From Mr M. Megawer

For the first time since John Fitzgerald Kennedy, young Americans of all kinds, black, white, rich and poor are enthusiastic about Senator Obama’s candidacy. His slogan of change captured their imagination and even the old are looking forward to a new era in the history of American politics. However, much of that enthusiasm is now fading and the slogan of change is beginning to sound hollow. Senator Obama’s slogan of change was designed to demonstrate how his leadership would differ from that of his Republican rivals. Yet the details of his speech showed the very opposite and the differences between the two men are not as wide as they would like to pretend.

Mr Obama’s real note of controversy is over Iraq, as he has promised to order America’s generals to end the war by withdrawing all combat troops within 16 months of his inauguration. America’s present policy is of withdrawing its soldiers as and when Iraq’s security forces are able to take over their duties, and, thanks to the Iraqi Sunni’s decision to give peace a chance, the war in Iraq is already winding down. The only difference is that Obama tied his own hands with the artificial deadline of 16 months for the departure of combat forces, but at the same time he has promised to transfer its focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan with very little thought about the repercussions and the region’s geopolitics, history and culture.

Senator Obama himself once said that continuing the Iraqi War would bankrupt America. A bankrupt country could not be a superpower and that was his reason to end the war in Iraq. The same reason applies to Afghanistan. It is true that the people want to see the problem of terrorism dealt with, but invading more countries and bombing more villages cannot achieve this. Senator Obama’s ill-considered proposal to expand the war in Afghanistan is fraught with great danger to world peace. Also, Senator Obama has failed to move away from the predictable tune – Israel first and foremost! Mr Obama promised that he would retaliate severely against Iran or any other nation that attempted to compromise Israel’s security, because the destruction of Iran’s nuclear capabilities is in the best interest of Israel and it suits Israel, as the sole nuclear power in the Middle East, to gain support against Iran as a potential rival in the region.

By supporting Israel so uncritically the tragedy of the Middle East will become more complex. It will also be more difficult to achieve what the majority of the citizens of the Middle East wish for – peace and stability! Do these proposals sound like a change in foreign policy? They might differ in style but not in substance. What both the presidential candidates are talking about is war, a choice between the old one and finding a new one. An international poll conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.Org examined the views of people from 18 countries including France, the UK and the USA and the findings of the poll released in July were most telling.

In 14 countries, people mostly said that their government should not take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; another three countries (Egypt, Iran and Turkey) favoured the Palestinian side; India was the only country divided on this issue. No country favoured the Israeli side, and even in the USA 71 per cent favoured not taking sides, this notwithstanding the “special relationship” and the issue of the “promised land”.

Why then do not presidential candidates Mr Obama and Mr McCain listen to their people and truly not behave unethically and erratically, even against the wishes of their own people? Why do they not change their government’s destructive path regarding Palestine and Israel? It might be a good idea for the presidential candidates to respect the laws of democracy in their own countries first, and only then lecture others! The Democratic Party is pressurizing Senator Obama to moderate his exaggerated pro-Israeli stance, as it might derail any possibility for a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Add to this the different politicians mainly from the Democratic Party calling on Israel for some form of engagement with Hamas and Syria.

No matter how many countries in the Middle East will be bombed and occupied, the problem will remain in one form or another until they find a realistic solution based on peace and stability for the region. Senator Obama as president will be unsuitable to act courageously and deal impartially with this problem, as he will be continuously required to prove his disassociation from his paternal heritage. Hopefully Obama’s words are just election rhetoric and not war strategy.

Moustafa Megawer

QAWRA