Terror, Israel pose challenges

A young Nigerian Muslim of 23, Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, has blown Barack Obama off course. He has forced the US president to declare a worldwide war on Al Qaida — in effect a policy indistinguishable from George W. Bush's ‘Global War on Terror'.

No doubt Obama had no alternative but to respond forcefully to this latest manifestation of Al Qaida terror: the alleged attempt by the Nigerian to ignite plastic explosives, sewn into his underwear, as the Northwest Airlines flight which he had boarded in Amsterdam prepared to land in Detroit on Christmas Day.

Goaded by Republican critics, and needing to reassure a nervous American public, Obama interrupted his holiday in Hawaii to declare that "we will continue to use every element of our national power to disrupt, to dismantle and defeat the violent extremists who threaten us — whether they are from Afghanistan or Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia, or anywhere where they are plotting attacks against the US homeland".

On an extremist website, Al Qaida replied that Abdul Mutallab's attempted act was a response to US airstrikes. Airstrikes against Al Qaida positions in Yemen in late December — carried out by the Yemen air force with US support — killed at last 60 people.

The New York Times confirmed this week that the United States had opened a new front against Al Qaida in Yemen, now seen as a dangerous centre of terrorist operations, to rival that of the Afghan-Pakistan tribal areas. This past year teams of US Special Forces have been training the Yemeni military, while the US has supplied intelligence and firepower to use against the militants.

The question is whether carrying the war to predominantly Muslim countries by means of air strikes — which inevitably kill civilians as well as fighters — is the best way to combat terror, or whether, on the contrary, it serves to rally to the extremist cause religious-minded young men like Abdul Mutallab.

When Obama began his presidential term a year ago, he had a different agenda. He believed it was in America's urgent national interest to build bridges to the Arab and Muslim world. He announced a firm date for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. He indicated he wanted a negotiated settlement in Afghanistan. He put a stop to torture and vowed to close the notorious prison at Guantanamo. He declared his firm commitment to an Arab-Israeli peace and called for a total freeze on Israeli colonies. He reached out a hand of friendship to Iran.

It seemed that Obama had understood that the way to dry up the terrorist swamp and protect America was to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict — the main source of poison in the West's relations with Islam — and stop killing Muslims.

Unfortunately, much of this early agenda has been ditched. In Afghanistan, rather than seeking a political settlement, Obama has sent in more troops. Bowing to pressure from his military commanders, he has committed himself to what looks like an unwinnable war. US pressure on Pakistan to make war on its own tribal areas has destabilised that country, triggering massive suicide bombings and a vast displacement of population.

Israeli defiance

In the Middle East, Obama has allowed Israel to defy him and to continue building Jewish colonies in Palestinian territory, notably in Occupied East Jerusalem. Meanwhile, the ongoing turmoil in Iran has destroyed any immediate hope of an American rapprochement with the Islamic Republic. Rather than seeking to resolve the problem of Iran's nuclear programme through wide-ranging negotiations, which would acknowledge Iran's legitimate fears and ambitions, Obama — like Bush before him — has reverted to sanctions, while Israel threatens a military attack.

It is likely that the year 2010 will determine whether the Arab-Israeli conflict will be resolved by negotiation or by war. The world wants a negotiated settlement, but Israel seems to believe it can get what it wants by force — and it may be right.

Israel may well think that it can see off pressure from the US, Russia, the European Union or the United Nations. It is opposed to an international conference on the conflict, such as the Russians have proposed. It rejects all third-party mediation. It wants to be left alone to impose its own terms on the Palestinians.

It is often said that the resolution of the Palestine problem lies in a choice between a two-state solution and a one-state solution — between a small Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel, and a single state in which Israelis and Palestinians share joint citizenship.

But this is not the real choice. Most Israelis are adamantly opposed to anything resembling a one-state solution. They want to get rid of the Palestinians, not to incorporate them within their borders. The real choice, therefore, is between a two-state solution and a Greater Israel — a large Jewish state ‘between the river and the sea', from which the Palestinians would be driven out. If some managed to remain, they would be forced to live in isolated enclaves, much as the unfortunate inhabitants of Gaza live now.

Obama says he is unwaveringly committed to a two-state solution. But will he confront Netanyahu? This will be the greatest test of his statesmanship in the new year.
GulfNews

I can only hope O learns a lesson, even his pansy, watered down so-called response draws criticism from the APU..

His only hope to gain acceptance from the APU is to surrender and submit.