The outcome of US President Barack Obama’s visit to the Middle East is quite interesting given the low expectations that accompanied the trip. It was dubbed as merely “touristic.”
However, Obama successfully prodded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to agree and issue an apology to Turkey over the death of nine of its citizens. Israeli prime minister also promised to pay compensation to the families of the activists.
The Turkish citizens lost their lives while on board a flotilla that was trying to break the three-year-old blockade on Gaza.
Israel has been maintaining the position that its soldiers had acted in self-defense and there was nothing to apologize for. Now that Obama has managed to change that position, it is reasonable to rethink the general impression that the Israeli lobby is dictating the US Middle East policy. No administration can persuade Tel Aviv to change its policies, however. The real issue is whether Washington has a will or not.
The change of heart is not a direct result of US pressure or persuasion only, but a serious consideration of the possibility of the Syrian conflict spillover with its wider regional implications. Both Ankara and Tel Aviv are worried that some chemical weapons will find their way to their opponents like Hamas, Hezbollah or the Kurdish separatists.
The deal requires Turkey to send its ambassador back to Tel Aviv and drop its legal procedures against Israel and its soldiers. It will get the two countries to share intelligence information and probably come up with a unified position on how to deal with the Syrian conflict that is now in its third year and is continuing to pose a serious challenge to the region and the world at large.
Yet more significant in Obama’s deal is vthat it seems to be entrusting two non-Arab countries to join hands and face up to an issue that should firstly be of concern to Arab countries. The Arab League has provided the needed regional and political cover for the international community to deal with the Syrian conflict, but it fell short of forcing its way for a change be it through political settlement or an outright downfall of the Assad regime in a military showdown.
Egypt, the biggest Arab country, is providing less leadership given its own domestic turmoil. If the change in Libya, with the help of the international community is any guide, then the post-Assad regime could be more worrisome to Washington. That is why the US government added Jabhat El-Nusrah, one of the toughest fighters against Assad, to its terrorist list.
The rising tide of political Islam in the region is posing serious challenges to Washington even if these forces are claiming to act in a more moderate way.
However, the real focus will be on Turkey and whether it will go all the way back into the traditional role it used to play in tandem with Western interests given its membership of the NATO, or to pursue its new leadership role and image established by its leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Now for more than a decade, Turkey istrying to build an image for itself as part and parcel of the region with all its aspirations. And with the rising political Islam tide it stands a chance of consolidating its position as a regional leader, especially now that its political and economical track record weighs in its favor. This role fits in well with what Erdogan and his party have been fighting for in their home country for decades against strict secularist tradition trying to exclude Islam from the political and general scene of society. That is why Islamist Turks feel some uneasiness in their relationship with Tel Aviv.
However, ideology is not the main factor driving politics. Both Turkey and Israel will see to serving their own interests.
But the question remains about the implication of all this on the Arab’s present developments and future implications. That is a challenge many Arab governments seem unwilling to take on for the time being.
