President Barack Obama’s Cairo speech has been analysed as few others by a US president in living memory.  A most remarkable speech, both in form and substance, it has aroused great expectations in the Muslim world, though these have been tempered by misgivings arising from earlier unfulfilled promises made by the western powers.

However, this should not minimise the importance of Obama’s initiative. Within the theme of justice and fairness for all sides, he described the Palestinian plight as intolerable, asserting that the expansion of Jewish settlements was ‘undermining efforts to achieve peace’, while reiterating that America’s bonds with Israel were ‘unbreakable’. Obama has promised to promote a just settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict not as a favour to the Arabs but because he believes that without meeting Palestinian aspirations, the US will not be able to maintain its current influence in the region. But will the rest of the US and Israel see it this way? Will Obama’s far-sighted plans be thwarted by the harsh dynamic of domestic American politics? Has Obama undertaken a mission impossible?

Early signs are mixed. There is little recognition in Israel of Obama’s claim that ‘the status quo is unsustainable when it comes to Israeli security; that over time, in the absence of peace with the Palestinians, Israel will continue to be threatened militarily and will have enormous problems along its borders’. Nor has his statement calling on the Arabs to make ‘the choices essential to get on the road to peace’, and his demand that the Palestinians have ‘to do more to secure Israeli borders and to cut down on incitement of hatred against Israel’, given much credence in Israel.
The extreme right has reacted harshly to Obama’s initiative. It is not only opposed to the two-state solution; it even questions Obama’s unremitting focus on the Palestinian issue. In its view, the only thing that should concern Israel and the US is Iran’s nuclear programme.

Yossi Peled, a minister in Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet, warned publicly that Washington’s ‘activist agenda does not mesh with that of Israel’. He suggested that Israel should reconsider military-civilian purchases from the US, while examining how it could sell sensitive equipment internationally of the kind that Washington opposes and also encourage other countries that compete with the US to get involved in the peace process. Finally, Peled recommends intervening in US congressional races to weaken Obama by asking American-Jewish donors not to contribute to Democratic congressional candidates.

This is only the opening salvo in what is likely to become a dirty game. Obama’s background has been regularly targeted by rightwing commentators in both the US and Israel. This is likely to become more vicious. Evidence of this has come from Frank Gaffney, who heads Washington’s Centre for Security Policy. Writing in the Washington Times, he claims that his study of Obama’s policies and pronouncements leads him to the conclusion that Obama could be ‘considered America’s first Muslim president’. He adds that ‘there is mounting evidence that the president not only identifies with Muslims but actually may still be one himself’. In support of this preposterous claim, Gaffney states that Obama’s reference to the Quran, as ‘holy’ and invoking peace on the Prophet (PBUH) was not right.

Obama, however, has remained focused on the issue, convinced that what he has proposed for the Middle East would be to Israel’s strategic advantage. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, with better credentials in Israel, has been assigned the task of maintaining pressure on the Israelis. She had done so by forcefully rejecting Israel’s claim that the Bush administration had secretly agreed to the expansion of Jewish settlements on the West Bank. Instead, she asserted that the peace plan calls for Israel to ‘freeze all settlement activity, including the natural growth of existing settlements’. Her strong rebuttal has served to intensify American pressure on Netanyahu.

The US Middle East envoy George Mitchell was also dispatched to the region to stress that the US wants the stalled peace talks to resume soon and negotiations wrapped up quickly. In Jerusalem, he reminded Israeli leaders that ‘we all share an obligation to create the conditions for the prompt resumption and early conclusion of negotiations’. And, after his meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, he reiterated that ‘America will not turn its back on the legitimate Palestinian aspirations for dignity, opportunity and a state of their own’.

Mitchell did, however, try to play down any disagreement with Israel, stressing that the US commitment to the Jewish state remained ‘unshakeable’ and that ‘the US and Israel are and will remain close allies and friends’. The EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, too, stepped in with the warning that EU’s relations with Israel would depend on its behaviour.

Admittedly, the speed and resolve with which Obama has decided to step into the quicksand of the Middle East imbroglio has caught the Israelis off guard. But Netanyahu is a highly intelligent and skilled politician, who will monitor the American domestic scene for any chinks in its armour. He knows that right now Obama is genuinely popular and his views have broad support in Congress. This led him to announce a ‘conditional acceptance’ of a Palestinian state, with provisos that he knows will not be acceptable to the Arabs, but Netanyahu would prefer that the onus for failure fall on the doorsteps of the Palestinians.

The White House has termed it an important step forward, while the Arab states have pointed out that a state that has no control over its land, water and sea frontiers, does not have Jerusalem as its capital and has to give up the Palestinian right to return, will not be an independent, sovereign state. But the Arabs cannot simply reject the offer; they have to show firmness coupled with flexibility in their negotiations.

Obama has his task cut out for him. Netanyahu will test his resolve and determination on all fronts, domestically and externally, with a mix of rigidity and ingenuity. The extreme religious right in the US already is deeply suspicious of Obama. This will be encouraged by the strong pro-Israeli lobbies. Obama can take on this challenge only if he can assure his electorate that what he plans to achieve will not only ensure Israel’s security, but also promote US interests in the Middle East.