President Obama and the Islamic World: Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Many analysts consider the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the chief focus of the Islamic World in the Middle East. Historically, the Arab World has perceived the United States as the supporter of Israel. Thus, if President Obama wanted to shift the public opinion in the Arab World he had to alter this policy.
On the one hand, President Obama had a different approach towards Israel in the peace process. The huge pressure over Israel for freezing its settlements caused the bitterness of the U.S.-Israeli relations up to the extent that Prime Minister Netanyahu did not even take the common photos with President Obama while visiting the White House. Although the tension now seems to be eliminated, its presence was historical. The fundamental outcome of this policy was a freeze in the settlements which was a positive step towards the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. Nevertheless, some scholars such as Reza Aslan argue that in depth the settlements were not fully frozen. Similarly, President Obama had several times insisted on the necessity for a change in the Palestinian language towards Israel.
One the other hand, Martin Indyk, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, argues that President Obama went too far in supporting the Arab World. Meanwhile President Obama gave memorial speeches in Ankara and Cairo, there was no such speech in Israel. Indyk argues that the lack of communication with the Israeli government and society and unusual pressures on Israel from the United States created a huge gap between President Obama and the Israeli government and society rendering it challenging to cooperate to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, it is necessary to ask whether President Obama had any other options rather than pressuring Israel when the ongoing settlements are a complex problem of this conflict? Nevertheless, Indyk believes that a more balance approach from the Obama administration is required to reach conclusions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Mark Lynch, a professor of social sciences at George Washington University, questions the creativity of President Obama’s policy towards the conflict. He states that meanwhile there was the expectation of a new agenda; President Obama took similar steps to President Bush. He argues that the Obama administration did not spend a great focus on solving the Gaza blockade or the reconstruction of the Palestinian territory. He believes that President Obama had to consider Hamas as a key player of this conflict; thus using similar policies such as Turkey’s approach to engage Hamas more actively. Yet, one has to consider the role of public opinion in the policies of the governments. The perception of the Turkish society towards Hamas is certainly not the same as the United States’. The role of the public opinion will be specifically analyzed in another section of this series. President Obama’s Israeli-Palestinian agenda was not designed without any creativity. The unique pressure on the Israeli settlement was certainly an evidence of a new approach. But, perhaps the engagement of Turkey as a partner favored by both sides, the Arab world and Israel, could have been another creative option.
Overall, President Obama’s Israeli-Palestinian approach had certain new elements. Nevertheless, there are no signs of a major, positive impact of this approach in this dilemma. Did President Obama’s approach fail due to the policy itself or due to the negative response of the Palestinian and Israeli partners? Although decreasing, hope is still alive as the Israeli and Palestinian authorities hold direct negotiations in a few weeks.

President Obama and the Islamic World: Introduction

After Barack Obama took office as the new President of the United States, the world expected an innovative approach towards the Islamic world from the new administration. President Obama’s historical speeches in Ankara and Cairo demonstrated a new agenda towards the Islamic world. The language of the U.S. administration radically changed and either a term such as the “global war on terror” was eliminated or terrorism was often replaced by extremism. Indeed, President Obama’s agenda created a great deal of optimism and hope for the U.S.-Muslim relations. The polls illustrated an enormous support for the new U.S. administration in the Islamic World.
However, more than 16 month after taking the office, President Obama is facing rapid decrease in the initial optimism towards his administration approach to the Islamic World. This reduction is vey essential in the U.S.’s foreign and even domestic policy. Outside the borders the United States is involved with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, extremism, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran among many other crucial issues related to the Islamic World. Domestically, the decrease can illustrate the efficacy of his approach to fundamental issues such as closing the Guantanamo prison. Hence, this series of analysis aims to discuss the extent to which the Obama administration was successful with its policy towards the Islamic World by assessing the administration’s approach towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran and the role of the public opinion in applying the policies. Nevertheless, the analysis will be limited as it does not consider the role of other crucial factors such as Iraq and Afghanistan in judging President Obama’s approach towards the Islamic World.

Iranian Economy: Tehran's Baazar's Strike

In the first week of July, after the government tried to increase the taxes by 70%, the usually blasting Tehran’s Grand Bazaar went on a strike. Despite the government’s offer to reduce the initial 70% increase to 15%; the strike spreader to Tabriz’s Grand Bazaar as well, creating a major and historical crisis for the Ahmadinejad’s government. Although the strike is now over, the enduring news of the Iranian tax reforms maintains the concern among the merchants in the bazaar.
The heavy pressure of the International sanctions and the low prices of oil have persuaded the Iranian government to reconsider its tax policy. “Iran imposes valued added tax (VAT) at 3% on large corporations but not on smaller” (The Economist) business, leaving out the bazaar’s merchants. Historically, Tehran’s bazaar had a significant role in the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Their financial support for the anti-shah movements was a crucial assistance for Khomeini’s supporters. In fact, the cost of Khomeini’s historical flight from Paris to Tehran after the victory of the revolution was provided by the bazaar’s merchants. The influence of the Tehran’s bazaar within the country’s politics has rendered any reforms related to the bazaar’s business challenging.
The slow economy, increasing inflation, the concerning influence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps in the domestic economy and President Ahmadinejad’s policy of reforming the tax system has increased the number of his oppositions among the bazaar’s merchants. This means that as the critics of President Ahmadinejad are increasing, he has to fight on more fronts. If he is not able to diplomatically compromise a solution for such crisis, either his policies will be left incomplete or President Ahmadinejad has to rely on the influence of the Revolutionary Guard, increasing the militarization of the Iranian economy.

-Joy-

Joy is the words of an aching,sleepless brain on an early Tuesday morning.

-Joy-

Living in dreams:
I rule the lord
I own a world
I sense the joy

Living in reality:
I chase the wave
I own a cave
I sense the joy