Will real 'change' come to Palestine?

The overwhelming victory achieved by Barack Obama, the first African-American presidential candidate, has raised many important questions.

First among these is whether he will be able to live up to his promise and bring about quick and dramatic changes in US foreign policy.

Obama was elected because he promised the American people change. This platform made him immensely popular because change was what the people were looking for in a time of crisis. The promise of change was effective not only because it clearly distinguished Obama the Democrat from his Republican rival Senator John McCain - who was likely to serve up more of the same - but also because it meant different things to different people.

To African Americans it meant an end to years of persecution and second-class citizenship. But to other Americans, it meant a clean break with the Bush administration that had over eight years shaken the country's pre-eminent position in the world and battered the economy.

Obama, it must be said, is not a traditional American president. The son of a Kenyan Muslim, he does not belong - in any way - to the traditional ruling elite; namely the white Anglo-Saxon protestants.

The financial crisis that is playing havoc with the US economy played a significant role in seeing Obama elected because it gave his call for change a concrete meaning. Before the crisis really took hold, there was little to separate Obama and McCain in public opinion polls. But once it became apparent that the economy was in serious danger, Obama pulled out a significant lead.

According to Scot Reed, a Republican consultant, the financial crisis "reconstructed the presidential rivalry, placing McCain in a straight defensive position. Had it been a motorcar rally, one can see the financial crisis as a puncture in McCain's car tyre that he couldn't repair."

Vote of no confidence

The economic crisis and the Republican presidential candidate's links with the Bush administration that inevitably had to shoulder some of the blame for it made the American people lose confidence in McCain. After the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Bank, the fourth-largest American bank, McCain had no other comment to make other than to say that "the American economy is still strong." This came at a time when panic had already struck.

How, then, will Obama lead a nation facing an international crisis? Not since the fall of the Soviet Union before the end of the 20th century has the US faced a hurdle of this magnitude. Obama is bound to be severely impeded in his efforts to address the problem by the fact that he has inherited three wars: two very real ones in Iraq and Afghanistan and one in the American imagination, namely the "war against terrorism." Consequently, his ability to introduce fundamental change will be restricted.

Problems

Other problems facing Obama include the alienation of traditional allies, the trillion-dollar deficit, the fact that the previous president spent about $10 trillion that the government didn't have and Iran's nuclear ambitions and increased influence in the Middle East.

With reference to the Arab-Israeli struggle, one of the major problems facing the US in the Middle East, it will be difficult to realise the two-state solution that the Bush administration had been committed to. It is also a fact that the US position on Palestine is known to change over time in keeping with developments on the ground and American interests.

Speaking to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in March 2007 and again after his election, Obama has stated that "[occupied] Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided."

In light of all this, what Offerpince Baz has said of the US president elect bears repeating:

"Obama's speech at AIPAC made me feel uncomfortable. One can claim that he had made a rhetorically passionate Zionist speech that, had Herzl himself been there, he would have felt ashamed that he had not said something similar.

Worrying

"What worries me in Obama's speech is the over-enthusiasm to placate the public. I'm afraid that whoever talks to AIPAC representatives in such enthusiasm on the eve of the elections, will have two worrying alternatives: either Obama tells his audience what they like to hear, perhaps a bit more, which means that he may say to our enemies what they like to hear, or he will, after being elected, continue the same trend and do, like the present president, what the Israeli right-wing likes to be done, namely freezing the peace process and destroying the chance for peace."

Needless to say that Israel and the Zionist lobby in the US know the inherent "dangers" of a president being elected on a promise of change. This is why they will surely try to blackmail, pressurise and cajole him into proving his good intentions towards Israel and the world Jewry.

The central question now is whether he will be successful in applying his platform of change in dealing with Israel, and to what degree?

Dr As'ad Abdul Rahman is the chairman of the Palestinian Encyclopedia.