Easing blockade at Gaza – a new move to besiege Israel?

How successful will the transfer to democracy go in Egypt is still a question, but changes of Egyptian stand on Arab-Israel conflict is evident. We happened to predict that more cohesive approach by Arab states on the conflict will be among outcomes of Arab spring. We have also noticed that the wind of changes on river Nile might overhaul the architecture of Middle East conflict. More precisely it might promote a value of Arab unity http://blog-abunajla.blogspot.com/2011/02/resurrection-of-new-arab-unity-can.html and revive Egyptian leadership http://blog-abunajla.blogspot.com/2011/05/arab-revolution-may-overhaul-middle.html .

Agreement that has come between Fatah and Hamas was clearest manifestation of that emerging trend. Disclosure of the US view of 1967 borders to go between two states in Palestine laid a scheme of eventual conflict resolution that has reflected some new realities in the region.  Another Egyptian step on the direction was easing Palestinian Arabs to cross the borderline at Rafah crossing station. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13581141

However the Israel government did not consider the changes of Arab world a call for everybody to change. Conventional priority of Israel stand was based on hostility with Arabs and on anti-Arab alliances.  In Egypt the Middle East policy changes have come after renewal of society challenges, and similarly in Israel we could imagine  such changes to take place also after renovation of the national political sphere. 

Consistent steps by Egypt, more clarity of the US stand, sliding of French and British policy towards recognition of unilateral announcement of Palestinian are indicators of increasing pressure on Israel. Another testing exam is the September UN General Assembly, at which the Palestinian state announcement is expected.   

Will the conflicting approaches reconcile by the time, or Palestinians take a break in ascending campaign until new presidential election in the US? Both options are valued as positive scenario that should finally lead to changes in Israeli society and government policy, unless another disastrous escalation of violence come to set back the matter to a mere confrontation and hatred that used to serve certain militarist interests, but not simple citizens.

Obama’s speech and talks with Netanyahu: no agreements, but discrepancy has been evident

The US President Obama’s anticipated address to the people and governments in Middle East was delivered on Thursday this week, the negotiations with Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu followed on the next day on Friday. The outcomes of what comes to the Palestine conflict are disappointing. Neither Arabs were happy, nor did Israel accept what we may define as evidently clearer US stand on the way to the peace in Palestine.

No return to borders before 1967 for Israel, - openly declared PM Netanyahu to disagree with basic approach sounded in President Obama’s speech. The time of US Administration release of their stand immediately before the American-Israeli summit might be seen as a pressure on Israeli government, however the final outcome was disappointing on the first view.  One can think that the US has made a step away from its traditional partnerships, both in Arab world and Israel. There was not any evident support and recognition of new opportunities within the Hamas and Fatah rapprochement achieved by Egypt facilitation, and nor open support to such and Egyptian role. And the borders suggested as before 1967 were refused by Israeli government.

However, emerging democracies in Egypt and Tunisia were promised to get substantial technical support. On the other hand a doubt of Hamas peaceful intentions was sounded and their recognition of the state of Israel was rigorously requested, which made the US stand closer on that point with Israel. Especially cautious was the part of the speech addressing other partnership in Arab world: legitimacy of Bahrain government was supported and the message was to invite establish “a dialogue”. Even Bashar Assad was invited to lead the transition, or “go out of way” nevertheless.

The balance of messages justifies that the US will most probably keep a pause and will not act rigorously to pressure for some while, presumably till the upcoming presidential election.  The speech was more of ideology and principle approach than practical interference value. And that enabled some observers to denote the expected engagement of the US will do the “leadership in passive voice”: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/05/20115209414145884.html

 Having recognized the immense role the US play in the global policy many those who seek changes might be interested to expect the second term of Obama presidency as promising more, rather than any new administration. And Obama’s speech comprised such justifications. The world has learned about what the President, who has come to change traditional policy, might make a principal approach of the US policy. In Israel powerful opposition forces did not share and openly disagreed with the Netanyahu’s response. http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=221472 . A promise of solid assistance to renovating Egypt sounded as a support of the policy trends of interim government.

Thus the months ahead to the US presidential election in 2012 is not a break, but very important time for reconsidering the traditional priorities, reviewing the principles of political vision and promoting more confidence and understanding of all actors in response to emerging trends and values of Arab resurrection movement.

What Obama has in store to tell to Arabs and Moslem world today?

