Headlines, Human Rights, Middle East & North Africa, North America | Analysis

MIDEAST: Say it Plain, Mr. President

Analysis by Jerrold Kessel and Pierre Klochendler

JERUSALEM, Jan 19 2009 (IPS) - Europe now evidently understands what the U.S. has long understood – if you want to move Israelis on peace, you need to make them feel secure.

There they were Sunday evening, six of the Continent’s most powerful leaders at the table of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, lining up with Israel’s “achievements” secured in its three-week war against Hamas.

In praising Israel’s unilateral ceasefire, and in committing themselves to help prevent smuggled weapons from Iran reaching the Palestinian Islamists as enunciated in the Israeli-U.S. Memorandum of Understanding signed last Friday in Washington, they were even prepared to soften their concerns for the dire humanitarian consequences of the onslaught.

But behind supporting the containment of Hamas, the message of the European Six was double-barrelled: We support your right to defend yourselves from within your borders, but just as you planned your assault on Hamas, so you must be ready to launch into an urgent full-scale peace offensive with the Palestinian Authority in order to determine your future borders with the West Bank for a two-state solution.

The U.S., focused on Tuesday’s White House inauguration, was absent. France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy may have been delighted to see Europe “out in front”, but he too acknowledged that this dual process – containing Hamas and engaging the PA – is incomplete without Washington at the Israeli table too.

Friday’s ‘contain Hamas’ memorandum was underwritten by President-elect Barack Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But where do they go from here is what the Europeans, the Israelis and the Palestinians want to know?

Throughout his campaign to win the presidency, Senator Obama largely stayed aloof from voicing clear-cut policy positions on the Israeli-Arab conflict except for two instances during a visit to the region last summer: In the southern Israeli town of Sderot, which was bearing the brunt of Hamas shelling, he publicly showed understanding for Israel’s right to self-defence; but in Ramallah on the West Bank, he reportedly showed no understanding for Israel’s passivity in the face of the Arab League peace initiative which offers total acceptance of Israel by the Arab world in return for ending the occupation and forging a full peace with the Palestinians.

Obama’s self-imposed restraint during the presidential campaign prompted speculation that his administration would continue the Bush approach of standing back from the nitty-gritty of the Mid-east conflict. The Israeli military campaign in Gaza changed that: belatedly, he is now on the record that “from day one”, his presidency will be fully engaged.

What constitutes being “engaged”?

Will he simply become entangled in superfluous accusations or justifications on who’s to blame for the Gaza war? Or, will he rather grasp the moment created by the battering of Hamas to push forcefully for an immediate and all-embracing peace offensive?

The U.S. needs to ensure that the outcome of the war is consolidated, both in terms of the truce and the effective blocking of any re-arming of Hamas, as well as in the reconstruction of Gaza. At the same time, the U.S. must stand full-square behind President Mahmoud Abbas’s Palestinian Authority and underwrite the progress made during the past year under the stewardship of the special international envoy Tony Blair in laying the economic and security foundations of the Palestinian state.

It is on the third front that President Obama has his work cut out: to convince a sceptical Israeli public of the merits of proceeding forthwith to a full-scale settlement with the Palestinians and that continued occupation of the West Bank in no way advances their security, or deterrence.

What is called for is a bold new approach that sets aside the hackneyed “land-for-peace” formula: “The two-state solution is endangered, not rescued, by being endlessly discussed,” wrote presciently before the war Hussein Agha and Robert Malley in their New York Review of Books article, ‘How Not to Make Peace in the Middle East’.

Instead “land-for-security” – ending the occupation (of Palestine) for genuine security (for Israel) – should be the guiding Obama principle.

He needs go beyond the immediate realm of Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians. Israel believes it has restored its deterrent capability, not only against Hamas and Hizbullah, but has sent a strong message further afield.

The front-runner in Israel’s upcoming election campaign, Benjamin Netanyahu, consistently posits the two organisations as “Iran’s forward outposts”. According to Israel Army Radio, at Sunday night’s dinner in Jerusalem, the Likud party leader reportedly warned the European guests that if Iran is not contained by stronger sanctions, the time would come when Israel might have to act alone.

President Obama has now the opportunity to use the Memorandum on preventing arms smuggling to Hamas as the basis for a security understanding with Israel that would help assuage such fears about Iranian intentions. He has made clear he means to take on Iran. He may, however, desist from beginning such negotiations until after the spring presidential election in Iran.

But in just three weeks, Israelis go to the polls; their war against Hamas has triggered the need to shelve that important principle – of non-interference in domestic politics, especially among friends.

Barack Obama should not wait until after the Feb. 10 election; he should engage the Israeli people right now.

His message should be straight: Who you chose as your leader is your business. But our equation – as Israel’s proven friend – is simple: We will continue to stand by you, to do whatever it takes to underwrite Israel’s security and legitimacy in the region. But for your part, the people of Israel, you have to accept that we do not accept the legitimacy of the ongoing occupation in the West bank which precludes the possibility of reaching a full-scale agreement with the Palestinians and the entire Arab world.

Obama should say on day one of his presidency: This isn’t a question of pressuring Israel, this is in Israel’s interest – it’s your choice, the people of Israel; end the occupation and you’ll get the security you crave – we guarantee that. Peace will follow.