Give Obama Some Time Before Judging Him.

Give Obama Some Time Before Judging Him.

As a Palestinian commentator or analyst, I find it very hard for me to defend the remarks made by Democratic White House candidate Barack Obama in his speech before the powerful Washington lobby, American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC. In his speech, Obama expressed his "unshakeable commitment to Israel's security" and his support for Jerusalem to remain the undivided capital of Israel. Was Obama speaking as a political amateur who understood nothing of the Middle East? Or was he fully aware of what he said and hoped that through his speech he would manage to drum up support for his candidacy against the Republican candidate, John McCain?

Obama's appearance before AIPAC was almost the first and most prestigious exposure he had immediately after he declared his candidacy on behalf of the Democratic Party in the upcoming presidential elections in the US. Given a chance to speak before the most powerful Jewish lobby in the US, Obama felt it was his golden chance to appease the Jewish voters, though some American experts believe that 80 percent of the Jewish votes are likely to go to McCain regardless of what Obama says.

Can someone build on that speech to suggest that the words Obama said will be the main guidelines of his foreign policy once he steps into the Oval Office? Certainly not. Almost every other American presidential candidate was so generous in not only pledging unlimited support to Israel but also in voicing strong pro-Israel rhetoric like calling for moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. However, every one of those, once steps into the President's shoes, would immediately say that in principle, he supported what he pledged but things on the ground and US interests with the Arab world do not allow this pledge to be implemented.

In an interview to CNN a day after his AIPAC speech, Obama backtracked somehow and said that the future of Jerusalem is a matter for the Palestinians and the Israelis to decide in their final status negotiations. He also criticized Israel over its settlement policy and blamed President George Bush for not doing more to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. The promising words from Obama came when he spoke of the need to "have a contiguous and cohesive Palestinian state that functions effectively." Based on his criticism of the way the current US Administration dealt with the Arab-Israeli conflict, one can easily understand, or at least hope, that Obama, if elected, will fold up his sleeves and address the conflict shortly after he takes office. "The Middle East peace process is so important that we can't reserve it to the end of a presidency. We've got to start soon and I'm going to be absolutely committed to making that happen," he said.

Many Palestinians and Arabs seem to be worried because of Obama. They believe that because of the strong campaign launched against him by certain Jewish circles in the US, Obama might try to do the undoable to convince the American public and Israel that he indeed is a close ally to Israel. He might find it difficult to play an impartial role in pursuing a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians, they explain. Nevertheless, one thing is clear. No presidential candidate can be judged based on what he says in open meetings before elections. History has told us of so many US candidates who set for themselves certain foreign policy lines, which they reshuffled soon after they were elected. Obama may not be an exception. He is not the first to follow this zigzag route. He is certainly not the last one either. Give him some time. Only then, we can judge him.