Has the Flotilla attack weakened Obama’s pursuit for peace in the Middle East? A view from the Arab world.

By Mina Al-Oraibi for RUSI.org

As Barak Obama looks at how to deal with the aftermath of the tragic assault on the 'Freedom Flotilla' to Gaza, it would serve him well to go back and read his first speech outlining America's relations with the Muslim world. On this day, exactly one year ago, Obama spoke from Cairo about shared values and the importance of eliminating double standards. Speaking the words that Palestinians and the supporters of a just resolution to their plight were longing to hear, Obama acknowledged that Palestinians 'endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own'.

These were moving sentiments that won Obama support and recognition throughout the world, including in Israel, when he reiterated that their bond with America was 'unbreakable'. A year later, it would seem that the words have not translated into action. This sense of failure is felt most when viewing the US attitude to Gaza, and the recent Israeli action on a convoy bound for its shores. Obama's failure to condemn the attack on the flotilla has left many frustrated and questioning his commitment to a 'values based' policy. Surely, these values would dictate speaking out against the blockade of Gaza and the importance of safeguarding peace activists from around the world.

The 'honest broker' at risk

In his Cairo speech, Obama said to the Palestinians that 'violence is a dead end'. The six hundred peace activists that headed to Gaza on the Mediterranean were in agreement that violence was not the way forward, but at the same time, felt they had to break what they perceived as an inhumane blockade that had become a dead end in itself. Despite accusations to the contrary, they chose non-violent activism, the same tool exhorted by Obama in citing the successful example of the leaders of the civil rights movement in the United States. It is clear the flotilla was not solely motivated by delivering aid but determined to make a peaceful political statement: in the same way that those who fought segregated buses in the United States were not merely trying to get to a ride on public transportion. Surely Obama should speak to his Israeli allies about the futility of violence, and not just limit that statement to those struggling to forge a future for Palestine.

With the start of proximity talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and as the US is trying to garner international pressure on Iran, some commentators have pointed out that the flotilla attack could not have come at a worse time. However, it could be argued that it is never a good time to kill aid workers and that the policy of turning a blind eye to a deteriorating problem, meant that conflict was inevitable. The divisive issues of Gaza's isolation and blockade have resurfaced, and now demand a response from the international community, led by the United States.

In May, the US Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, George Mitchell, gave a rare public speech focussing on the possibility of reconciliation no matter how difficult it may seem. He stated that there will always be those who will turn to aggression to stop peace, and that there is a need 'for a clear and determined policy, not to yield to violence'. The dilemma that faces the Obama administration is that in the eyes of the Arab world, the Israeli government is the one weakening the peace process through a series of consistently violent actions and reactions. There are those in the region who fear that the Israeli attack on the flotilla will stand as yet another 'diversion' from peace - however, detractors will argue that the violence displayed by one of the main parties in the peace negotiations, will prove to be significantly more than a diversion.

Domestic considerations Versus expectations from the Arab world

As always, Washington's domestic political clock is ticking in favour of 'politics as usual'. With Congress' mid-term elections only five months away, Congressmen and women are filling America's airwaves with statements of support for Israel's actions. While Democratic Representative Anthony Weiner complains that 'anything that Israel does would create an international outcry', Republican Representative Michele Bachmann said Obama was wrong in showing 'less than clear, full support for the state of Israel'.

Disillusionment over a long period of time is detrimental to the United States - and the future of the region. Obama declared in Cairo that 'America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs'. This means that privately he is saying to the Israelis what we hear publicly, he 'regrets' the loss of life, yet there is no real push for accountability. It is this lack of accountability that undermines America's policy towards Israel and places Washington's credibility at risk.

Most Arabs have a pessimistic point of view in this regard. They believe that Israel will attract some heat for a few days and then it will all blow over, with America's support guaranteed. This has become the consensus expressed in Facebook comments to prominent newspaper columns in the Arab world. Yet, perhaps the tragedy of the flotilla will not be in vain. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced this week, renewed efforts are underway to tackle the humanitarian crisis in Gaza: discussions behind closed doors from Istanbul to Washington are looking for paths to solve the long term situation in the strip of land that has all too often been called an open-air prison.

Moreover, one of the issues that Israel must contend with is the long term impact of the flotilla and the images resonating from it. This comes after the assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai last January, the accusations of brutal force in the Gaza war only sixteen months ago and the 2006 war in Lebanon. While in Europe, attitudes towards Israel have dramatically changed, there is a slow tide also turning against Israeli actions in the United States. The respected US Middle East expert Anthony Cordesman frames this trend by asking whether Israel is becoming a 'strategic liability' for the United States, while several commentators have noted that Israel's military capability is becoming increasingly reliant on the use of excessive force.

In his speech on 4 June 2009, Obama called on Palestinians and Israelis to take on their obligations towards peace. He emphasised that 'for peace to come, it is time for them - and all of us - to live up to our responsibilities'. Obama was right in highlighting that the responsibilities are not only on the Palestinians and Israelis but for all sides, including Arabs and Americans. The United States' responsibility on 4 June 2010 rests in being an honest broker, and openly recognising that Israel's use of force can only negatively impact any chance for peace.

Mina Al-Oraibi is Washington bureau chief for Asharq Alawsat newspaper

The views expressed above are the author's own, and do not necessarily reflect those of RUSI