What is needed is a rational and concerted effort to broker a peace deal which maximizes justice, and which creates new realities on the ground that will help to sustain the peace once it is in place. And so, if you get a call, in the middle of the night, from President Obama, informing you that you have just been appointed U.S. Middle East Envoy; what would you do to bring peace to the Middle East? Here are a few suggestions. Perhaps you have something to add.

Gaza: Negotiate a ceasefire, and then a truce, between Israel and Hamas, on the basis of an Israeli pullout, accompanied by a cessation of missile and mortal fire by Hamas, to be monitored by U.N. observers. Suggest to Hamas to give up their military ambitions in exchange for: an easing of border restrictions, a lifting of an economic blockade, and an opportunity to partner with Fattah to provide a democratic government for the Palestinian people. If Hamas agrees, launch an international investment program for Gaza, with the purpose of: creating jobs, building infrastructure, growing the economy, and weakening the hold of extremist thinking. Along with the hope that comes from economic growth, launch a series of programs to sustain the hope: a more balanced and modern approach to education, a student exchange, a cultural exchange, an empowerment of women, an expanded Peace Corps presence, a media campaign, international conferences, etc.

West Bank: Continue to train Palestinian soldiers, so as to enable the duly elected government to defend itself from outside threats, including the threats posed by Hamas and other extremist factions. Encourage Fattah to reach a workable agreement with Hamas so that the two could work together to negotiate a comprehensive peace deal with Israel for the creation of a Palestinian state, along the lines of the understandings that have been reached between President Abbas and Foreign Minister Livny, and reminiscent of the deal offered by President Clinton and Prime Minister Ehud Barack to President Arafat in the year 2000. Continue to develop the four industrial zones in the West Bank, and launch an international effort to invest in good paying jobs, jobs which grow the economy, jobs which protect the environment, and jobs which help to neutralize extremist thinking. Work to inspire Palestinians with a Vision of Hope, and support that economic effort with Public Diplomacy Programs which are specifically designed to prop the vision up and to carry it forward. Use an Ideology of Common Sense to speak to Palestinians with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity.

Israel: Encourage Israel to embrace and enhance the possibility of peace, and to take positive action in that regard by: negotiating a truce with Hamas, allowing Hamas to partner with Fattah for the sake of democratic rule, helping Hamas to build infrastructure and to grow Gaza’s economy, and helping Fattah to do the same in the West Bank. Encourage Israel to negotiate a final status agreement, one that protects Israel’s security, but one that also allows Palestinians to achieve at least most of their political aspirations. To the extent possible, convince Israel to become actively involved in orchestrating the economic growth of the new fledgling state so that the ordinary Palestinian citizen is finally given a place at the table, a stake in his or her future.

Syria: Encourage Syria to negotiate peace with Israel on the basis of an Israeli pullout from the Golan Heights, along with a U.N. monitored military free zone in that area. Structure a series of economic and diplomatic incentives to lure Syria away from Iranian control, and to cause Syria to stop its support of terrorist organizations, and to stop interfering with internal Lebanese affairs.

Lebanon: Continue to bolster Lebanon’s democratically elected government. Try to steer Hezbollah away from military confrontation, in favor of a political role as part of a duly elected government. Use a Vision of Hope to empower the Lebanese people to embrace the possibility of peace among themselves, and with Israel.

Egypt: Encourage the international community to continue to invest to grow Egypt’s economy and to create good paying jobs. Support Egypt’s efforts to mediate regional disputes. Empower the man on the street with the notion that his life could get better, and use that hope to weaken the hold of extremist thinking. Push for warmer relations between Israel and Egypt on the basis of peace in Palestine, and on Israel’s efforts to help orchestrate an economic revitalization of the Middle East with her technological know-how and her economic drive.

Saudi Arabia: Give Saudi Arabia credit for proposing a comprehensive peace deal with Israel. Encourage Saudi Arabia to continue mustering Arab support in this regard. Encourage Saudi Arabia, in light of lower oil prices, and worldwide green demand, to diversify its investment portfolio by investing in green technology in Palestine, and throughout the Middle East. Use oil profits to create green profits, and use these profits to create even more good paying green jobs, jobs which will grow the economies, jobs which will protect the environment, and jobs which will weaken the strangle hold of extremist thinking. Use a growing economy, and the prospects for Middle East peace, to shift the thinking on the street from an extremist ideology to an ideology of common sense. Use the momentum of change to gear the educational system to a more modern and balanced approach, and to gear religious practice to be more in keeping with the more peaceful aspects of Islam.

Iran: Try to convince Iran that its nuclear ambitions are not in keeping with Iran’s best interests long term. Make the point that a nuclear Iran will be in the crosshairs of many a potent foe, and that the least bit of miscalculation could spell a doomsday scenario. Use diplomacy and economic incentives to convince Iran to give up its nuclear aspirations. As such, Iran could begin to play a vital role in pushing a comprehensive peace process forward, based on mutually shared economic and political interests. Iran could also cooperate by having Hezbollah and Hamas play political, as opposed to military roles. Iran would also be able to quell dissatisfaction from within by delivering to its people the promise of a better day.

