THE great optimism that infused the world with the arrival of Barack Obama has quickly dissipated, nowhere more acutely than when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas provided nearly unfettered access to Newsweek's Israel reporter, Dan Ephron, and unleashing caustic criticism of the US president and his once-promising but now languishing initiatives to resolve the all but intractable conflict in Palestine. Abbas expressed particular disappointment at the lack of US support for the UN resolution calling for a halt to all Israeli settlement activity. The resolution demanded that Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory,” a position Obama long supported. The resolution, Abbas said, was written using language taken directly from statements made by US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton. When the vote was taken at the Security Council, it was 14 in favor with one opposing. That one opposing vote was cast by the US, and it served to veto the resolution. In the Newsweek article, Abbas lets loose on the US envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, claiming that he did not convey messages between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Abbas also says that Obama “threatened” him that going ahead with the UN vote would result in the US Congress withholding much needed foreign aid from the struggling Palestinian territories. US officials have denied Abbas's most stringent charges – in some cases, credibly — but no one can deny the loss of faith the Arab Middle East has experienced in Obama. The president came into office promising a new approach to the region, one that would treat Arabs and, especially, Palestinians, fairly. Obama, unfortunately, has backtracked on nearly all of his policies vis-a-vis the Middle East, and his waffling on recent events in the region has not bolstered confidence that there really is a new American approach to the area's multitude of issues. Much of Obama's reluctance to follow through on his initial designs for Middle Eastern policy stem from reported complaints that his tough approach to Netanyahu lost his party votes in the mid-term elections. It may also have increased his own vulnerability in the 2012 presidential elections. If he does prevail, then, like Bill Clinton before him, he may have greater leeway to take bolder steps in dealing with the Middle East in his second term. Until then, it seems that there will only be continued dissatisfaction in this part of the world regarding his policies. It is, indeed, dismaying, but the alternative, a Republican president who would continue the heedlessly pro-Israel policies of the past, could be even worse. __