When going out on my business today in the morning I have caught from BC news flash that President Obama is going to address Arab people later today. It is second appeal after the remarkable speech in Cairo almost exactly two years ago. I believe it is Egypt and their people struggle as well as their Arab brethren in other countries of Middle East who urged the leadership of the Western superpower to speak struggling people openly now after two years of no change to take place despite the slogans and promises.

Arab world since the start of the year has made a huge step forward in their way to perceive and struggle for values, which used to be assigned to characteristics of the Western democracies. The people in Middle East demonstrated that they could speak the same language and share the same priorities when building their statehood and organizing their economy and social affairs. And now a concern has come to be addressed, if their dignity and dedication to shared values that were once announced and long served as justifications for intervention into the Middle East can make a change in relationship with the West.

What can we expect in the upcoming speech?  More money to support democracy, more moral support for change - I believe, this has signs to happen. Can there be statements about changing US policy toward 1) authoritarian regimes, 2) Arab Israeli conflict – I doubt we may find any clear indication. Regarding the first point there might be some substantiation about different approaches in Libya and Egypt on one hand and Bahrain, Syria and Yemen on the other hand. And nothing essential could be told about a cry for sustainable peace and restoration of Palestinians’ rights.

Maybe the time has not come and we could wish such changes to come in the second presidency term if that might occur. However a probable manifestation of continuous dedication to build a bridge and make the people across the cultural borders working together on coherent system of values might be the additional assistance funds to be committed. It seems that still a single superpower is going to take a break but keep a pot heated for reforms and policy shifts in this misfortunate Middle East region.

Arab spring blossoms to bring new fruits of Middle East policy?

When we reflect on positivity of Arab uprisings the outcomes of Tunisian and Egyptian popular movement come to mind. Some political analysts named those outcomes a first wave of Arab revolution, denoting the developments in Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and Syria as the second: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/05/20115151582859118.html. The most important are changes that take place in Egypt – the biggest Arab country.

Positive changes that people hope to achieve and strive to, in other words, new values of Middle East policy that the Arab spring might bring, could be articulated in following points.

-          The first and most important are country reforms that would establish new democratic political institutions and accountable government after decades of corrupted authoritarian rule.

-          Accountable government would be closer to popular perceptions and expectations of regional conflict resolution. We have already seen the first fruit in the role the new Egyptian government has played in Fatah and Hamas rapprochement.

-           Revival of Egyptian leadership in Arab world. The signs of that motion are evident in the facilitation role Egypt has played between two wings of Palestinian political authorities – in the Western bank and Gaza strip.  New Egyptian government has also been critical about priorities of the US government annual assistance and rejected a USAID assistance package to rework

-          In Egypt a tradition of fair litigation and judgement of former dictatorship might be established concerning the accusations against the family of former President Mubarak

-          Free elections in September this year  might work to rehabilitate and transfer the Islamic political force into legitimate and peaceful political development factor

-          Relations with Western democracies might be established as alliance for democratic reforms and consequently enhance mutual understanding between Arab citizens and the West and improve effectiveness of assistance programs

-          Changes and streamlining of Israeli stand might occur to stop the settlement policy and promote peace negotiations and creation of the State of Palestine.

The positive scenario above described is not just a romantic dream as we can see some actual steps undertaken in that direction. The pressure on Israel has been considerably increased most evidently by changes in Arab countries directly involved in the conflict. However the critical role belongs to the US.

European allies of Washington have unequivocally referred to inevitable changes in the US policy on the way to sustainable peace for Palestine. See: http://blog-abunajla.blogspot.com/2011/02/uk-prime-minister-us-should-be.html . However the current Israel government is still keeping to previous priorities of their policy in the conflict and does not see good potential of Arab resurrection. However the traditional ties with the US might now be revisited. T

The upcoming visit of Mr Netanyahu to the US was announced as a time to discuss the whole range of relationship. Though many observers are sceptical about essential changes of the US policy within the term left to the next presidential rally, however the second eventual term might be marked with renovated US policy priorities finally after the declaration of policy change announced by Obama in Cairo at the inception of his first presidency.

Arab revolution may overhaul the Middle East conflict architecture: reshuffle of major alliances expected?

We have happened to note that Arab indignation can reshape the relations between Arabs and the West. Already in the immediate aftermath of revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt we have seen the growing divergence between Europe and the US in respect to Israeli settlements on occupied territories. David Cameron during his visit to Middle East in February made clear that the US should have more of a good will to promote the peace agreement in Arab-Israel conflict, and his statement followed shortly after the voting in UN Security Council, in which the US was actually isolated having vetoed the resolution to condemn the settlement policy of Israel. http://blog-abunajla.blogspot.com/2011/02/uk-prime-minister-us-should-be.html

Hamas and Fatah agreement announced in Cairo few days ago indicated to a renewal of former political spectrum. Egypt has now worked for strengthening of Arab stand. By no means it should be interpreted as confrontation impetus. In the contrary, we may expect the progress in peace negotiations once Europe’s backing continue to enhance. And we may see the outcomes very soon already in the course of May.

