By Michael Jansen

During his first 100 days in office, US President Barack Obama has demonstrated that his administration is determined to break out of long-set policies followed by previous administrations.

He took on Republican laisser-faire conservatives by boosting government intervention in the US financial sector and the economy. He set a timetable for withdrawing US forces from Iraq. He called for the reduction of nuclear weapons stockpiles and ordered the Pentagon to stop buying inappropriate weapons and equipment. He sacked the head of General Motors and set conditions for bailout payments to the failing US car industry.

He overturned George W. Bush’s ban on public funding for stem cell research and called for “green” policies to reduce global warming. He prohibited torture and abuse of prisoners and pledged to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention centre. He eased the US boycott and embargo on Cuba. He proposed dialogue to Iran, shunned by the US since 1979. He is trying to improve US relations with Europe, Latin America, and the Muslim and Arab worlds.

His initiatives are both fresh and driven by necessity. He cannot carry on with either domestic or foreign policies followed by the disastrous Bush administration, which produced the global economic meltdown as well as deep antagonism towards the US and its citizens.

As far as this region is concerned, Obama and his officials have shifted from the Bush policy of giving in to Israel on every issue, with the exception of bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Obama has made it clear to Israel that the US expects it to negotiate with the Palestinians with the aim of creating a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and special envoy George Mitchell have reiterated this stand and in February, a Massachusetts Democrat tabled a bill in the House of Representatives expressing support for a two-state solution. The bill has more than 100 sponsors and the number is rising.

Furthermore, Hillary Clinton has strongly objected to Israel’s demolition of Palestinian houses in occupied East Jerusalem. The Bush administration did not condescend to notice Israel’s West Bank wall-and-fence complex, Palestinian land expropriations and house demolitions. While the Bushites did complain weakly about Israel’s 600-plus checkpoints and roadblocks in the West Bank and around Jerusalem, it did nothing about them.

By contrast, during his recent press conference with His Majesty King Abdullah, Obama indicated that the time may come when the US has to take action to secure the administration’s objectives with respect to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

“I agree that we can’t talk forever, that at some point steps have to be taken so that people [Palestinians] can see progress on the ground. And that will be something that we will expect to take place in coming months.”

This suggested that he might be ready to link Israel’s behaviour with $3 billion in US aid given to Israel on yearly basis.

Such a step would have been unthinkable during the Bush and Clinton administrations. The only sanction the US has adopted so far was during the government of the Likud’s Yitzhak Shamir. Then, Washington withheld US public backing for bank loans Israel was using to expand settlements in Palestinian territories.

Shamir was the Israeli politician who adopted the negotiate-forever-fruitlessly-and-build policy, which has become Israel’s strategy for dealing with efforts to forge peace between Palestinians and Israelis.

It will be interesting to see if Obama delivers on his pledge to King Abdullah who has repeatedly warned that the “peace process” launched by the Oslo accord in 1993 is nearing its expiry date.

Obama has also flatly rejected the notion put forward by current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Iran’s nuclear programme, seen by some Israelis as a major threat, should be dealt with before Israel resumes negotiations with the Palestinians. The Obama administration holds that the reverse needs to be done. It takes the view that the Arabs are much more likely to be ready to tackle Iran over its nuclear programme if there is progress in Palestinian-Israeli negotiations.

Finally, Obama dismissed Netanyahu’s demand that the Palestinians must recognise Israel as a “Jewish state” or the “state of the Jewish people” as a precondition for negotiations. Obama also refused to buy Netanyahu’s call for negotiations for “economic peace” between Israel and the Palestinians rather than on the final status issues of Jewish settlements, borders, Jerusalem, resources and Palestinian refugees.

This week, the Obama administration took one small step which must be construed as action rather than talk. The administration asked Congress to amend US law to allow the Palestinian Authority to receive US funds if Fateh forms a unity government with Hamas, regarded by Washington as a “terrorist” organisation. This government, which would have ministers nominated by both movements, would be required to meet the conditions laid down by the US-dominated Quartet (whose other members are the European Union, UN and Russia) in early 2006 after Hamas won a majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council election. Thus, a unity government would have to recognise Israel, agree to halt violence, and accept previous deals between Palestinians and Israelis.

Hamas itself would not have to accept these conditions as such, although it has indirectly agreed to them by accepting a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, a long-term ceasefire and previous arrangements with Israel.

The Obama proposal amounts to a very serious challenge to Congress where bills backed, or even tabled, by the US Israel lobby win automatic approval by acclamation. The proposal also challenges Hamas to be flexible in order to secure Western financial assistance for the reconstruction of Gaza devastated by Israel’s 23-day war, which ended on January 18.

The issue of US financial aid to a unity government will not come up until Fateh and Hamas form such a coalition.

When congressmen from both Democratic and Republican parties protested over the administration’s submission, Clinton argued: “We don’t want to bind our hands in the event that such an agreement is reached, and the government that they [Hamas] are part of agrees to our principles.”

She also made the point that the US is providing funds for the Lebanese government although 11 of its 30 ministers are from the Hizbollah-led coalition. Furthermore, it is likely that after the June 7 election in Lebanon, Hizbollah and its allies will have a larger role in government. The “outing” of Hizbollah could, thereafter, give impetus to the “outing” of Hamas.

For this to happen Hamas and Fateh must arrive at some sort of accommodation, either in a unity government or, as proposed by Egypt, in a national committee charged with overseeing the reconstruction of Gaza. Until an arrangement is worked out between the rivals, nothing will happen in the strip: there will be no funds, no building materials, no consumer goods, and no respite for its desperate 1.5 million citizens.