr Netanyahu and Mr Obama did nothing to further the Palestinian cause. Better relations between the US and Israel may produce some kind of agreement for the end of occupation. This, however, remains to be seen.

There is little doubt that Barack Obama, during his first term, tried to distance himself from Israel in order to win the Arab street. To an extent, he was successful in this endeavour. The recent visit suggests, at least on the face of it, that he might be returning to the usual stance of his predecessors in order to win over the powerful Israeli lobby whose support is vital for promoting domestic reforms. He must, however, keep in mind that the Middle East is going through a fundamental transformation and the emerging order in the region may not be as tolerant and forgiving of US transgression on Arab interests, as the one that preceded it.

The writer is an investment banker and a freelance columnist for various publications. He can be reached at syedatifshamim@hotmail.com