In a speech addressed to the Middle East and North Africa, President Barack Obama launched his electoral campaign for the year 2012, making use of the eloquence well-known of him on such occasions. He avoided criticizing friends, and tried to win over the revolutionaries in Egypt and Tunisia, promising the new governments a great deal of support in order to help them overcome the many crises produced by the tyrants who have fallen, and in order to keep their successors under Washington's wing, owing to its support their remaining in the seat of power, implementing American programs in the economy, in politics and in democracy, and increasingly tying their interests to those of Washington, exactly as it had been in the past. The image conveyed by Sadat, and after him Mubarak, was that US aid would save Egypt, but instead it drowned it in economic chaos it had not known in its entire history. Obama the rebel in the Middle East did not suffice himself with supporting the revolutionaries in Egypt and Tunisia, and with destroying Libya under the pretext of protecting its people, but in fact went further than this to satisfy his voters. He asked President Bashar Al-Assad to lead the reform or leave. His Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had earlier laid down conditions that Assad should implement for stability to prevail in his country. The most important of these conditions: abandoning Hamas and Hezbollah, breaking his alliance with Iran, and seriously seeking peace with Israel. Doubtless the attacks against Damascus, Libya and Iran will have an echo among American electoral blocs, among them those of Christian extremists, as well as those who believe in the role played by the United States in spreading American values in the world. Nevertheless, it is the stance on Israel that remains the ultimate nexus of American elections. Any candidate to the Presidency must reiterate their resolve to keep the Hebrew State superior to all of its neighbors, and must swear to this before AIPAC, reminding of the values shared between the two countries – values rooted, according to every candidate and to major intellectuals, in Judeo-Christian culture. Obama did not fall short of taking such a “pledge”. He asserted his firm commitment to Israel's security and denounced “symbolic actions to isolate [it] at the United Nations”. He also said that he would stand against any move to recognize the Palestinian state at the UN. It is true that he recognized the Palestinians' right to establish a state within the 1967 borders, but he asked them to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, refusing to exert any pressure on it, turning his words into a mere slogan that cannot be implemented. He has experienced this many times over the past two years, when he was confronted with Israel's absolute refusal to discuss the issue of settlements. His Envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, was also forced to resign his task. And one should not forget that the most important of his credentials is the killing of Bin Laden, and his call to Muslims to reconcile with the West. Obama presented his electoral statement on the Middle East. He distributed tasks among peoples and rulers. He rewarded some and threatened others. He must now present his statement on the American interior. His first test will take place during his meeting with Israel's Prime Minister, before appearing before AIPAC to gain additional consent. The Republicans have begun to outbid him in their love for and embrace of the Hebrew State, and we will be witnessing a great deal of maneuvering between candidates centered on Israel.