With this much on your plate, you may think twice about taking the job. But don’t you agree that a chess game of this sort is what is called for, given current realities on the ground? Don’t we have to table at least some of the emotions and passions, for there to be even the slightest chance for peace? And do we have any choice but to try, even against all odds?

For more information, please visit our website www.sellingavisionofhope.org

With the president-elect just a few weeks from taking the throne in Washington DC, Barack Obama has been largely absent from the diplomatic maneuverings attempting to put a halt to Israel’s military excursion into the Gaza Strip. His absence, some argue, only makes the situation worse.

At least Jewish American blogger Richard Silverstein, who writes at Tikun Olam, thinks so:

Where is Barack Obama? I know he’s in Hawaii soaking up those rays of glorious sunshine. But that’s not what I mean? Where IS he? Gaza is in flames. Bush is doing worse than nothing. He’s actually making the situation worse with his nonsense about calling Hamas thugs and claiming the Palestinian movement caused the Israeli violence and can end it.

Obama’s response is becoming less and less satisfactory as the killing mounts.

…I can understand that the Gaza massacre is not nearly as important to the American people as the Wall Street collapse. But when the economy imploded you didn’t hear Obama’s people deferring to Bush. He consulted with Bush. They worked out a common strategy. They each tried to look energetic, diligent and thoughtful.

In a post called “Stupid Logic Mr. Obama” Ampal — American Palestinian had this to say on the future president’s policy towards Palestine:

Obama said : “If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.”

RESPONSE: If someone was starving my family, bombing my sewage and electric power plants, traumatizing my children by daily sonic booms, preventing my sick children from seeing a physician, keeping my college aged students from receiving the scholarships they deserve, causing half of the child population to have anemia, then I would launch every thing including the toilet and sink at them. Come on, Mr. Obama lets show a little more understanding than the current administration.

The “anti-zionist blog” Jews Sans Frontieres thinks maybe Obama wants to project a different image of US power.

…Obama's refusal to comment on this latest batch of war crimes may be significant if only to suggest that Obama wants to project a more reasonable image than offering open vocal support to a regime for whom violence appears to be and end itself.

Now Israel has targeted a Palestinian university you might expect Engage to at least say something but no, not a word.

After linking to a comment from Obama spokesman David Axelrod who argued that Israel is merely responding to the shelling of its cities, VivirLatino came away less than impressed:

I am ashamed and disgusted, especially if this is the change that the United States electorate was and is supposed to believe in. I am haunted by the words and images of people, men, women, and children and how my tax dollars are being used to oppress and make invisible people who aren't even deemed worthy of by some to be people, to have land, a home.

Some commenters have acknowledged that Obama needs to be careful not to step on the shoes of outgoing President George Bush.

Alex Stein, who has resided in Israel and writes the blog False Dichotomies, defended the president-elect's actions:

The criticism of Obama’s silence over the hostilities is unfair. He is right to state that there is only one president at a time, and he is right to take a holiday before embarking on what is arguably the toughest job in the world. Getting over-involved would have little point; he can have little impact until he is President, and there is no sense in compromising his stature with either party by taking sides.

Many sites are obviously looking at this situation through the lens of how the Obama administration will change U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Fayyad writing in the (mostly) Arab-American blog KABOBfest argues this is a test for the look and feel of the Obama administration towards the Middle East.

Gauging [Obama’s] response to the action from outside the Whitehouse will set the tone for what Israel gets out of him. With his chief of staff being a former IDF volunteer, it’s hard to see how he will see things any different than the IDF perspective. And the American stance of asking the rape victim to quit scratching the rapist will continue to the Washington Modus Operandi.

Window into Palestine contends that Obama is basically nothing more than a wolf in sheep’s clothing when it comes to the rights of Palestinians.

Obama no longer has to placate pro-Israel voters, including no shortage of Christian Zionists, so his lack of comment on the premeditated slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza should send us a message — an Obama administration will continue the long-standing U.S. policy of allowing Israel to wantonly kill Palestinians and pay the Israeli government handsomely to do so.

…Democrats who thought an Obama administration would bring some balance to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are probably saddened by Obama’s apparent lack of concern for the mass murder now taking place. But then what did they expect? Obama is nothing if not window dressing for the New World Order and obviously the NWO wants the carnage to continue in Palestine. Of course, the global elite have no special love for Israel, either, and its people will be sacrificed when the time is right.

