Waiting for the Election

BOSTON -- The global financial crisis has overshadowed all other issues in the American presidential election campaign that is now in its last weeks. This includes several important Middle Eastern issues that had attracted much attention in the past two years. This is a temporary phase, because at least four distinct Middle Eastern issues will re-emerge on the international stage early next year: Iraq, Iran, Arab-Israeli peace-making, and the indictments to be presented in the international investigation of the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and other Lebanese public figures.

Each of these four issues on its own is potentially divisive and can lead to renewed political tensions or serious military action involving local actors as well as foreign powers. It is striking to see, during a visit to the United States this month, how little attention the Middle East receives in the public arena. These issues certainly will soon rear their heads again, because the underlying forces that drive them remain active.

The one issue that remains seriously moribund is Arab-Israeli peacemaking, for three critical reasons. The Palestinians are badly divided and cannot possible negotiate a credible peace agreement. The Israelis are equally fluid in their own national leadership. The United States, which remains the critical external mediator in the long run, has made it absolutely clear in the past several decades that its diplomatic involvement rests on a foundation of pro-Israeli interests and dictates rather than on trying to broker a fair deal.

The long-term impact of the festering Arab-Israeli conflict on other issues in the Middle East continues to be actively debated. My own sense is that nearly explicit American support for Israeli colonization policies and disdain for UN resolutions and the norms of international law have had a radicalizing effect throughout the Middle East, in the Arab world and Iran alike. The growth and strength of Hizbullah and Hamas, for example, are directly linked to the perpetuation of the status quo in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The pro-Israeli tilt of the US government is a reality that will continue for many years to come. Only occasionally does the American government go against Israel's wishes, mainly because elected politicians have learned through bitter experience (e.g., Charles Percy, Paul Findley and others) that challenging Israel in public or merely calling for an even-handed position by the United States means losing your next election. This reflects the ability of well-organized pro-Israel groups to pressure politicians by using votes, campaign funding, media impact, and the threats of labeling politicians anti-Israel, which translates into anti-Semitic in the American political lexicon.

Consequently, as this presidential election reconfirms, candidates stumble over each other in a frenzied dash to show how much they support and love Israel -- with barely a word about the rights of Palestinians or the relevance of international law or UN resolutions. This is not likely to change soon, as we were reminded October 17, in an article in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that listed all the Jewish Americans who are so influential in the current campaign.

The article, entitled Members of the tribe: 36 Jews who have shaped the 2008 U.S. election, explained how: "...the Jewish vote remains a key element in battleground states, and, playing a wide variety of roles, Jews have helped to shape the campaigns."

It listed 36 Jews who have significant and direct influence on the candidates or their parties. (Had such an article been published in an American, Arab or European newspaper, it would have been slammed as anti-Semitic provocation for mentioning the influence of Jewish Americans.) 

It seems reasonable to conclude that nothing will change in the United States in the near future when it comes to Washington's diplomatic posture vis-à-vis the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Which brings us back to the wider picture in the Middle East, and how the Arab-Israeli conflict intersects with the other big issues in the region. The next American administration will have to decide quickly if it wants to continue on the same path that the last several presidents have pursued -- giving us the current violent and fragmenting condition of the Middle East in which the United States is deeply involved militarily -- or whether it might take a fresh look at a different approach that might respond to core Arab and Israeli demands and rights while allowing other hot spots in the region to cool down.

This will not be discussed during the American presidential campaign, given the obligatory pro-Israeli tilt and its impact on issues like Iran, Lebanon, Hizbullah, Iraq and Syria. After the election, though, real options will have to be considered, which will once again test the common sense and diplomatic wisdom of Arabs, Israelis, Iranians, Americans and others who have joined hands in recent decades to send the Middle East into an endless and expanding spiral of anger, fear, extremism and violence.

Rami G. Khouri is Editor-at-large of The Daily Star, and Director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut, in Beirut, Lebanon.