Arab patience wears thin with US Monday, Feb 22, 2010 When Hillary Clinton arriv

[tfrasheed]

Arab patience wears thin with US

Monday, Feb 22, 2010

When Hillary Clinton arrived in Doha last week her speech was billed as a sequel to Barack Obama's oration in Cairo last summer. Mr Obama delivered a carefully crafted message intended to mark a shift in US policies towards the Middle East and to heal years of mistrust with the Muslim world. The hype was tangible. Perhaps, optimists felt, it might truly mark a new beginning for US-Arab relations.
Yet, eight months on, Mrs Clinton gave her speech amid a sense of apathy rather than inspiration as notions of a "new era" have lost their gloss. Even the secretary of state acknowledged that some perceive the US commitment as "insufficient or insincere".
She urged patience, arguing that building a stronger relationship cannot "happen overnight". Given the complexities of the Middle East's divisions, she has a point. Yet Washington has not helped itself by actions that have hinted at naivety and a lack of a clear strategy, not least Mrs Clinton's own conflicting statements on Israeli settlement activity.
The result is that expectations that had been raised are being damped down by a growing sense of frustration and impatience. The region remains on edge, with tensions so high that some predict an eruption.
"We have a pressure cooker and the steam is not coming out, so you can bet your last dollar that it is going to explode. You just don't know when or at which point," an Arab diplomat tells me bleakly. A recent bout of mudslinging between Syria and Israel was just one example, he says.
Yet, in theory at least, conditions on the ground suggest it would serve no state to be dragged into a conflict. Syria is tentatively being welcomed back into the international fold, as illustrated by the naming of the first US ambassador to Damascus since 2005; Lebanon is enjoying a rare semblance of political stability; Israel's rightwing coalition has surprised many by surviving intact this long; and Iran is preoccupied at home with its worst domestic turmoil since the 1979 revolution.
But it should also be remembered that the 2006 Israeli-Hizbollah war caught many by surprise. And the backdrop to Mrs Clinton's speech makes for grim reading.
The Arab-Israeli peace process is in disarray; Iran seems as belligerent and committed to its controversial nuclear programme as ever; Israel continues to build settlements in occupied Palestinian territory; and the Palestinian factions remain at loggerheads.
To be fair to the Obama administration, it could hardly have predicted that it would be settling into the White House just as more than 1,300 Palestinians were being killed in Gaza or that such a hard-line Israeli government would be elected. Nor could it have anticipated Tehran's dismissal of the olive branch offered by Mr Obama.
And, in spite of the gloom, there remains a sense among Arab state officials that Obama's Washington is more willing to listen to and engage with them.
But the patience Mrs Clinton is asking for is wearing thin - and all the gestures and fine words will mean nothing unless there is seen to be serious movement on the ground.
The initial US strategy of moving the Arab-Israeli peace process forward by persuading Israel to freeze settlements in return for Arab goodwill gestures has failed.
Now the idea of "proximity talks" is being mooted, in essence US officials shuttling between Israeli and Palestinian leaders sitting in separate locations. If a resumption of talks was to spur serious discussion of critical issues, such as the status of Jerusalem, the return of Palestinian refugees and Arab land occupied in 1967, it could offer a glimmer of progress.
Yet if any new effort is seen to be no more than a talking shop or photo opportunity, it is likely to do more harm than good. It might also further undermine Mahmood Abbas, the beleaguered Palestinian president, amid Arab perceptions that their side keeps being pushed into concessions, while Israel can avoid taking concrete steps and deflect minimal US pressure.
By Andrew England
© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2010. Privacy policy.

Article originally published by Financial Times 22-Feb-10