The fact that the issues of the Middle East, or rather the issues of the Arabs and their neighbors, occupied the majority of the United Nations General Assembly's work during the current session, carried many meanings. Moreover, the same could be said about American President Barack Obama's focus on these issues in his speech, namely at the level of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and about the fact that the summits and meetings held on the sidelines of the session mainly tackled the problems of the Arab world. Indeed, they started in Sudan, which is prone to become “two Sudans” and may pave the way before a third “Sudan” in Darfur. They then moved to Yemen, where the acts of violence against its legitimate and security institutions in particular are no longer limited to the different sides from the North to the South and have moved to the heart of the capital Sana'a. This is threatening with the collapse of the authority or its shift away from the confrontation of the separation and division on more than one front, thus turning Yemen back into two “Yemens” or more. These represent the most eloquent sign for the fact that the region is breeding crises threatening stability around the world, and the most eloquent sign for the fact that the Arab regime is unable to handle its crises and has surrendered their management which has become fully controlled by the others. President Obama called on the international community to assume its responsibilities and resolve the Palestinian issue, although America is the only side managing the negotiations or playing the role of a mediator. Before that, his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not hesitate to warn that this was the last chance to achieve peace. Moreover, the American president did not forget to urge the Arabs to show some initiative toward Israel, as though what was keeping Tel Aviv from committing to the decisions of international legitimacy was the Arab stubbornness which refused to provide a “cover” for the Palestinian authority throughout the rounds… and the retreats, and was still calling for the elimination of the Hebrew state! In the meantime, all that is left of Palestine is on the brink of being swallowed up in its entirety by the ogre of the settlements! Obama previously acknowledged that he was not aware of the complexities of the Palestinian cause. Therefore, by calling on the world to help Washington achieve a breakthrough, he recognized that he might not be able to impose a settlement alone, especially on the Israeli side, which he was forced to humor on the eve of the indirect negotiations and then on the eve of the direct ones. He is seeking Europe's help, even though he knows that the latter will not be stopped by the attempts to “exclude it” along with the two other sides in the Quartet Committee, i.e. the United Nations and Russia, and has tried and is still trying to alleviate Tel Aviv's position. Obama is also well aware of the fact that the Arabs have no other choice but to “bless” the Authority's decision to proceed with the negotiations once a solution is reached for the settlements' issue, and will definitely not ask him to transfer the entire issue to the Security Council to reach an international consensus, similar to the one achieved in the face of the Iranian nuclear program, to force Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories based on the resolutions of international legitimacy. Everyone is concerned about the continuation of this round of negotiations regardless of the obstacles, in order to buy time or to avoid the worst before it is too late. What would the authority do if this round were to fail? Will it oppose a new uprising or continue building the institutions of a promised state in which the settlement expansion is proceeding? What would Netanyahu do to face the rise of the right wing led by his Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman? Can he offer Mahmud Abbas what his predecessor Ehud Olmert had offered Yasser Arafat in Camp David ten years ago? Even at the time, no settlement was reached, so does anyone around the world expect a similar agreement to be ratified that easily? Moreover, what would Obama say to the voters with the imminent Congressional midterm elections? Does anyone expect him to exert the required pressures on his strategic ally while he had retreated a few months ago before Netanyahu's arrogance and defiance? Even for those opposing the negotiations among the supporters of the “rejectionist camp,” what are the alternative options they are calling for knowing that they were all previously tested? The only alternative would be to go back to rounds of violence that will not achieve anything except enhance the positions of the hardliners on both ends, or lead to a comprehensive war which will rearrange the positions and the cards and force everyone back to the table to secure a comprehensive settlement. At the very best, the region will drown in further divisions and dismantlement. The negotiations are thus proceeding over all the files. They will last a year, which is the period set by Obama to reach an agreement and secure the establishment of the Palestinian state. The