One of the most compelling contrasts offered to us throughout this past election cycle has been the manner in which an exuberant optimism has been met with cautious skepticism. In a debate held in Maastricht’s ravishing Selexyz bookshop on the night of the election, Danny Merideth, a political advisor to the U.S ambassador to the Netherlands, suggested the tempering of expectations held of an Obama administration. Similarly, other members of the debate panel were quick to point to the difficulties that an Obama administration would face in pursuing its ambitious agenda. The restrictions Barack Obama will face are certainly true of any incoming president; a newly-elected chief executive must deal with their predecessors’ budget, is likely to honor the military and trade agreements already established, and must deal with the challenges posed by the international system, in this case two wars and a commitment to fighting terrorism. Add to that the mounting financial crisis, and it may be easy to understand why reality could weaken the winds powering the sails of an incoming administration that has charted a path paved with hope and headed toward significant change.

It would be prudent of us, however, to step back and cautiously monitor the doubts we express of next four years, in lieu of the history that was made on November the 4th; a history that is likely to litter the pages of history books written for generations to come. Watching the reaction to Barack Obama’s victory that night, both here in Maastricht and around the globe, I was reminded of another culturally significant movement that reshaped the image of the United States both within and outside the nation. In 1969, a concert featuring the days’ most prominent rock and roll artists took place in a small suburb of New York. Woodstock, as the event would come to be known, was as significant for the unification of a generation as the peace and love which it exuded. In the only documentary produced on the event, its director Michael Wadleigh managed to capture images of a youth compelled to unity, inspired by potential and motivated by the questionable actions of its government. One can only imagine the narrative with which history will portray Obama’s victory, as well as the screaming crowds that followed his march to the White House and celebrated his arrival.

The projection of unity in this election, spanning a globe that has grown weary of the exploits of the world’s unipolar, may have far superseded that of the Woodstock generation. This unity is likely to stand distinct in its historicity, and may well prove to be a potent currency with which an Obama administration will act to meet the global challenges of the next four years. What follows are four reasons why this election is probable to affect significant change on the world’s future, and why in addition to tempering our expectations and hopes, we may want to constrain our skepticism.

The Significance of Ethnicity/Race

The shade of Barack Obama’s skin, while tempting to write-off as insignificant to the way he will run the United States in his upcoming term, is significant, and not only because of the racial progress it is symbolic of. While writings in the vein of Christopher Hitchens’ and William Kristol’s have emerged throughout the election cycle suggesting the lack of importance a candidate’s black skin will have toward his administration’s policies and programs, I’d like to suggest otherwise. It was not Obama’s proposals on pursuing militants in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan, nor his suggestion that an increased effort was required of the U.S’ allies in Europe to stabilize Afghanistan that prompted the support of millions from Gaza to Nairobi.

And while his international support cannot be solely explained away as stemming from his racial and ethnic identity, it has certainly proved a forceful magnet in attracting positive views of the United States. At a time when the favorability of the U.S, according to several Pew poll results, rarely exceeds the mark of 50% among developing nations, the election of an African American has reframed the narrative of the American dream. Obama’s election has strengthened the image of U.S democracy around the world, and has conjured up the imaginations of those people who live with an unfortunate reality of the lack of opportunity for success of this magnitude in their own countries. This has manifested itself into statements by heads of state praising the triumph of ethnic and racial tolerance; Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai suggested Obama’s election ushered in a “new era” in which politics would transcend race, color and ethnicity.

Although this mode of thinking may demonstrate the failure “to emancipate (ourselves) from the original categories of identity that acted as a fetter upon clear thought,” as Hitchens has noted, it is equally representative of the emotive response much of the world still holds toward racial and ethnic identity, and the important role it has and will play in changing the perceptions of the United States for the better.

The World Was Watching, and Obama Spoke To Them

Every election in modern history has been watched by the world, with differing degrees of interest. With the advent satellite television networks, the internet, and other tools of global communication, billions of people have been able to garner a nuanced appreciation of the U.S election process. While this writer may be too young to appreciate the attention paid to elections past, it should be safe to say that the support Obama has received overseas has been both impressive and unprecedented.

For almost two full years, the international community has been privy to an election held on the grandest and arguably most important stage of them all. Foreign newspapers, television newscasts, and websites were filled with coverage and opinion on the election from the moment Obama announced his run to his last speech declaring his victory. People outside the U.S expressed their views, hopes, and criticisms of the candidates; what’s significant is that a candidate spoke back to them.

Several of Obama’s speeches were sprinkled with messages to the world. After losing three of the first four primaries to Senator Hillary Clinton, Obama alluded to both the tone of his opponent’s campaign and the international attention surrounding it when he said “The world is paying attention to how we conduct ourselves. What will we they see? What will we tell them? What will we show them?” Similarly, on the night of his victory in the general election, in a speech given to over 125,000 people in attendance, Obama addressed his audience overseas:

“And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores… our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear this world down — we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security — we support you.”

An International America?

Not to exaggerate the influence he will have or the transformative effect he’ll wield on the way U.S power is used, but the possibility for a more international America is at hand. That is not to suggest that the preeminence of American national security will fade, or that strategic interests will suddenly cease to be the primary motivator for U.S action around the globe. For all the talk of the Bush military doctrine and the wisdom of nation-building, much of what we’re likely to see in the next four years will be a continuation of the past eight. To his credit, Obama’s campaign for the presidency has managed to ooze exceptionalism without making his foreign spectators queasy.

