What policy?

By Salama A Salama

---

Apart from Shimon Peres giving Hillary Clinton a kiss on the cheek, nothing much emerged from the first visit to the Middle East of the new US secretary of state. We have no indication of where the policies of the Obama administration are heading. Actually, it seems so far that there is no tangible change from the policies of the former administration. During her visit to Israel, Clinton spoke in favour of the two-state solution but said she has no intention of talking to Hamas.

Clinton had nothing to say about the need for Israel to stop building settlements all over Palestinian land. Nor did she have anything to say about the Gaza tragedy. She didn't mention the need to open the crossings and follow up on the efforts Egypt is making to bring about a calming down period. And yet Clinton made a point of empathising with Israel with regards to Palestinian rockets. And she fully understood Israel's concern over the prospects of Iran developing nuclear weapons.

Clinton kept her options open concerning future talks with Syria and Iran. Washington seems prepared to engage the Syrians in dialogue if this helps Damascus distance itself from Tehran. And the Syrians seem willing to go to any lengths to stay on Washington's good side. It seems that the US wants to see moderate Arabs and Palestinians negotiating with Israel, although actually the Palestinians have been doing just that for quite some time now to no avail.

Israel expressed strong reservations about any negotiations with Tehran, and obtained a promise that Washington wouldn't formulate its policy regarding the Iranian nuclear question without consulting with Israeli officials first. And it seems that Clinton bought Livni's claim that moderate Arab countries are more concerned about Iran than Israel.

Some Arab countries were ecstatic that Clinton's first visit to the region started in Sharm El-Sheikh, where she attended a conference for the reconstruction of Gaza. I don't know how relevant this is to anything. What I know is that Arab countries have failed to ask for anything specific. They have failed to come up with a cohesive view and to relay it to the Americans.

At present, the Arabs have no policy for dealing with an Israeli right-wing government led by Netanyahu. The designated prime minister has never showed any interest in peace, aside from what he sees as "economic peace"; namely, any arrangement that allows Israel to exploit the resources of the region at will.

It may be too early to speculate on the future of the region as Washington sees it. But by the look of things it seems that Washington is hoping that the region will turn against Tehran and all radical groups affiliated with it. But what's in it for us? Hostility to Iran can only benefit Israel and divide the Arab world. It would be a continuation of the same circumstances that led to the tragedy in Gaza.

Clinton came to the region with Iran on her mind. The main issue -- namely, the Arab-Israeli conflict -- is not being addressed for now. And it is unlikely to be broached before a new Israeli government is formed.

I know some people are hoping to see Clinton give her backing to Egyptian efforts for a calming-down period in Palestine and for inter-Palestinian reconciliation. But I find it worrisome that we still have no idea how the Obama administration might react to someone like Lieberman becoming Israel's next foreign minister. The man is a racist who insulted the Egyptian president, threatened to bomb the High Dam, and described the Palestinians as insects. How will Washington deal with such a man?

More importantly, how will Cairo deal with such a man?