Journalism / Economist Debates: America as an ‘Honest Broker’? Not so fast…

This weeks Economist.com debate puts forward the following motion:

This house believes that Barack Obama’s America is now an honest broker between Israel and the Arabs.

Defending the motion is Daniel Levy, Senior Fellow and Director of the Middle East Task Force at the New America Foundation. Opposing the motion is David Frum, formerly of ‘Axis of Evil’ fame, and currently Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and Editor of NewMajority.com.

And chiming in on the motion is Jonathan Morav of PolitikME.com. Allow me to explain.

In the world of politics, an honest broker is a ‘neutral mediator’. Neutral, in turn, is defined as not being aligned with or supporting any side or position in a disagreement. I’m writing to argue that it’s America, not Barack Obama, that is incapable of attaining such a status vis-à-vie the Arab-Israeli conflict. That isn’t to say that Barack Obama is an incapable person, if his short time in office has proved anything, it’s that he is a man not incapable of much. But it is to say that there is a distinction between the personal inclinations of Barack Obama, the man, and the political considerations that Barack Obama, the President, will have to take into account.

Moreover, aside from domestic political considerations, President Obama will continue to face challenges on three other fronts in the Middle East: The continuing U.S. involvement in Iraq, Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, and an increased American effort to stabilize Afghanistan in the wake of a resurgent Taliban. The role of an honest broker is typically embodied by a disinterested party. America’s role in the Middle Eastern affairs historically has been anything but disinterested. And while Barack Obama has displayed a willingness, even an eagerness to approach the Arab-Israeli conflict with an even handedness not yet seen in the halls of power in Washington D.C., one cannot be blind to the political, military, and diplomatic realities that he has inherited from the Bush Administration. Barack Obama’s America has as big a stake in the Middle East today, than perhaps at any time in its history.

How did we get to this point? And, is it too late?

To understand today’s Middle East, the Middle East that Barack Obama inherited, is to take a closer look at the political dynamic that drove President Bush’s Presidency for the better part of eight years. Backtrack to September 11, 2001. It’s a quiet Tuesday morning in New York, and a warm, humid morning in Florida, where President Bush was reading to a classroom full of grade school children. America’s involvement in the Middle East was limited to basing rights in a number of countries and support for Israel. Iraq was still under the reign of Saddam Hussein, Afghanistan still under the spell of the Taliban, and Iran was led by a member of its reform movement, Mohammad Khatami. That mornings Washington Post headline read as: Bush ’tilt’ to Israel Provokes Arab World, Blame Falling on Palestinians. A snapshot of a moment in time, that was the Middle East as we knew it at 8:45 AM, September 11, 2001. At precisely 8:46 AM, the region changed forever.

While President Bush’s response to the attacks of 9/11 garnered initial praise, it was clear in early 2002 that the President was determined to pursue his own narrow political agenda. And this is where that saying coined by legendary former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Tip O’Neill, comes into play. All politics is local. And in President Bush’s shaping of America’s approach to Middle Eastern affairs, was it ever.

President Bush was elected on a platform of ‘Compassionate Conservativism’. It was a vague, yet catchy term, and we really didn’t know what it meant until after the attacks of 9/11. It turns out that America is a deeply Christian country, in my opinion, there is no denying that assertion. President Bush’s base, the crux of his hardcore support, was comprised of America’s Christian Evangelical population. And America’s Christian Evangelical population has a very clear cut principle when it comes to Christian America’s approach to the Middle East:

Support the Jews, and Support Israel; at any cost. As one Christian Evangelical Professor at Harvard Divinity School put it to me once: We rather you (Jewish people) have Jerusalem, than them (Muslim people).

In American politics, you are your base, and in no uncertain terms, from 2001 to 2008, George W. Bush was his base. And therein lies the problem.

Barack Obama, the man’s, base, consists of his core beliefs, that very well may align with the Palestinian cause. Barack Obama, the President’s, base, consists of all of the above and much, much more. In light of his election, America’s political, christian, right-wing finds itself in the wildnerness. But an interesting dynamic with international implications is starting to take shape. With President Obama’s tough line on Israel in the early months of his administration, the Israel lobby, and the Israeli administration headed by Benjamin Netanyahu also find themselves in the political wilderness. What you see now is a convergence of interests. Israel, Christians United for Israel, and the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee, a.k.a., the heart, the muscle, and the money, have united to form a mega-movement to take on President Obama’s intransigent stance toward Israel.

Moreover, implicit American support for Israel lives strong. Israel remains the largest recipient of overseas US assistance ($2.775 billion this year despite having a PPP GDP per head of $28,200). America boycotted April’s UN Anti-Racism Conference, ostensibly in solidarity with Israel. In opposing settlements, the Obama administration does not embrace international law or punitive measures, and the United States maintains unparalleled military and strategic cooperation with Israel.

It will take a lot more than a tough stance on settlements to change the psychology of the Arab street. The imbalance, both real and perceived, lives on in every American soldier seen patrolling the streets of an Iraqi city, in every mistaken aerial raid in Afghanistan, in every U.S. supplied F-16 seen flying over the Gaza Strip. In the Middle East, America is everywhere, and while Barack Obama’s words side with the establishment of a Palestinian State, America’s actions in the region, both implicit and explicit, serve to undermine that cause.

Now let me be clear. This is not an argument in favor of maintaining the status quo. I know there are those that will use this as an opportunity to advocate for putting the Palestinian question on the back burner. There will be those that argue that you should be more concerned with Iran than with the Palestinians. There will even be those that have the audacity to argue that the road to peace in Jerusalem goes through Tehran. Sound familiar? It should, because that was exactly the argument made by neo-cons in the run up to the Iraq war, the road to Jerusalem leads through Baghdad was the saying. Don’t be fooled. Anything short of direct engagement between Palestinians and Israelis, and Israelis and Arabs will result in a failed process. My argument in this piece is simply that, America, in its current state, is incapable of being an ‘honest broker’ between Arabs and Israelis. I believe that as American involvement in the Middle East recedes, its chances of becoming that honest broker will increase. Barack Obama has set America on that course, but whether or not he fulfills that vision during his term as President remains to be seen.

For better, or for worse, George Bush’s America, is now Barack Obama’s America. And while the contours of a new American approach to the Middle East are beginning to take shape, it’s the content inside those contours that most concerns the Arab street. All politics is local, the beliefs of Barack Obama, the man, will have to be reconciled with the beliefs of Barack Obama, the President. An audacity of hope is needed for that to happen. Thankfully for us, President Obama has no shortage of that.

You need to log in to urbis or create an urbis account to review this writing.