However, amidst all that will stay the same, Obama is very likely to leave an indelible mark on American foreign policy. Of all the candidacies we’ve been exposed to throughout this election, his has been by far the most forward-thinking. Of particular interest to this writer is his counter-terrorism plan, audaciously named his “Plan to Defeat Terrorism”. And while that won’t happen, Obama’s plan stands out for the manner in which it details the role that communication will play in this endeavor. In an effort to shore up support for extremists, the plan mentions the importance of speaking directly to Muslim audiences, and training diplomats in media skills and foreign languages in order to provide an American presence on foreign satellite networks. As part of a large scale public diplomacy effort, Obama’s plan aims to build new “America Houses” that would serve as cultural centers in regions of the world where anti-Americanism is so fervent it may play a role in driving people toward extremist groups. The plan also makes mention of providing alternative options for education in countries where Islamic schooling, prone to the absorption of extremist thought, tends to dominate. Finally, he plans to double spending on U.S foreign aid by the end of his first term, setting a goal of $50 billion dollars.

Obama is Symbolic of a New Generation

‘The torch has been passed’ may have earned its official status as a cliché following election night, however it speaks to a large measure of truth. Barack Obama is very much a child of a ‘flattened globe’, to borrow a phrase from Thomas Friedman. Born to a mother from Kansas and a father from Kenya, having lived in Indonesia for four years as a child, and mingling almost exclusively with foreign students throughout his undergraduate years, Obama’s upbringing is one that forms a holistic, inclusive perspective on the world. Refreshing as that sounds, that perspective will serve not only as a pallet-cleanser to the last eight years; it has and will continue to draw more international attention to what he says and does.

It is conceivable that an international lobby may prove more capable of exerting some measure of influence on the presidency in the coming 4 years than it has been able to in the past eight. If that is the case, it will in large part be due to Obama’s time spent overseas. Why this is not a perennial requirement for the self-proclaimed leaders of the free world is beyond my understanding. I must say, however, I will be looking forward to an American president who can both relate and speak effectively to his generation and the generation to follow, as evidenced by a campaign that seemed to possess more awareness of the world around it than that of his opponent.

While the prospects for an Obama presidency may arguably be overrated, the next four years are likely to effect significant change on American leadership for reasons other than the departure of President Bush. We are likely to see America’s image reframed to appeal to the world, with a leader at its helm more willing to consider our appeals toward him. And although the chants of “yes we can”, the multi-colored Obama t-shirts adulating the man, and the prospects for disappointment may give cause to those cautioning the lowering of expectations, we should temper our skepticism to appreciate the change that has already come, and the promise it holds for our futures.

Given the narrow margin of her loss to President-elect Obama during the Democratic primaries and the support she still holds among the public and her party’s top brass, her involvement in an Obama administration seemed to be there for the taking if she so desired. Clinton is currently considered the front-runner for the position on a short-list that includes the familiar faces of Senator John Kerry and Former U.N ambassador Bill Richardson. How would the appointment of Hillary Clinton to the Secretary of State affect U.S policy on the Middle East?

Beside running the State Department, the Secretary of State traditionally serves the President as his chief foreign policy advisor. The nature of this role has had exceptions; during the Cold War, depending on the administration, the top foreign policy advisor was sometimes the Secretary of State or the National Security Advisor. In recent times it could be argued that the Vice President’s office has played an enlarged role in the formation of foreign policy. The Secretary of State plays a few other roles in foreign affairs, including the handling of negotiations with foreign governments and their representatives, and the marketing of U.S foreign policy to the rest of the world. Given the presence of Vice President Joe Biden (not my favorite policy architecht, but knowledgable nonetheless), and the possible involvement of Samantha Power in the next administration (an academic and a prominent writer, she’s been widely tapped for the position of National Security Advisor), Clinton’s influence on Obama in matters of foreign affairs may be limited. Further influence on Obama may be hampered by their reportedly contentious relationship stemming from the Democratic primaries. Hillary Clinton’s selling ability however, given her public stature, could be well suited to the position.

Of what we can derive from her presidential run, Clinton’s foreign policy views are nearly identical to those of Obama. Beside the standard campaign rhetoric on Iraq (both want to see a withdrawal of U.S presence, but both are cautious of how this would proceed) and Afghanistan (the first of the individual Wars on Terror is likely to receive a renewed focus in the coming four years), we have little to glean from either of their foreign policy objectives other than an increased emphasis on multilateralism and probably a more realist approach to exercising American power abroad. Compare their Foreign Affairs articles, for instance, written toward the end of 2007. While they generally reek of the traditional ambiguity of a political stump speech, their essays reflect the democratic line on foreign policy, perhaps only separated by their distinct emphasis’ on themes of experience and judgment that served to anchor their campaign messages. The possible points of contention emerge on discussions of approaching Iran, with Clinton seeming rhetorically less-open to high level negotiations with the Islamic Republic that have been proposed by Obama. While their policy differences on Iran are minute, Clinton’s emphasis during the primaries on setting ‘pre-conditions’ before engaging the Iranians (which is already happening) managed to pull Obama’s conciliatory language toward the center on the issue, dropping suggestions that he would meet with Ahmadinejad (a rather pointless endeavor to propose in the first place, given where real power on Iran’s foreign policy is centered).

