It has become unsalable, that political merchandise which for several decades represented the mechanism of rule in Arab countries. There is no longer anyone, especially from among those who are filling Arab public squares in protest, to buy the slogans of the confrontation with Israel and of the priority of the fight against the enemy. Similarly, the calls for clinging to a wretched peace with Israel at any cost have withered, and the promotion of the policy of warding off extremists, fundamentalists and terrorists has failed to attract a new audience, with all that they involved in terms of justifying continuing to impose states of emergency and martial law. At the same time, calls for fighting infidels and their associates have also been defeated. That political merchandise has become unsalable, after Arab regimes achieved, for several decades, tremendous profit out of them, whether at the level of domestic legitimacy, of foreign relations, or of eliciting financial aid. And with their merchandise having become unsalable, the frail cover has been removed from the foreign function of those regimes, and no one in the world, including their closest allies, can any longer provide them with cover through pretexts from the past, such as fighting terrorism or partnership in peace. And it is not unindicative for France to currently rush – after the uproar raised by its President, Nicolas Sarkozy, when he entered the Elysée Palace, over engagement and its importance – to declare that those who open fire against their people lose their legitimacy. And that is the same stance taken by neighboring Turkey, which was very enthusiastic about the concept of “zero problems” and greatly invested in it. The Arab concern is now elsewhere. It now resides in the voice rising in Arab streets, calling for freedom, democracy, equality, rights and justice, for all of the Arab peoples and for the Palestinian people as well. In other words, such a concern is now closely connected to Arab citizens and their ambitions towards freedom, democracy and a decent life, not to the regimes that have ruled them with these mechanisms that oppressed them. This formula is strongly imposing itself on the US agenda, with President Barack Obama preparing to address the peoples of the Middle East in the middle of this week, after the resounding failure of his policy to resolve the Palestinian issue and to convince the Arabs of his attachment to the values they are calling for in their streets. When Obama spoke to Arabs and Muslims in the famous Cairo speech, after appointing seasoned diplomat George Mitchell as his personal Envoy for peace, the situation in the Arab World was in one place, and today it is somewhere else. A few months ago, Obama was speaking to regimes that kept the movement of their people in check, and in pace with their own interests. Today, on the other hand, the formula has changed, and he must now speak to those peoples. His voice will not be heard unless he speaks of their immediate concerns, without any complications or academic musings. Obama built his strategy on recognizing that modern values and Islam could coexist, having been essentially inspired by the Turkish model. He did this in seeking to justify the nature of the American war on terror, and to make a distinction between the relationship with Muslims, which should be a normal one, and the targeting of extremists who oppose modern values and call for hatred. And that is a concept that meets with the sought-after positive response. Yet this strategy has suffered from a fundamental flaw, represented by its double standards. Indeed, justice and rights cannot be considered separately according to political circumstances. And that is what his Envoy to the Middle East paid the price for, when he failed to apply the same standards in resolving the Palestinian issue. Indeed, justice for the peoples of the region is one and the same, and the Palestinian people are included in it. In fact, they, more than others, are in need of justice, after they have for many long decades been deprived of any rights by virtue of the Israeli occupation. No new US strategy in the region will have any power to create change – regardless of the heights reached by Obama in demanding that the interests of the Arab peoples be achieved in terms of freedom and democracy, and in condemning oppression – so long as it does not guarantee that the same standards will be applied to Israel regarding the Palestinian people. And the fate of such a strategy will be no better than that of its predecessor if it does not include achieving justice for the Palestinian people and establishing an independent state of Palestine. Yet to what extent can Obama pressure Israel to force it to implement such justice, on the eve of launching his electoral campaign for a second term?
