C for change, also for charade

TRUE to script, the new US president, Barack Obama, has sought to define the tone and tenor of his administration as markedly different from that of his immediate predecessor, George W Bush. At a lighting speed, one may say. Two days into his tenure, Obama ordered the closure of the Guantánamo Bay prison and outlawed torture and secret CIA prisons abroad in what the international media termed ‘a far-reaching overhaul of the way the United States treats al-Qaeda detainees and other terror suspects.’ Obama also named two ‘hard-nosed’ negotiators — George Mitchell and Richard Holbrooke — as special envoys in the ‘geopolitical minefields’ of the Middle East, and Afghanistan and Pakistan. Each of these moves is regarded as ‘a sharp change of course from the policies’ of Bush and a promise fulfilled from a historic campaign.
True to form, Obama has sought to temper every tough choice that he makes with his election-winning mantras of ‘change’ and ‘need’ for the US to re-establish its leadership and show to the world that ‘America’s moral example must be the bedrock and the beacon of our global leadership.’ The word ‘change’ itself is intoxicating; it inebriates even the most incorrigible cynic. It also raises hopes — invariably to unrealistic highs. And hopes do get cruelly belied. When it does, ‘change’ and ‘charade’ sound synonymous, as they must do to the Palestinians now after Obama’s speech at the US State Department on January 22 wherein he outlined his administration’s vision of peace in the Middle East.
‘Let me be clear: America is committed to Israel’s security,’ Obama said. ‘And we will always support Israel’s right to defend itself against legitimate threats.’ Then, as if as an afterthought and seemingly out of his inherent urge to coat unpleasant truths with some feel-good sound-bites, he added, ‘Now, just as the terror of rocket fire aimed at innocent Israelis is intolerable, so, too, is a future without hope for the Palestinians.’
Throughout the section of his speech where the US dwelt upon the Israel-Palestinian conflict, he sought to put forward the age-old rhetoric, pursued as recently as his immediate predecessor, George W Bush. ‘No democracy can tolerate such danger to its people, nor should the international community, and neither should the Palestinian people themselves, whose interests are only set back by acts of terror,’ he said. He mentioned the loss of life in the Gaza Strip and southern Israel at same breath, as if the extent of ‘tragic violence’ was similar, if not the same, for both sides.
Then there was the same ‘things-to-do list’ as offered by the US and the so-called international community during the Bush years: ‘Hamas must meet clear conditions: recognise Israel’s right to exist; renounce violence; and abide by past agreements.’ What Israel, in return, needs to do? ‘Complete the withdrawal of its forces from Gaza.’ And the US and its partners? ‘Support a credible anti-smuggling and interdiction regime, so that Hamas cannot rearm.’
The assessment by the Obama administration of the realities on the ground in Gaza is deliberately eschewed, to say the least. Hamas did go by the six-month ceasefire agreement; Israel did not. According to the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Centre at the Israel Intelligence Heritage and Commemoration Centre, the total number of rocket and mortar attacks went down from 245 in June to a total of 26 for July through October (quoted in Complicity in Slaughter. Gaza by Rahnuma Ahmed, New Age, January 19, 2009). The relative lull was broken by Israel on the night of November 4 when it sent a commando squad into Gaza, killing six Hamas members.
As for the damage in the Gaza war, a look at the UN estimation is enough to see through the sham of an effort by the US administration to establish a semblance of symmetry between the damage sustained by the Gazans and the Israelis. Around 20 per cent of Gaza’s entire housing stock was hit – 4,000 homes destroyed and 20,000 severely damaged. The UN estimated on January 19 that 1,314 people were killed in the conflict, including 412 children, and more than 5,000 wounded. The figures released by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights on January 21 are very similar: 1,284 Gazans killed and 4,336 wounded.
Israel also violated international conventions at will and with impunity, as it has over the years. According to international media reports, the human rights watchdog Amnesty International has started investigation into Israel’s use of white phosphorous during the 22-day assault against Hamas in the Gaza strip. White phosphorous is an incendiary weapon and bursts into flames at the slightest contact; its use in civilian areas is banned under Protocol III on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons.
Obama must be aware of these facts; he should as the president of the most powerful nation on earth. Still his iteration of the clichéd narrative that ‘Hamas is the terrorist and Israel is the victim’. It could be only construed, especially by the Palestinians and the Arab world, as the sadly familiar American duplicity. The new White House needs to recognise that it is America’s immoral example that has eaten into its global leadership over the years. On this count, Obama may be just carrying on the legacy of George W Bush and the US presidents before him.
The hopes for a change in the US policy for the Middle East with the inauguration of Obama were unrealistic in the first place. After all, Obama is the president of the US and his prime concern is to protect and promote the interest of the US above all else. Needless to say, the US interest is enmeshed with that of Israel. One thrives on the other although one may argue they need not.
Obama is spot-on when he says lasting peace ‘requires more than a long ceasefire’. However, his promise of sustaining ‘an active commitment to seek two states living side by side in peace and security’, at this point in time and, particularly, after his defining speech at the US State Department, sounds more like a ‘charade’ than a genuine commitment to ‘change’.