Clinton does carry some light baggage with respect to Iran. During an interview with ABC news toward the end of her presidential run, she responded to a question about the possibility of Iran attacking Israel with nuclear weapons with this statement:

“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an at tack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

Iran protested formally to the U.N, and Iranian members of parliament responded to the provocation with typical indignation and resentment. While protests to the comment are more symbolic than anything else (similar comments have been made by others throughout the past 8 years), reputation is an integral factor in diplomacy and negotiation, and her efforts to engage Iran may receive a sour reception from an already reluctant political establishment in that country.

Any appointee to the position will be responsible for executing an ambitious agenda challenged by a weakened base of resources and power. The familiar obstacles of Israel-Palestine, MidEast political reform, Iraq, Iran, and Syria-Lebanon require a determined yet pragmatic approach to overcome. With all the talk of Senators and former presidential candidates being considered for the job, one cannot help but wish that more established, wonky foreign affairs experts would be short listed to head the U.S state department. A ceremonial appointee (which Clinton and Kerry would largely be) could serve to draw increased attention to their efforts, but wouldn’t it be more appropriate to appoint a person specialized in foreign affairs or diplomacy to head America’s foreign policy bureaucracy? I’m skeptical of the short-list, but almost any appointee will carry out a similar agenda with regard to the Middle East.

The American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee urges you to take immediate action by using the contact info below to express your disappointment to President-Elect Obama and Congressman Rahm Emmanuel for the detestable anti-Arab remarks Emmanuel’s father made this past week.

ADC wrote a letter to Congressman Emmauel and President-Elect Barack Obama asking the congressman to publicly repudiate the derogatory comments his father made. Benjamin Emmanuel was quoted by numerous Israeli and American publications as saying “Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn’t he be? What is he, an Arab? He’s not going to clean the floors of the White House.”

There should be no place for such demeaning rhetoric and these comments are contrary to the very type change the President-Elect promised he would bring to America.

Contact President-Elect Obama by fax at 202.228.5417 or through this online contact form .

Contact Congressman Emmanuel by fax at 202.225.5603 or via E-mail at emma.jurado@mail.house.gov

The anti-Arab remark made by Rahm Emanuel’s father is not consistent with the spirit of change and ethnic equality that President Elect Obama promises to bring to the White House. Arab Americans have put great hope in his election. They believe that they have a part to play in building a new and more equal America.

A public statement by Rahm Emanuel explaining that he does not approve of his father’s remark would go a long way in reassuring us that the president elect and new administration value Arab Americans. We all hope to move beyond the divisiveness of the past to create a future of mutual respect. By distancing himself from his father’s remark, Rahm Emanuel will demonstrate that he does not share his father’s opinion of Arabs and will help the new administration act as an honest broker in the Middle East and at home.

[Antoun] I find it troubling that Mel Gibson's anti-Jewish remarks receive world headlines, yet anti-Arab statements by the terrorist father of a US Chief of Staff barely gets a mention. One could have assumed that a black president would have known better. Obviously not.

I implore fellow bloggers to circulate the ADC message.

And this from the Washington Post:

In a recent interview, Dr. Benjamin Emanuel asserted that his son's appointment would be beneficial to Israel. "Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel," the elder Emanuel said, according to the Jerusalem Post. "Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House."

The public has a right to expect Mr. Emanuel to reject such raw racism especially given the historic resonance of Mr. Obama's victory. It's especially important for Arab and Muslim Americans who came through the election campaign feeling they are the last group of Americans who can still be publicly denigrated.

Mr. Emanuel - whose father fought with the Irgun, the pre-state Jewish militia that carried out terrorist attacks on Palestinians and the British in the 1940s - has a hawkishly pro-Israel record. He has never publicly distanced himself from his father's contribution to the dispossession of more than 750,000 Palestinians, nor criticized Israel's frequent attacks on Palestinian communities that have killed and maimed thousands of civilians.

In June 2003, Mr. Emanuel signed a letter criticizing President Bush for being insufficiently supportive of Israel. "We were deeply dismayed to hear your criticism of Israel for fighting acts of terror," Mr. Emanuel, along with 33 other Democrats, wrote to Mr. Bush. The letter asserted that Israel's policy of assassinating Palestinian political leaders "was clearly justified as an application of Israel's right to self-defense." Such killings violate the Geneva Conventions, and the State Department's human-rights report specified that there were more civilian bystanders killed in Israeli assassination attempts than actual targets in 2003.

