Davos-Shortly before the official opening of the World Economic Forum in Davos, around two hundred men and women from the elite of the fields of business, politics, economics and media participated in a brainstorming workshop over what could bring the world to a better situation and over what the priorities and the challenges are. The main headlines resulting from the workshop have revealed broad interest in water and oceans, in air, in human rights, in knowledge, in good management and wise governance, in the internet and in security. Absent from among the priorities are matters that have preoccupied the world such as terrorism, the Arab-Israeli conflict, Africa's crises, nuclear weapons with regard to both Iran and North Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan and others. This does not mean that interest in these issues has subsided completely, knowing that the suggestions and recommendations put forth by some of the participants at the workshop fall under demanding solutions for difficult crises, instead of the methods of “managing crises” and “negotiating for the sake of negotiating”, making the process of negotiating itself an innovative method for procrastinating and eluding solutions. Some also fall under granting “justice” and “ending impunity” proper standing, for there to truly be wise government. The workshop also addressed the necessity of “boldness” to put forth new ideas that would challenge the hegemony of old ideas, such as the movement of the new Jewish organization J-Street to challenge the Israeli lobby firmly established in its blind loyalty to the Israeli government, AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), which imposes the agenda it seeks on the US President by using various means, including the US Congress. Nevertheless, as a general rule, these issues remained restricted to the interest of few in Davos this year, as the World Economic Forum on the fortieth anniversary of its founding has seemed as if returning to focus on what is its main task: economics. Thus, political issues, of various kinds and of various regions, have subsided, with the exception of the political impact on economic and financial matters. More prominent was interest in the future of economic growth, its challenges, the obstacles that face it and how it reflects on the relationship between developing countries and industrial countries. There was also some discussion over the “old age of Europe” and over the future of the presidency of Barack Obama, absent yet ever-present in Davos. Businessmen discussed what has happened to the Sovereign Wealth Funds of Arab Gulf countries and how they had succeeded at bearing the burden of the West's mistakes in mismanaging its economy. There were also those who focused on their concerns on the basis of understanding the challenges of tomorrow, particularly the role of the youth in shaping the new world which the World Economic Forum has called for, by focusing on the priority of “values” in order to “improve the state of the world” through “rethinking, redesigning and rebuilding”. Certainly, there were in Davos those who took an interest in the Middle East. In fact, there were those who felt danger at the receding interest in the Middle East and who considered that reducing the issue of Palestine from a political issue to a humanitarian one was “ominous”. Sideline meetings addressed the activity of US Envoy Senator George Mitchell and his latest ideas over conducting “convergence talks” between Palestinians and Israelis at the ministerial level. One Arab participant, a high-ranking official, said that the principle of convergence talks is not unacceptable as long as they take place without excluding Jerusalem and within a limited timeframe, so as not to have negotiations merely for the sake of negotiating. Indeed, the Palestinian side can head to convergence talks with its stances and ideas, as well as with the Arab peace initiative, being the most comprehensive and complete Arab offer for peace between the Arabs and Israel. Enticement in Israeli trust-building measures, such as removing some checkpoints or releasing some prisoners, is not enough to entice if the preconditions of talks are incapacitating. Thus Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has managed to acrobatically “score points” in the media, by claiming that the Palestinian side is refusing to negotiate, while the whole world knows that the reason for this is Netanyahu's insistence on moving forward with the construction of illegal settlements, blatantly ignoring Israel's duties and commitments as per various agreements and UN resolutions. Such points remain superficial as long as Israel is unable to shake off its characterization as a state established by occupation for the longest period of time in the age we live in, and as long as the likes of Netanyahu hide behind a finger while pretending that the points they have scored are achievements. The fact of the matter is that Israel is isolated in terms of legitimacy, in terms of values and in terms of ethics. Indeed, Israel is the one challenging international law and international humanitarian law, purposely targeting civilians and committing “war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity” the same as Hamas, as per the report of the Human Rights Council headed by Judge Richard Goldstone. The mere fact of Israel publishing the “report” of an internal “investigation” refuting the charge is nothing but another investment in Israel's isolation. All this does not mean that the way the Arabs or the Palestinians are dealing with the current situation is useful in any way. Indeed, it is not in the interest of the Arabs to leave the calculated impression, adopted by Netanyahu with the support of the Israeli lobby, that it is the Palestinian side that is refusing to negotiate. Nor is it in the interest of the Arabs to insult the US Administration and to reject its attempts, because it failed to stop Israeli