THREE weeks into 2009, the abiding emotion is fear: economic fear with job losses and repossessions but above all the unimaginable fear of the Palestinians in the densely populated Gaza strip with its 1.5 million inhabitants packed into a space equivalent to two cities the size of Washington. And there is the fear of the southern Israeli people from rocket attacks.
When Barack Obama was elected as President of the United States, he was faced with two wars and an economic crisis. Now, on the eve of his inauguration, the situation has worsened to become three wars and an economic meltdown.
With 500,000 new job losses announced in the US in December Obama, who describes the American economic situation as “dire”, has held press conferences to unveil his fiscal recovery plan to pump billions into the economy.
On the two wars with direct America engagement we know his intentions: “responsible” withdrawal from Iraq and a surge in Afghanistan.
The third war is different. Here we are in semi-darkness, as Obama and his team have stuck to the mantra that there can be only one President at a time. The juxtaposition of television images of Obama in shorts playing golf while Gaza burns can only damage his reputation. Nevertheless, at such a dangerous juncture, until he takes office and takes decisions, whatever he says is bound to be dissected and analysed. What Obama has said is that from day one he and his team will be involved immediately on the Middle East peace process and he is prepared to break the deadlock.
The possibility of change the Palestinians could believe in came crashing down with the roofs of their hospitals, schools and homes. It came crashing down with the deaths of Palestinian children and it crashed even further when children too weak to stand were rescued. They were found side by side with the bodies of their dead mothers.
In last week’s New Statesman John Pilger argued it beggars belief that the President-elect was not in the loop and kept informed about Israel’s assault on Gaza. Pilger may be correct that his silence therefore indicated approval which is to be expected given “his obsequiousness to the Tel Aviv government and its lobbyists during the presidential campaign and his appointment of Zionists as his Secretary of State and principal Middle East advisors”.
But there is still an opportunity. It would be absurd to believe that the Obama White House will not do things with which many of us disagree. For a start, the surge in Afghanistan will result in a quagmire and Gordon Brown must resist the demand for more British troops. But I refuse to be totally pessimistic. The nature and character of the incoming President means his has the potential to be a transformational presidency.
Some commentators see America as the only international player that matters and its abstention on the bland United Nations resolution on Gaza – the last dismal legacy of George W Bush, whose administration is possibly the worst in American history – gave the green light for Israel to continue its onslaught.
What Obama must do is seize the moment and take bold leadership decisions on the scale of Richard Nixon’s opening up of the world by going to China – even though he was a virulent anti-Communist. Obama and Hillary Clinton, that avowed ally of Israel, could yet succeed in the Middle East where Bill Clinton failed.
While Israel with its superior weaponry of F-16 jet fighters and armoured tanks will win the tactical war in Gaza, the violence will not end unless a long-term peace is negotiated. This brutal conflict has made that task even harder.
The Israeli government has sought to win the propaganda battle by inundating journalists with text messages seeking to mitigate any barbarity. For instance, it sought to excuse the bombing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency school, in which 40 people were killed, including women and children, by claiming that the Israeli Defence Force was returning fire from Hamas fighters.
But while this has had limited success, the UN relief spokesman, the indomitable former BBC radio journalist Chris Gunness, and the Red Cross have been on hand to counter the propaganda with the facts.
In the absence of independent verification from the foreign press, these independent organisations have been able to provide a more unbiased view than that emanating from Israel. And while Western journalists have been banned, broadcasters – notably the BBC – have used Palestinian producers to bring eyewitness accounts. The images from the catalogue of carnage being perpetrated in Gaza tell a very different story from Israel’s text messages and press releases.
Nevertheless, the ban allowed an Israeli spokesman in a rigorous Channel 4 interview to deny the UN’s statement that Hamas were not firing from the school, or its compound, using the simple tactic of telling Channel 4 reporter Andrew Thompson (on the Israeli/Gaza border) that he couldn’t know the facts because he wasn’t there.
At the time of writing, it is being reported that Israel believes it is approaching the endgame in Gaza. And this is where the new US administration might just make a difference. Obama and his team have indicated they will reverse the Bush doctrine of isolating Hamas and Iran and establish instead a policy of dialogue – albeit behind the scenes at first.
In his memoirs. Bill Clinton recalled the Camp David talks and described their breakdown as “the failure of my life”. He blamed Yasser Arafat. “Right before I left office, Arafat thanked me for all my efforts and told me what a great man I was. ‘Mr Chairman’, I replied, ‘I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you have made me a failure.’”
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama must seek to reverse that failure, as the fear that exists now is arguably even greater than the fear then. The antidote to fear is hope.
