In the US's interests

---

Barack Obama was hugely popular in the Arab world even before his victory in the US presidential elections. He had become the focal point for hope in the midst of the despair and frustration that had gripped the US and the world as a consequence of eight years of the Bush administration.

Obama's banner of change offered the prospect of the realisation of a dream shared by the Arab region and the rest of the world. Obama, in himself and in the ideas he espoused, embodied the promise of change. Today, through his conciliatory address in Cairo, he has begun to fulfil this promise and to restore hope to millions of Arabs and Muslims who had been shattered by the relentless onslaughts of a campaign of racism and belligerency that Bush, in a famous slip of the tongue, had referred to as a "crusade".

It was, therefore, only natural that the Arabs would cheer Obama and his balanced approach to the Middle East conflict. Not only did he declare his commitment to the peace process and to the creation of a Palestinian state, but he also insisted in no uncertain terms on a freeze to all expansion of Israeli settlements. On Iraq, he vowed to withdraw US forces, and on Iran he renewed his resolve to work for a diplomatic settlement to the nuclear question.

Still, with all due respect for such positions, they do not justify the excessive romanticism that hails Obama as the shining knight who has arrived on his charger to defeat oppressors and cause peace to prevail on earth. This is not to say that Obama is not really committed to the realisation of a just peace in the Middle East. On the contrary, he is quite determined. However, his determination is not only inspired by his dedication to justice and other humanitarian values. He is not a saint. He is a seasoned politician and the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, and his foremost duty is to defend the interests and promote the welfare of that nation.

The more pragmatic motives behind the current US drive towards a settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict were expressed by General David Petraeus, head of US Central Command. He said that resolving the Palestinian-Israeli dispute would reduce the threat to US forces by eliminating one of the major pretexts that countries and organisations use to fuel hostility towards the US. In addition, he said, a solution to the Palestinian problem would enable Arab and Muslim leaders to offer more help to Washington in its war against terrorism.

Of course, there is no reason why Arab and US interests should not converge for the sake of realising a just peace. However, the danger comes when the Arabs begin to think that they can place the onus for regaining their rights on the shoulders of a US president, however noble his intentions and honourable his ways. The reason why this is so dangerous is very simple: US interests could change and not only deviate from but even clash with Arab interests.

Robert Fisk has cautioned precisely against such a prospect. During his visit to Egypt last month, the British writer, journalist and Middle East expert said that the Arabs' problem was that they looked to the West to solve their problems while the West gave them little thought and was probably not overly concerned about them.

The best and perhaps the only solution is for the Arabs to learn how to rely on themselves in order to solve their own problems, instead of getting carried away by the dream of noble knights and swaying to the beat of an American drum.