fleeing from the predicaments consequently provided the players with a year and they could use this lost time to open all the files in preparation for this event. Indeed, in parallel to the attempts to find an exit for the settlements issue to resume the current round, the contacts were suddenly renewed between Fatah and Hamas on the track toward reconciliation, while each of the two sides is trying to turn it into a tool to enhance its own position in the new formula of the Palestine Liberation Organization and in the next parliamentary elections. This is happening at a time when the goal behind this reconciliation should be to seek ways to uphold what remains of Palestine, knowing that the absence of reconciliation is not helping “Abu Mazen” in the current negotiations and will prevent him from respecting the content of the agreement if it is ever reached. In parallel to these negotiations, the Lebanese opened the file of the international tribunal looking into the assassination of Prime Minister Rafic Hariri. Hezbollah and its local and regional allies perceive this tribunal as being a “political tool” to strike the resistance and consequently weaken the “rejectionist alliance” in the region, from Gaza to Tehran going through Damascus. Therefore, they are settling for no less than its annulment, considering that its indictment will point the finger toward elements in the party and that its repercussions will automatically lead to the renewal of the campaign against its arms. Furthermore, it will intensify the siege imposed on it on the international level in order to accomplish what resolution 1701 failed to do when it closed the South Lebanon front in its face and placed Israel's northern border under international protection, and will deprive Iran of an ally positioned along the border of the Palestinian cause. Syria is also present at the level of the Palestine and Lebanon files, after the understanding in Iraq was consolidated and after reconciliation was achieved with the State of Law Coalition and its leader Nouri al-Maliki. However, at a time when the United States believes that Syria has a “major role to play at the level of regional stability and comprehensive peace” as conveyed by Hillary Clinton, why is Damascus still not playing that role? It was clear from its hosting of the resumption of the talks between Fatah and Hamas, as well as its efforts to control the limits of the political game in Lebanon based on its own conditions, that it was ready to play its role outside of the geographic border in which the United States and Europe tried to contain it during the last few years. It may have taken all it could in Iraq in the hope of taking more in Lebanon and Palestine and extending its gains beyond normal relations with Beirut. As for the Iranian nuclear file, which is the main file that imposed the opening of all these other ones in the region at once, it will return once again to the table very imminently. The American president rushed the Islamic Republic to return to the negotiations, while his Iranian counterpart Mahmud Ahmadinejad responded by calling on the European Union foreign minister, Catherine Ashton, to contact Tehran to define a date for the resumption of the talks with the five major states plus Germany. In the meantime, nothing gives the impression that any of the sides will make the concessions it would not make in the previous rounds, since Iran did not grow weaker following the intensification of the sanctions which Obama believes there are no “guarantees” for their efficiency, while Russia's relinquishing of the S-300 rockets deal did not force it to reconsider its nuclear policy. Indeed, it has realized following the ratification of the last package of sanctions that Moscow could not sacrifice its political, security and economic interests it shares with America and Europe to please its Southern neighbor. Moreover, it would be willing to use its “Iranian card” to enhance its interests with the others and might profit from the stalemate affecting the Iranian nuclear file for the longest period possible, in order to reap more benefits. Consequently, it seems that no one wants the settlement of the region's pending problems and files, although the negotiations train has already left with more than one wagon. It might not reach its final stop, but the train of wars and their daily repercussions on all the sides, from Afghanistan to Iraq and from Lebanon in 2006 to the Gaza Strip at the end of 2008 - beginning of 2009, is present and proceeding alongside the negotiations step by step. As for the rollers of war drums, they are not neglecting the exchange of scenarios, the least of which is catastrophic. They featured the occupation of parts of Lebanon as it was drawn up by an American expert, or the fall of thousands of victims as it was predicted by the military advisor of the Republic's Guide Ali Khamenei. Nothing heralds the possible dodging of such a fate, except for the growing fear of the Republic in regard to the loss of its regime, and the fear of the Americans from a different war that might erupt on more than one arena and front, at a time when they are seeking ways to exit Iraq and Afghanistan.
