Opinions | Columnists
A worrying sign of continuity
It will be unwise for Obama to bring back the members of Clinton's Middle East team.
- By Manal Alafrangi, Opinion Editor
- Published: 23:42 November 12, 2008
At this point, the enthusiasm which was felt at the announcement of Barack Obama's US election win in the Middle East has been replaced with concern and worry following his first high-level appointment.
It can't be a good sign that the young Democrat has chosen Rahm Emanuel to be his chief of staff. Emanuel, who is known to have close ties to Israel, is a man with a package. He served as a volunteer in the Israeli army during the second Gulf War, protecting parked military trucks from Scuds.
We already know that Obama's vice-president, Joe Biden, is known to have close ties with Israel. He famously once said, "I am a Zionist. One does not need to be a Jew to be a Zionist" - as if hinting that being a Zionist has become a prerequisite for entering mainstream US politics.
Most dangerously, Biden commented, "Imagine a world without Israel. We would have to deploy so many warships and so many soldiers to the region" - as if the region is in a total state of turmoil and Israel actually plays a role in defending or protecting the US or even its interests. This is a highly-charged statement and the fact that the next US vice-president falls into this extremist category is very worrying.
This assumption that the US supports Israel because of the service it renders to it is only one interpretation of reality and it actually relates very little to considerations of the US national interest or strategic partnership. By all accounts, Israel has not been a reliable US ally in the Middle East. It has not and does not promote peace or stability in the region, being that it either instigated or took part in several wars and against several Arab states. Also, it has not stopped radical movements from developing or spreading.
The US had always been part of the Middle East peace process but progress is virtually non-existent due to its inherent bias towards the Jewish state, whether a Democrat or a Republican is sitting in the Oval Office. Essentially, it boils down to this: different administration, same Middle East and same Middle Eastern issues. There is a general sentiment in this region that it would be unwise for Obama to bring back previous members of Bill Clinton's Middle East team, a bunch who displayed extreme bias towards Israel and failed completely to advance the peace process.
'Assassinations justified'
Emanuel, who according to his father, visits Tel Aviv during most summers and speaks Hebrew semi-fluently, has been a consistent pro-Israel hardliner. And his past experiences speak for themselves.
For example, it has come to the surface that Emanuel, along with 33 other Democrats, was a signatory of a letter which criticised Bush for supporting Israel insufficiently. The letter went on to say that Israel's policy of assassinating Palestinian political leaders was justified as it was Israel's right to self-defence. Moreover, in 2006, Emanuel was one of several people who called for the cancellation of a speech to Congress by visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki. This was because Al Maliki, who is perceived in this region as an ally of the US, had criticised Israel for its war against Lebanon.
Emanuel also called the Lebanese and Palestinian governments in 2006 "totalitarian entities with militias and terrorists acting as democracies" as his way of supporting Israel's bombing of both countries, which resulted in the deaths of innocent lives. This is not the kind of language that promotes direct diplomacy.
With all this in mind, it is hoped that as chief of staff, Emanuel will be just that - using his skills to oversee the actions of the White House staff and manage the president's schedule and not to filter policy or people according to his own leanings.
During his campaign, Obama repeatedly spoke of his staunch support for the Jewish state. He once said, "My starting point when I think about the Middle East is this enormous emotional attachment and sympathy for Israel." While some contend this is campaign talk and his approach will be slightly less bias once in office, history has shown that all US presidents go out of their way to explain and reiterate their unconditional support for Israel. The question is, why should he be any different?
At the least, Obama's Chief of Staff appointment serves as a sobering reminder not to have any high expectations for actual change in this part of the world.
Your comments
All US politicians are sailing in the same boat heading for one destination when US policy on Middle East is manoeuvred. People around the world are still foolish to interpret the US meaning of the words: change, terrorism, liberty, equality, freedom, and democracy.
Ansar Ali
Ramnad,India
Posted: November 13, 2008, 10:38
It is very obvious that the US administration have to support Israelis for their existence. If this is the case, why should Obama be any different? Does he not need power and the support of Israelis to complete his office term? My strong gut feeling says that as far as the Middle East peace process is concerned, there will not be any significant changes even though things might look better in the beginning. The actions and benefits are very clear.
Mohammad Harris
Dubai,UAE
Posted: November 13, 2008, 08:41
Share this article
More from Columnists
More from Opinions
Popular in Opinions
-
Opinions
Speak Your Mind: Cyberbullying
How can we protect our children from being Cyber bullied?
Opinion Editor's choice
-
Turkey is thinking creatively
Ankara is seeking peace and reconciliation in the Middle East, but has not turned its back on the West
-
Abdullah may see crisis on horizon
Could it be that the king of Jordan dissolved parliament because he believes a regional war might be in the offing?
-
More action needed to nab murderers
Those guilty of involvement in Philippines massacre deserve the most severe penalty
