Barack Obama’s Middle East Peace Initiative: Important Step Forward or Giant Waste of Time?

One of the central promises Barack Obama made during his historic campaign for president was to meet with leaders of countries in order to establish a prominent U.S. relationship throughout the world.  Critics hailed this policy as naive and uninformed, but Obama viewed the meetings as potentially very beneficial to both the United States and the world’s opinion of us abroad.

President Barack Obama met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Natanyahu in order to discuss Obama's Middle East peace initiative.

Today, President Barack Obama plans to meet with newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the first of several high profile meetings with prominent officials from the Middle East region this month.  Perhaps the most controversial region in the world as far as U.S. relations go is the Middle East.  Previous administrations have taken varying attitudes towards the region, some of which have been very damaging.
The potential benefits of a strong relationship between the United States and the Middle East are numerous.   “Actions taken by the United States in the past have been very shortsighted,” says Elon University political science sophomore Taylor Foshee, “The chances of conflict becoming more violent towards the United States is growing.  We can mitigate that.”
Beyond that, the United States could also be gaining valuable trade partners.  “Potential benefits include not only less paranoia, but also more stability in the oil and energy markets.  It could open up more markets,” says Elon University journalism junior Morgan Little.  “Opening up markets with Iran will let our trade do the talking.  Embargos don’t work . . . if we increase our exports it may increase our GDP.
Obama is doing his best to distance himself from previous presidents, particularly George W. Bush, to varying degrees of success.  “President Bush kind of painted diplomacy into a corner with his ‘our way or no way’ attitude across the world,” says Elon University professor Glenn Scott.   Cornell University economics junior Dan Cerqueira agrees: “It worked once, with rapprochement in Iran and Syria.  After that though the Bush doctrine was basically a disaster.”

Little says “Syria basically woke up and realized they didn’t get anything from the United States.  Bush’s policies were very counterproductive in the region.  It’s like throwing a rock into a lake, you have the ripples come out from the middle.  It was supposed to be a wave of democracy for Bush, but it was just a wave of failure.”
Obama himself seems uniquely qualified for this job, especially when he is compared to past Presidents.  “Obama’s background definitely helps him, coming from international roots and being viewed as an underdog,” says Foshee.  “His broadening of focus and involving other countries besides Israel is definitely a plus,” says Loyola of Chicago political science freshman Dustin McQuary, who campaigned for Obama preceding the election.  Cerqueira says simply, “People relate to Obama easier than Bush.”
These animosities have been building up for a long time, though.  “In the partitioning of the Middle East after World War One, they did it very arbitrarily without a consciousness towards ethnic and religious differences in the region.  They kind of imposed the separations on people,” says Foshee.  “This created unnecessary conflict.”

Peace negotiations in the Middle East are being called ambitious at best, potentially distracting at worst.  “I definitely believe that speaking with the Middle East is a step in the right direction, but the President’s focus right now should be on improving the American economy,” said McQuary.
“We should not probably expect any great concessions today,” Scott says about the meeting between Obama and Netanyahu, the first such meeting since each was elected.  “Both are trying to explain where the public opinion is in their own countries.  Both need to please their own constituencies before they can take any risks and change things.”

In the past, the United State’s relationship with Israel has been a problem.  “Negotiations in the region seem to deteriorate any time we support Israel,” Cerqueira believes.  “We need to redefine our goals, right now nothing is really changing,” McQuarry thinks.
One thing everyone can agree on is that achieving any sort of peace or understanding will be a long process, and we should not expect anything soon.  Little explains “It takes much longer to heal relationships than it does to destroy them, and we’ve been destroying relationships in the Middle East for decades.”
“I don’t know how far he can take it,” says Cerqueira, “Israel is pretty far to the right and is unlikely to accept any sort of two-state solution.”
“The United States will have to convince Israel that we won’t abandon them (in order to convince them to accept a two-state possibility),” says Scott.  “The Israeli and Palestinians need to promise each other peace and stability.  There has been a lot of progress, though.  We find ourselves in a very nice position.”
President Obama plans to meet with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on May 26 and Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on May 28 to further solidify his peace initiative.

Advertisement