For Palestinians, long experience suggests that no matter who occupies the White House, their rights and aspirations will always be a distant second to Israel's preferences. The U.S. role as an "honest broker" is in tatters, not just because of Mr. Bush's legacy, but also because the Clinton administration acted, during years of peace negotiations, as "Israel's lawyer," as Aaron David Miller, a former top State Department official, memorably admitted.

Previously, Mr. Obama was more open to hearing different viewpoints and expressed understanding for the plight of Palestinians under Israeli military occupation. Many still remember his statement in Iowa: "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people." He later hedged, however, asserting it was the Palestinians' own leadership, rather than Israel's, at fault. Such ambiguity has fueled wild speculation about Mr. Obama's pro-Israel bona fides.

Picking Mr. Emanuel may be intended to shore up those credentials, but is hardly Mr. Obama's first indication that he will embrace hawkish supporters of Israel. His speech to AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby, just after he won his party's presidential nomination in June, angered people across the Arab world for embracing Israel's exclusive claims to Jerusalem and for its one-sided criticism of Palestinians.

On a highly symbolic visit in July, Mr. Obama spent almost all his time meeting Israelis and less than an hour with Palestinians. Palestinians were further dismayed by Mr. Obama's support for Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip.

Mr. Obama's recent outlook would be less worrying if it included efforts to hear the widest range of views. But responding to criticism he was insufficiently pro-Israel, Mr. Obama distanced himself from establishment figures holding independent views like former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert Malley, a more even-handed figure in President Clinton's Middle East team. And when Sen. John McCain attacked Mr. Obama for associating with a mainstream Palestinian-American Columbia University professor, Mr. Obama failed to defend his right to consult with whomever he pleases on a critical, if divisive, issue.

Palestinians watching these developments are concerned that Mr. Obama will surround himself with pro-Israel veterans - such as Dennis Ross, who long headed the peace process for President Clinton - who will push for the familiar one-sided policies that allowed Israel to expand its settlements and wall Palestinians off in impoverished, isolated ghettos.

The fundamental change that Mr. Obama promised would mean viewing Israelis and Palestinians as equally deserving of rights and security, something the U.S. has never done in practice.

Brent Scowcroft, former national security advisor, stressed recently on CNN the importance of getting started early on Israeli-Palestinian peace. Mr. Scowcroft noted that "we have removed ... with this election a lot of that sense of injustice in this country. We ought to try to do it in the Middle East." He's right.

But with Mr. Obama tapping Mr. Emanuel to be his gatekeeper, injustice in the Middle East seems more apt to go unaddressed than it did election night.

Mr. Obama’s aides indicated that they expected the rules to apply to his inauguration as well as the transition, but said they had yet to make a final decision on how the inauguration would be paid for.

John D. Podesta, a co-chairman of the Obama transition, called the restraints “the strictest, the most far-reaching ethics rules of any transition team in history.”

“If someone has lobbied during the past 12 months, they’re prohibited from working in the fields of policy on which they lobbied and will have to cease all lobbying activities during their work on the transition,” Mr. Podesta said, speaking to reporters in the first official briefing by the transition team.

But the new rules do seem to leave some wiggle room. Aides to Mr. Obama, who declared during the campaign that lobbyists would not “find a job in my White House,” said the guidelines allowed for lobbyists to work on the transition in areas where they have not done any lobbying.

Further, the rules apply to lobbyists who must register with the federal government; many people who work for lobbying firms or in other areas of the influence business in Washington do not have to register, because they do not personally lobby federal officials on specific issues.

Mr. Podesta said he expected the transition to employ some 450 people and have a budget of about $12 million. Of that amount, $5.2 million will be paid by the government, with the remaining $6.8 million coming from private sources, he said. Contributions will be limited to $5,000, he said, and the transition will not accept money from political action committees.

During a presidential campaign in which he raised $650 million, Mr. Obama changed the rules of fund-raising, declining public financing and creating his own multimillion-member chain of donors. At least some of those contributors will be solicited for the transition.

As a candidate, Mr. Obama laid out more detailed and onerous ethics rules than any previous prospective president, pledging to bar appointees for two years from working on matters involving their former employers, to prohibit departing officials from lobbying his administration for its duration and to require all political appointees to disclose publicly every meeting with registered lobbyists.

The rules have led to some grumbling that at a time of immense challenges, an Obama administration could be excluding a pool of substantial talent by stopping people from working for the White House in the areas they know best.

“I’ve heard the complaint,” Mr. Podesta said, “which is we’re leaving all this expertise on the side, because we’re leaving all the people who know everything out in the cold. And so be it. This is a commitment that the American public expects, and it’s one that we intend to enforce during the transition.”

It remains unclear how the rules will affect the inauguration. President Bush raised more than $40 million for his second inauguration, mostly from companies and executives.

