THE unusually wet and cool month of May was a good time to spend in the American capital where enthusiasm for President Obama remains strong.

He has not made any major mistake so far, though there has been the occasional misstep, including the one relating to the closure of the Guantanamo prison camp.

The Af-Pak issue remains on top of Washington’s agenda, though with military operations in Swat, criticism of Pakistan has become noticeably muted. There has been praise for the government’s newfound resolve, as well as for the military’s skill and determination in conducting ‘tough’ operations. Secretary Hillary Clinton made a strong appeal for international assistance for the internally displaced while the media expressed the fear that the wide coverage of human suffering could weaken the brittle national consensus against the Taliban.

However, it was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington, hyped by the media as a confrontation between two strong and determined personalities with differing world views that mercifully provided some respite to the Pakistanis. According to insiders, the warmth and bonhomie of earlier engagements between leaders of the two countries were missing. Though the masters of spin from both sides assessed the meeting as ‘successful’, the body language at the press conference indicated an undercurrent of tension. While Netanyahu did not back down on either Iran or on the peace process, Obama too, maintained his position.

Obama also spoke forcefully about ending settlement expansion, emphasising the importance of getting it done ‘in order for us to move forward’, but Netanyahu refused to refer to it. Nor did he mention the road map and neither leader made any reference to the Arab League initiative during the press conference.

Nevertheless, to reassure Israel and its powerful supporters in the US, Obama said all the right words, speaking about the ‘special relationship’ and pledging that Israel’s security was ‘paramount’ but this did not succeed in covering up the growing gap between US and Israeli positions over Palestinian statehood. Focus on this issue was maintained during PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas’s visit to Washington in the last week of May when President Obama stressed that Israel’s obligations towards peace included ‘stopping settlements’ and supporting a Palestinian state. Earlier, Secretary Clinton, in unusually tough remarks, had emphasised that Obama wanted to see a ‘stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions’.

Netanyahu’s spokesperson reacted by stressing that the Israeli leader would not abandon his long-held position that some expansion was inevitable in existing settlements as part of ‘natural growth’. This issue appears likely to become a major source of strain between the two countries, with many observers viewing Clinton’s remarks as representing the administration’s most explicit renunciation of Netanyahu’s West Bank policies.

Israel is trying to deflect growing tension by shifting the burden back to the Palestinians, claiming that they failed to live up to their obligations but this argument has failed to register in Washington. Consequently, some of Israel’s supporters are accusing the administration of pushing Netanyahu between the rock of its new position and the hard place represented by his extreme rightwing supporters. They especially resent the new scenario, under which Netanyahu is being asked to make major concessions to maintain a strategic alliance with the US. Though one hopes otherwise, if history is any guide, Obama may well regret taking on this powerful lobby.

Nevertheless, Obama’s strategy is to create a regional framework for peace negotiations that would be attractive enough to bring in Netanyahu. One idea floating around is for the US to convince more of its Arab allies to begin normalising relations with the Jewish state. In this, Saudi Arabia is expected to play a pivotal role, but Riyadh has reportedly warned Washington of its inability to do so until such time that Israel makes a dramatic announcement, such as agreeing to freeze settlement expansion in the West Bank.

The coming months are likely to see intense activity on the Middle East, with more Arab leaders turning up in Washington while Obama is to make an eagerly awaited speech in Cairo today that is likely to unveil a new American policy towards the Muslim world.

While preparing to return home, I was both amused and pleased at the intense debate in Washington’s foreign policy establishment on the significance of President Obama’s address to the Muslim world today. Questions have been raised as to whether choosing the capital city of the region’s foremost autocrat for the address was not sending a wrong signal. In fact, one of Egypt’s foremost dissidents, Saad Eddin Ibrahim, urged Obama to choose either Turkey or Indonesia, both modernising liberal democracies, rather than Egypt.

The choice of venue is, however, not surprising for Egypt has been the link between three important circles, being an influential member-state of the Islamic, the Arab and the African groups, as well as a critical player in any Arab-Israeli settlement. But this makes it even more essential that the address be to the entire Muslim world, rather than to the Arabs alone. According to Washington insiders, Obama will underscore the theme of ‘mutual interests and mutual respect’ that alone can unite the two worlds. He must not, however, use the occasion to dwell on details of his Arab-Israeli peace settlement, or try to create a new coalition against Iran. Instead, he should opt for a broad-brush approach.

Moreover, Obama should avoid addressing governments and speak directly to the Muslim people, confirming his commitment to democracy and stressing his resolve not to appease rulers of authoritarian regimes. While he should avoid getting into the intricacies of regional problems, he has to hold out hope that the US will promote resolution of those conflicts and confrontations that afflict the Muslim world, whether they be Palestine, Kashmir or Chechnya, because they are the sad legacy of the humiliating colonial era.

Finally, he has to reject forcefully the current vicious portrayal of Muslims and dispel the false association of Islam with terrorism. The world should not be divided between those who have inherited the Judeo-Christian heritage and the rest. Instead, inter-state relations should be based on universal principles of respect for human rights, self-determination and opposition to occupation and oppression. The world knows that Obama cannot radically change US policy, but he can usher in a new approach of tolerance, dialogue and engagement.