Benjamin Netanyahu is making desperate efforts to keep the affairs as they were before the Fatah and Hamas rapprochement. During his ongoing visits to European capitals he tried to reaffirm that Palestinian authorities cannot make peace both with Hamas and Israel and the agreement between them may only delay the announcement of the State of Palestine.  http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=219170

However he seems facing alarming messages in the UK and France. World media reported that Prime Minister Cameron and President Nicolas Sarkozy has made clear that if Israel did not resume peace negotiations France and the UK might consider recognition of the unilateral declaration of the  State of Palestine regardless of Israel’s disagreement. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wintour-and-watt/2011/may/04/israel-palestinian-territories?INTCMP=SRCH

The announcement of the State of Palestine is expected at the UN General Assembly in September. And how the US would approach the matter this time? It is critical term of Israel and the US special relationship. They do not seem effective to keep the US interests protected in the renewing Middle East. However the changes in the region cannot bypass Israel itself, now they seem driving the developments rather than inertia of previous political priorities.

Following his visit to Europe Mr. Netanyahu is invited to visit the US and meet President Obama on May 20.  "The leaders look forward to discussing the full range of issues of mutual interest," is said in the State Department statement.  http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?c=MID&s=TOP&i=6419144. In Israeli media concerns are sounded that President Obama may change the US track of permanent support to Israel. However there is still a strong belief that the traditional partnership is invincible - http://izrus.co.il/diasporaIL/article/2011-05-05/14175.html. 

The time and again we may figure out that the “Tahrir” (liberation) movement in Arab world will have an immense impact on regional and global policy and may mark substantial changes in traditional policy tracks and alliances. It may do, but will it do or not might come evident soon this year.

Osama bin Laden’s death de-sacralised Islamic radicalism and indicated to reshaping the Middle East policy?!

Some views and responses in the world cyber space expressed suspicions about actual death of the Al-Qaeda founder and leader. It might be interesting to see if the assumption is based on intelligence data and reflections, or inertia of human perceptions. However this is a side topic which is not supposed to be a subject of this posting. More questions and deliberations were found on the Osama bin Laden’s legacy and implications of his death on further developments of the face-off with Islamic radicalism.

Controversial opinions are in the range from a belief in weakening of international terrorism and mitigation of the contest to expected revenge attacks by more influential terrorist groups, which have actually superseded the strength of al-Qaeda. One more widely debated issue is how the US operation happened to take so long to achieve its goal? The questions are around “why” in the past and “what” in the future, but what has changed now in contesting forces and trends?

A person, who belonged to immensely rich family, who has voluntarily chosen the ascetic life of faith struggler, who challenged the superiority and declared a war against the West and the US, and who served a model for those who were mislead by their grievances and determined to violently struggle for their belief -  is dead! Who can take his place now? Hardly any Moslem radical leader can do. The ideas might have survived, but vivid embodiment has gone away.

Thousands of people in Moslem world reckoned Osama as a hero not only because they thought it was the US to be accused in disappointments of the their sense of justice and dignity but also, or mostly because they were disappointed of their governments and regimes that failed to bring the peace, establish the justice and struggle poverty elsewhere in Moslem world – oil rich and non-oil countries altogether. Those governments used to be the US allies, and two sources of grievances overlapped in eyes of marginalised and silenced masses of simple citizens.

Insurrections in Arab world have shaken authoritarian regimes. Active citizens are a power that strives to public sphere. The western allies of rulers do not seem supporting the regimes any longer but are they confident in ideas and intentions of activated new generation of reformists in Middle East? Competitive ideas are in struggle for the young brains, who are seeking to get rid of corrupted governments that bored the people decades but did not lead to dignity and prosperity. Is the Islamic radicalism as attractive option as before? The death of dedicated warrior Osama bin Laden will weaken the idea anyway whether al-Qaeda played the outstanding role in terror operations over the world, or not. However will the West regain the confidence of young Moslems depends on the progress of those issues that caused disappointments and insurrections against former allies to the West – anti-democratic regimes. And the range of those challenges is about domestic reforms and regional security and conflicts.