While aides to Mr. Obama say they are keenly aware that a lavish celebration might not be well received given the faltering economy, they indicate that the historic nature of Mr. Obama’s inauguration and the expectations of high turnout all but guarantee that the occasion, on Jan. 20, will be a huge one.

Yet in one early sign that the celebrations are likely to be somewhat scaled back, Mr. Obama canceled fireworks on election night in Grant Park in Chicago, telling his advisers that the times were too serious for that type of festivity.

“It’s going to be a balancing act,” one Obama aide said, “and I’m not sure how it’s going to be done.”

Rob Malley, anti-Israel?

Tell me we haven’t been bamboozled. We need the change you promise, but something just doesn’t seem right. After eight years under a Bush administration that engendered misery at home and around the world, the United States had found itself distrusted, scorned and despised. And so it seems—correct me if I’m wrong here, please—the US did what the US does best: sell.

Public relations. Imagine with me, if you will, a room of men, probably old white men, with a problem. How do we, they ask themselves, hold onto our place as the world superpower, yet at the same time get rid of the all the bad PR, those annoying threats and censures? How do we, they ask themselves, appease the voices that dare to suggest we’ve gone too far? Without, of course, conceding anything. Epiphany! Change our image, not our style. Ah, the art of American business. Substance is irrelevant, just package it and sell it. They grabbed onto the marketing ploy that has sold many a dubious product: “New and improved.”

Change? Those old white men found the packaging solution. How about the biggest change in American history, colour in the white house? Appearance is all that matters. It would have pushed their luck to choose an African American whose ancestors had struggled to rise from having been degraded as slaves. Such a man may have been too empathetic to the oppressed of the world. No, your past and your appearance was enough; their front man need only carry the pretence of change.

Mr Obama, look in the mirror. You don’t look like them, those old white men. Marketing ploy extraordinaire: product aside, a different image is new and exciting. “Change,” you advised the world, to an America “where all things are possible.” And we the consumers dared to hope. Maybe he really is, we dreamed, new and improved.

The marketers knew the American voters were hungry for talk. Just look at the phenomenal success of YouTube, internet blogging, endless streams of reader-comments, editorial columns, talk shows of every variety. Voters were frustrated—fighting for oil, fighting to make a living—and frustration is vented in talk. With your charming smile you promised dialogue, diplomacy without preconditions; you said “we are nice, you see, we like to talk too.”

While the magicians distracted us with your youthful dark appearance, however, while we focused on our newfound open-mindedness, you selected Joe Biden as your vice-presidential candidate. Were you off your game? Or just hoping we wouldn’t dare burst our bubble of self-righteousness by pointing out that this old white man gleefully announced he was a Zionist?

US domestic welfare has been irrevocably intertwined with its foreign policy in the Middle East. And the Middle East is hurting. Now you are an intelligent man, Mr Obama. Did you not think that bringing an unabashed Zionist with you to the White House might tend to dump salt into the wound? Your statement on foreign policy is clearly dominated by Middle Eastern issues. You promise change. You promise dialogue and diplomacy without preconditions to resolve these issues. Yet a truly significant portion of your statement is spent on swearing in the most absolute terms your unmitigated, incontrovertible and permanent allegiance to Israeli interests. And then Biden. Talk about preconditions.

His service to the Israel Defense Forces and pro-Israel slant is a point of controversy for many. Some Middle Eastern and North African bloggers, perhaps already wary of Obama, expressed their views on Rahm Emanuel's appointment.

Palestinian Pundit sums up general sentiment with one brief headline:

For all those hoping that perhaps Obama was secretly pro-Palestinian, very bad news…

Democratic congressman Rahm Emanuel has reportedly been approached by US presidential hopeful Barack Obama to be his chief-of-staff.

Body on the Line, a blog written by an American citizen living in Palestine, details Emanuel's history and expresses her opposition to his appointment:

emanuel served under the clinton administration (does this sound like change?). but not only is emanuel a former white house adviser, and a terrorist who served in the itf. he also is the son of a terrorist–by british standards as he served in irgun with menachem begin (recall begin was wanted as a terrorist by the british for bombing the british headquarters of the king david hotel–wanted poster above). or just check out their own crest showing a map in the background that includes all of palestine and jordan.

Elijah Zarwan, also an American but based in Egypt, had this to say about Emanuel's new position:

I have no doubt Emanuel is an intelligent and competent man, however many passports he holds. I assume he has the respect of at least the Clinton people Obama will choose to staff the White House. And Emanuel’s father’s mistakes may not reflect his own beliefs.

Regardless, the appointment of the son of an Irgun militant to such an important office will confirm many Arabs’ worst suspicions about the United States before the ink has dried on the headlines announcing Obama’s historic victory.

