"I'll Listen, not Dictate." We'll See.

Ultimately, we cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what's best for them. They're going to have to make some decisions. But I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people. And that instead, it's time to return to the negotiating table.
President Barack Hussein Obama, January26, 2009

President Obama's words, quoted above from his interview Monday with the Al Arabiya TV news channel, are just opaque enough to give comfort to supporters of each side in the Israel-Palestinian "conflict." Israel might take heart that the U.S. under Obama will not attempt to impose on them an unpalatable peace plan. Palestinians may see in those words a balance and even-handedness suggesting that, finally, America will shift its bias away from Israel and be the "honest broker" for peace they have wished for. At a glance, this statement and others throughout the interview seem elegantly designed to give succor to both camps.

But the context of these statements in Obama's first full-dress press interview since the election should give pause to those who are generally sympathetic to Israel and to Western democracy in general.

The first cause for concern is the outlet chosen by Obama and his team to make his first pronouncements on Middle East policy as president . While Al Arabiya is headquartered in Dubai, UAE, it is partly owned by a Saudi government-controlled entity, MBC. It was developed as a counter-weight to Al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based news network with a decidedly pro-Jihadist point of view. By the low standards of the region, Al Arabiya is moderate in tone and style. But as a Saudi affiliate it is hardly a beacon of liberty and democracy for the Arab world.

The second red flag is the timing of the interview itself. That Obama addressed a primarily Arab and Muslim audience is not surprising. He has even promised to give a major speech in an Arab capital early in his presidency. But that he chose this venue for his worldwide televised debut is really quite stunning. There can be only one "first-interview-as-President," and we must assume that every news outlet in the world was vying for the privilege. That Obama chose this one signals not just a new tone but a dramatic new face of American policymaking in the Middle East.

Finally, the Israel-Palestinian issue dominated the first half of the interview, suggesting that resolving that conflict will become Obama's foreign policy obsession. And in that regard Obama made some news. The President hinted that the "Roadmap" framework developed by the parties known as the "Quartet" in 2003 (Russia, the U.S., the E.U. and the U.N.) is a nullity. Rather, the President expects progress by "working in tandem with the European Union, with Russia, with all the Arab states in the region...(emphasis mine)" Tellingly, no reference was made here to the parties to the conflict, Israel and the Palestinians.

Obama took great pains to suggest that it is time for America to listen, not dictate. On the surface this is a gratuitous attempt to "repair America's image" tattered by the neo-colonialist neo-cons these past eight years. But I think it is something more sinister, a signal sent to the Arab world that a palpable if not radical change in Middle East policy is brewing.

Obama specifically referred to the "Saudi proposal," which President Bush refused to consider because of its insistence on Israel retreating to the 1949 armistice lines--what Abba Eban once called the "Auschwitz borders." The plan also insists on "return of the Palestinian refugees," a poison pill that would presumably require Israel to absorb millions of descendants of those who fled Israel during the War of Independence. While Israel herself has praised the plan,
it is clear that it did so only to test the seriousness with which the Saudis were willing to enage in negotiations. No serious Israeli leader would use the Saudi proposal as the basis for peace talks. Yet Obama has now raised the possibility that this proposal will take center stage, and that the Arab countries will have unprecedented influence in fashioning a settlement.

Obama also hints at a new paradigm for the Middle East when he says:

And so what we want to do is to listen, set aside some of the preconceptions
that have existed and have built up over the last several years. And I think if
we do that, then there's a possibility at least of achieving some breakthrough.

Interesting locution. What "preconceptions" does Obama refer to? Is it the notion that Palestinians must become a self-governing, peaceful, economically viable entity that recognizes the right of Israel to live in peace and security? Is it the insistence by Israel on its need for defensible borders? Or the belief that Israel cannot survive if it is required to absorb millions of so-called refugees?

We know that the global media and international Left have criticized President Bush's fondness for Israel and lamented his unwillingness to pressure Israel into taking "risks for peace." We know also that when Israel wages a defensive war to protect its citizens, the same crowd accuses it of war crimes. So when Obama, a man of the Left, promotes a strict departure from the Middle East policies of the past, logic compels us to conclude that he will distance himself and his administration from Israel.

So if Obama wants to listen, fine. The question is, who is he listening to?