I do not know what President Barack Obama will say in Cairo today, but I know what I want him to say. Had I been assigned the task of writing the speech he would deliver at Cairo University, I would have suggested that he start by warning all parties that he would not solve the problems of the Middle East and the world in a speech, that he would do his best, and that he would be honest with everybody. Yet, he would need the assistance of all parties in the region; he would discuss with them a peace project they would accept. For he cannot achieve success on his own. If he can tactfully and firmly make his audience understand that his speech would not eliminate poverty or the absence of freedom and democracy in the Arab and Muslim worlds, and that the establishment of an independent Palestinian state requires lengthy and arduous negotiations, he can address the Arabs and Israelis as they are, not as they see themselves. He could ask the Arabs to wake up as they will reach nowhere if they keep on shifting blame to America (and Israel). His country is not responsible for the Arab consuming, not producing, dictatorships. Nor is it responsible for the absence of the rule of law, the rampant corruption, the collapse of the educational system, or prevalent extremism and terror. He could tell the Israelis that the gravy train is over and that they would not continue to live off American tax payers. They would not get billions of dollars in aid (that are converted to donations) each year for free. He could also tell them that halting settlements, including their 'natural growth' is a good, yet a mere start. What is needed is leaving the occupied territories to their population since the establishment of an independent Palestinian state serves the interests of the Palestinians, Israel, and the United States. If Israel were really concerned about the Iranian nuclear program, it would have to eliminate the cause for concern related to its nuclear arsenal. The US administration will not at any rate engage in wars on behalf of Israel as it prefers negotiations. Then, it wants Israel to take steps conducive to negotiations over intertwined issues from the peace process to the Iranian nuclear program. In my opinion, President Obama has to show the Arabs and Israelis a firm resolution; he has to make them understand clearly that he did not come to beg for solutions, but rather to help them solve their problems. Although I have said this, I think he will most likely fail since the Arabs will not change any of their habits and will keep blaming close and distant parties for their mistakes, sins, failures, extravagance, and missed opportunities. President Obama will find out that the Israelis are worse than the Arabs. In Washington he asked Benjamin Netanyahu to stop settlement activity, but the latter went back to Israel and declared his official rejection of the ‘unreasonable' demand. Then Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman reiterated the rejection in Moscow. According to the comments of the Israeli officials and dailies I have read here in London, the Israeli party was stunned, alarmed, or surprised at the US demand which had been expected, and the Israelis refuse to yield to pressure. They reject peace, but Obama's problem is not the settlements alone or the entire peace issue, but rather Israel's prime minister. Netanyahu supports Netanyahu. His rejection of freezing settlement activity or the two-state solution is motivated by one reason, namely the fall of his cabinet in case he accepts. Indeed, it includes a majority of radicals who are still dreaming of Greater Israel. There are around 300,000 settlers in 58,800 housing units in the West Bank territories. I find it impossible for Netanyahu's cabinet to give up any of them at a time it refuses to stop their expansion. A new World Bank report suggests that Israel is seizing 80% of the West Bank water. The report also confirms information I heard from Egyptian security officials who showed me maps of the settlements and water sources. These maps prove what we all know: it is impossible to establish a contiguous Palestinian state as long as the settlements exist. Against this background I see that the success of the peace process is remote. However, the visit may achieve success at a different level. It started in Riyadh and President Obama wants the Saudi government to secure oil supplies as a means to check prices. He also wants it to help his administration in Afghanistan where it has clout with the government and Taliban, as clearly demonstrated in the conference it sponsored last year. Saudi Arabia can offer assistance and it will do. It expects the Obama administration to deal with the Iranian file in such a way that will ease the concerns of the Gulf countries about Iranian ambitions and the risks posed by its nuclear program, but without a war as the US and Saudi Arabia prefer dialogue with Iran. Why would Obama (or any mediator) achieve success with respect to an issue and fail with respect to another? In the Arab-Israeli conflict there is a weak party that does not scare anyone, and a terrorist party that believes it can challenge any pressure. As for the issue of Saudi Arabia, the Gulf countries, Iran, and Pakistan, the Arabs can help the Obama administration and expect it to reciprocate. What shall I add? I wish that President Barack Obama would surprise me and achieve success. http://www.j-khazen.blogspot.com/