Raed Jarrar, writing for In the Middle, hopes that those who support Obama will take time to ask the tough questions:

I know that the confetti has not settled down yet, but I think it's time already to ask the Obama-Biden campaign some questions about their foreign policy plans, especially regarding the U.S. role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and regarding ending the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

Egyptian Zeinobia shares her predictions for the rest of Obama's cabinet, and says this about Emanuel:

Rahm Emanuel, the Israeli origin and the son of a Zionist Israeli terrorist group is widely going to be the chief of Staff at the White House, a blow to all those who put hopes on Obama but that man was always since the rally It is not the first time for Emanuel to work in the White House because he used to be there in the Clinton's cabinet.
Strangely no one brought his father connection with the Irgun ,the infamous group that did the terrible Massacre of Deir Yassin Negatively in the rally!!

Finally, Lebanese Chess takes a deeper look at other issues going on between the U.S. and Israel, in particular Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni's recent warning to Obama regarding dialogue with Iran. Of Livni's comments, the blogger said:

With still over two months until Obama is sworn in, Israel has moved quick to influence Obama's policy vis-a-vis Israel's interests in the region. It marks the beginning of the Israeli-AIPAC battle to ensure Obama toes their line.

The Israelis have set the stage for a key struggle between AIPAC and an Obama administration over Iran. If Obama continues to surround himself by staunch pro-Israelis in his administration, AIPAC and Israel won't have much difficulty twisting the president-elect to conform to Israel's goal of regional domination.

Land and People, in a post entitled “Yes, he can!” expresses his trepidation over Obama's election:

Liberals all over the world are celebrating the election of Barak Obama. I will not add to all that has been said or published, but my take on this is that he is the President of the United States, and not Barak Obama. That said, I would really like to hope for change. After all, Obama showed that change was possible: he himself changed from a supporter of Palestinian rights into a man who believes that Jerusalem is the historic capital of Israel. He also changed during his campaign from: “no Iraq war for me please, I’m trying to quit” into: “all right I’ll have some, but a tiny piece please”.

People in the Middle East are expecting to see Obama act differently from previous US president because he is darker skinned. Time will show again that the color of the skin has little to do with politics, democracy and equity. Just look at the Arab World with its home grown dictatorships.

The blogger received a number of reactions to his post. One commenter suggests we give Obama the benefit of the doubt:

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. It was a tough road to get him elected, and the biggest chunk of his campaign money came from people like me and every one else who donated in the $25 and $50. This is a lot of people and they will hold him as accountable as the corporations. This is a man who believes in and respects the US constitution. He believe in grassroots organizing and the power of the people. I did have tears. How could I not? I know more BO than I ever knew who and what our Lebanese president stands for! I cried because I got to experience real democracy and citizenship more than I ever could in Lebanon. I cried because every American child can dream of “if I were a president”, but not so for every Lebanese child. What do you say to you children? that you can have a dream because you don't belong to the correct religion?

Change and justice for the ME is not going to happen overnight, and not within few decades. It takes baby steps.

Farfahinne, a self-declared “socialist from Lebanon,” believes it's up to Americans to seize the opportunity for change. The blogger writes:

There will be many battles ahead as the expectations on Obama run into the limitations of the Democratic Party. The central question for the left in the US will be whether they can relate to the enormous hope that Obama’s election has generated among ordinary people.
The left has be part of building grassroots campaigns that can force Obama to deliver, but also build up forces in opposition to the pro-capitalist policies of both major US parties.
Obama’s election has opened up a space for the left, the working class, the anti-war movement, black people and others to push their own agendas. They have to seize this opportunity.

Lebanese Chess is happy about the election results, but also apprehensive about Obama's foreign policy:

Obama has vowed to reform the health system, vowed to be strict on Wall Street behaviour, vowed to tackle climate change.

However, what should we expect on foreign policy? Obama will no doubt return to the multi-lateral stage, consulting European allies on major decisions, and re-invest into the United Nations process.

Obama wants to talk to Russia, instead of chide it. Obama wants to talk to Syria and Iran, instead of waving a stick. Obama wants to invest in Afghanistan's economy, and he wants to commence an exit strategy from Iraq.

But will he be able to fulfil his desires?

The blogger also tackles the elephant in the room, questioning what Obama will do about AIPAC:

It is certain that in order to pursue a moderate foreign policy that mirrors US national interests, Barack Obama will have to do the unthinkable for an American president … take on AIPAC.

Jeha's Nail congratulates Obama and the American people, then leaves us with this message of caution:

In the United States, Provided he applies to the white house the same shrewd determination that he used to rise to the top, the United States will fare rather well. However, will he succumb to hubris and believe his own rhetoric, the outlook will not be so rosy; messiahs and prophets do not always fare well, and quite a few are already shopping for a cross and nails.

And, for (n+m)th time, do not sell us out…

In the rest of the world, the outlook depends on their current alliance or opposition to the power of the American Imperium. They all expect either a saviour or a douche, but they will all get a shrewd president, intent on increasing his power and therefore that of his country.

So, as reality sets in, expect most election promises to be broken, and if the style changes, do not expect the actions to be dramatically altered.

They voted for a messiah, and got a mere 44th president.