Obama's Open-Minded Middle East Solution

Washington Post discussion


The Current Discussion: Are Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama on a collision course over Iran and the Palestinian problem? What would be the consequences of a breach between the United States and Israel?

One of the assurances that Israel has always had is the unwavering support of Washington, both when Israel is harmed and when it acts to harm others in response to its own perception of threat. President Obama, it would seem, is taking a slight detour from this established principle of U.S. foreign policy; keeping Israel as the cornerstone of U.S. policy in the Middle East, but effectively seeking a dialogue with Iran and at the same time wanting to push both Israel and the Palestinians to work out peace. While on the face of it there is nothing new in this approach, look at it in the rhetorical context of how past American administrations have handled Middle East policy. President Obama's approach is more open-minded and more interesting. His call to lead the world through example and deeds rather than simply by bullying has resonated well with many countries.
The Israeli position, as much as it professes the need for peace, takes as a starting point that peace must meet Israeli demands, which of course include the immediate cessation of all nuclear activity by Iran and a dismemberment of Hamas in Palestine. Yes, Iran must stop any activity related to the procurement of nuclear weapons and open itself up for international monitoring. But by the same logic Israel, too, must come clean on its own nuclear weapons, which it does possess, and to come to an agreement with the IAEA on how it intends to dismantle its own nuclear arsenal. If the logic is that it needs them for its defense, then clearly other countries, be they Iran or Mongolia, can make the same argument. As for Hamas, we often forget that it was elected into power. While it does resort to violence, which it too must renounce, the fact remains that its political future must be decided by the ballot box and not by pressure from abroad.

President Obama will face the wrath of many of the hawks in the U.S. State Department on his foreign policy initiatives as he tempers threats with dialogue in the Middle East. While it may not win him friends on the right of the political spectrum, it will certainly bring back fairness to the attempt for peace on the region. The chief complaint for the past three or more decades has been that the U.S. government has never really been balanced and fair in its handling of the Arab world, especially when it came to the issue of Israel. I am not suggesting that President Obama will or should abandon Israel, though the sad truth is that when he does ask for moderation in U.S. support and seek fairness and dialogue, many will assume that Israel has been abandoned.

Israel's preferred solution for Iran would be to first bomb their suspected nuclear sites, as they did with Iraq in 1981. But the world is different place than it was then. It is also well known that after Pakistan acquired nuclear weapons capabilities, Israel drew up a contingency plan to use Sri Lankan airbases for which they had operational rights, to see if they could disable Pakistan's nuclear capability. The fact that all this never happened does not mean that Israel was never planning such moves. It highlights the underlying mindset of how Tel Aviv would wish to resolve things in the Middle East. Obama has a sincerity of purpose and a resolve for showing the way without force which his predecessor grossly lacked.

While people might assume a U.S.-Israel falling out with the new Obama policy, that's highly unlikely. Strains will appear, but a complete breakdown will not happen. It would be helpful if Israelis also understood that the constraints of world policy are complex. While peace in the Middle East is of paramount importance, there is a need to consider a strategic peace effort which is good for all, not just for a few. The consequences of these changes in U.S. policy will at worst mean a sulking Israeli Prime Minister and at best a realization that the road to peace in the Middle East does not only lead through Tel Aviv. If anything, it goes through all the capitals of the Middle East.

The Gaza Genocide

The Israeli President, when recently asked about Israeli's response to rocket attacks by Hamas, said that when would it become disproportionate, after ten rockets, hundred rockets or a thousand rockets. Well its therefore normal to ask the question when will the Israeli Defense Force understand that they have killed one, two, ten, or a hundred children too many and then they can say the objective of silencing rockets will be achieved. I know many readers will find this offensive for me to say, but quite frankly for Israeli's to allow their government and army to kill so many civilians in Gaza is pure and simple genocide. I am not for one moment saying that Hamas firing rockets was fine, in my eyes both acts of violence are wrong and misplaced. However, it has always seemed to me that Hamas have been always shooting these rockets more to bolster their own image amongst their own people rather than really inflict any serious damage on Israeli citizens, considering not one person was killed in these attacks. The issue of who started this war first will never be resolved and it can be traced back to decades if not centuries. The issue is that both sides need to understand that innocent people are dying and there is not other way about seeing this.

As for the outcome of the Gaza invasion there will obviously be a weakening of Hamas, perhaps even their removal from the power structure, and they may return to more underground tactics. However, it is still not clear whethere Hamas has been marginalized enough by the current invasion for Palestinians in Gaza to actually reject them. Perhaps if the effect of the invasion was actually dead Hamas fighters rather the children and civilians then perhaps the ensuing discomfort of a military occupation would make Gazans realize that indeed the problem is the Hamas. However, at the moment the Israeli overhanded brutality has meant that Gazans relate their suffering directly to the Israeli invasion and not the actions of the Hamas. Eventually a stalemate will be achieved when Israel will realize the Hamas fighters they went after actually got away, or were not as badly effected as hoped for and then perhaps an honorable withdrawal will be done.

A wider war is not possible mainly because the Arab countries have either feebly condemned the invasion or in the case of Hosni Mubarak's Egypt and the Palestinian Authorities Mahmmod Abbass actually blamed the Hamas for their own political motives. If the string is drawn to when the rocket attacks started then yes Hamas is to be blamed, if the string is to be drawn further back then Israel, and to some extent Egypt's, controlled blockade of the Gaza strip are perhaps the starting point for this round of conflict. Either way, the issue remains that a wider war cannot be possible given Israel's military might, and the Arab leaderships inability to even agree to switch off the oil tap for one hour. (not that oil embargoes bring any solutions).

A Hamas defeat? Well on one side one could argue that how do you militarily defeat an army that tends to dissolve into society when it chooses too. This is not some large standing army with armored tanks and planes. So in the sense of a military defeat of Hamas its more likely that they will be weakened and perhaps politically out flanked but defeated seems a bit hard to see given the nature of this movement.

Overall the Palestinians and the Israelis have a sorry story to tell for themselves. Decades of conflict, and not a single step worth mentioning towards peace for their people. While the Palestinian leadership lacks the courage to carve a new deal with Israel based on realities, Israel continues to be an occupier in most of the territory to seized in 1967 and its recent actions in Gaza are shameful and a war crime. So in a sense both sides will continue to behave like criminals and the world leadership doesn't have the conscious or the will to tell them otherwise.