OXFAN: "Obama returns to traditional US policy"

OxfAn: Excerpts: 

(...)

1.        Empathy and understanding. Obama aims to show that he understands, and appreciates, the aspirations and grievances of the parties on each side of a particular issue. ...

2.        'Hard truths'. Having validated the concerns of the disputants, he then cajoles them to acknowledge the justice of some of their opponents' claims. In Cairo, this was signalled by his pledge to tell "hard truths" to all parties involved. He sought to show that he was in earnest by acknowledging a few of the historical faults of the US regional approach -- such as Washington's facilitation of the 1953 coup in Iran, and implied criticism of the 2003 intervention in Iraq. 

3.        Critics' objections. Critics of the president's rhetorical approach often accuse him of creating a false sense of 'moral equivalence' between the wrongs suffered by aggrieved groups. For example, some observers attacked his Philadelphia speech for supposedly equating the suffering of blacks under slavery and segregation with the grievances of the white working class. After the Cairo address, there were complaints from a few Israelis and Palestinians that he was underplaying their suffering relative to the other side. ...

Policy hints. 

• Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He continued his attack on Israeli settlement policy in the West Bank,....
• Hamas. Crucially, the president appeared to acknowledge the permanence of the organisation, while repeating calls for it to renounce violence and recognise Israel. However, he did not restate Bush's demand that Hamas face international isolation until it took these steps.
• Iran. On Iran, Obama continued to reach towards engagement by acknowledging that both sides were culpable for the historical faults that led to estrangement. Crucially, he conceded that under the Non-Proliferation Treaty Iran had the right to develop nuclear energy, provided it adhered to its "responsibilities" -- such as committing to eschew nuclear weapons.
• Democratisation. The president indicated that he would shift away from a Bush-era emphasis on the mechanics of democratic elections, towards an emphasis on governance: particularly human rights (especially women's rights), transparency, and an independent judiciary and the rule of law.....

Where next? ... facts on the ground have rarely, if ever, looked less auspicious:

• If Obama puts pressure on Israel over settlements -- as he must if progress is to be made -- the precarious right-wing coalition could collapse. Another weak coalition would inevitably follow -- and in the current mood it is by no means inevitable that what emerges will be any better.
• Palestinian divisions are widening, with the Egyptian-mediated talks on a unity government close to complete collapse. As long as the weak, divided and discredited Fatah-dominated administration exercises limited control in the West Bank and Hamas remains in charge of Gaza, a credible Palestinian negotiating partner capable of making the necessary strategic choices does not exist either.
• Obama's team seems to be coming up with new ideas for key Arab states to offer Israel interim inducements to be more flexible, but questions arising from the age of their leaders and the gap between rulers and ruled make political legitimacy an obstacle to risky gestures.

Much therefore depends on regional events outside Obama's control, starting in the next few days. He will be greatly helped if the imminent Lebanese and Iranian elections produce results conducive to progress...."