settlement-building. Responding to this, Secretary-General of the League of Arab States Amr Moussa, for example, considered that “as long as we are losing, let us lose in a respectable and dignified manner instead of appearing to beg. As long as we are losing in the end, let us avoid appearing as people who are not respectable”. This kind of discussion is exactly what is taking place in the sessions, hallways and parties of Davos, where participants exchange views, not just by diagnosing problems but also by putting forth scenarios of how to deal with them and how to reach solutions, while respecting differences of opinion. And such talk is not just about the Middle East. US President Barack Obama, for example, was the object of many discussions in Davos, especially as he was giving his State of the Union address in Washington. Former President Bill Clinton stood for hours talking to those attending his reception, providing his intelligent opinion on diverse issues, from Haiti – which he is currently focused on as the UN Secretary-General's envoy to Haiti – through the financial crisis, the future of Africa and the challenges of the Middle East, up to the situation faced by Barack Obama today. Clinton is of the opinion that Obama is qualified to be a better president than he was, and that what Obama should do is persevere, but in a different style, where he would stop giving speeches and start engaging in discussions in which he would explain what he is doing to the American people and the world. In his opinion, there is a phase in people's lives – leaders included – when new, indirect training overcomes the old training resulting from an experience that has become indissociable from the person. The bottom line is that adaptation is a need that can be made use of, instead of being viewed as a burden and a phase that must be overcome. The world is observing Barack Obama, and everyone in Davos is talking about 2010 as a year of the utmost importance for the future of Obama the man and Obama the administration, as for the future of the world's relationship with Obama and with the United States. Many spoke of the decisions which Obama is bound to take this year because they are decisive and dangerous, stretching from Iran to Afghanistan to Iraq and the Middle East, as are those concerning the economy at the domestic level, healthcare, and whether Barack Obama will take the decision to start behaving like the President of the United States of America, rather than like the leader of the Democratic Party. Indeed, the prevalent trend is that of judging Obama to have failed in his first year to translate his promises into facts, both at the domestic level and in foreign affairs. Some view the defeat of the Democratic Party in Massachusetts, Virginia and New Jersey as a defeat for Obama, while eyeing the next midterm elections to judge whether Obama will pay the price or whether he will be able to give the US a prominent leading role that would affect the world. These kinds of discussions in Davos are not random and stylistic, but rather fall under the in-depth interpretation of those who have the funds and the investments of the direction taken by the economic compass, and of how the relationship between developing countries that have imposed themselves on the global economy – such as China, India and Brazil – and the West – including the United States, Europe and Japan – will be reflected, to say to them, in the words of one financial expert: “you are the ones who got us in this predicament”. Indeed, those who have the money and the investments are observing the nature of this relationship and how it will develop, especially as some of them consider that the “old age of Europe” has made it lose its economic and political role. What is meant by old age is that Europe has begun to age as a group of countries through its institutions, and that such loss of its role is affecting the West's economic growth. This implies the necessity of monitoring the relationship between the countries of the West and the East, and how this will reflect, for example, on how to deal with Iran. Iran, absent from the Davos programs, was also absent in terms of the presence of its businessmen at the World Economic Forum, unlike the presence of Arab businessmen and businesswomen who sought to make serious contributions to the forum's agenda. Bassem Awadallah, former Jordanian Finance Minister and a main driving force behind the World Economic Forum being held in the Middle East, starting from the Dead Sea, focused on the element of youth, describing it as “the main instrument of change in the Arab World and an opportunity that should not be missed”. He said that “88 percent of the participants in Davos are men, the overwhelming majority of them from the older generation, while 75 percent of people in the world are below the age of 27 and are not represented in Davos as they should be”. According to Awadallah, a higher percentage of young people in the Arab World use the internet than in the West, and this indicates that there are Arab youths who aspire to communicate, advance and evolve, and who feel that they are a part of the wider world, not part of the restrictions imposed, and will in fact impose themselves on restrictions and regimes. Thus Arab youth will have the greater impact. In his opinion, after the issue of Sovereign Wealth Funds had dominated discussions in Davos over the past two years, and after “the Arab region came out of the bottleneck of the financial crisis at minimum cost, especially when it comes to Sovereign Wealth Funds”, the time has come for forward thinking, particularly regarding the massive demographic change that will bring a completely different generation that will manage and run the world through new media. It is a generation that deserves a brainstorming workshop like the one that concluded that tomorrow's world will be better off if it preoccupies itself with water, air, knowledge and wise governance.
