Mark McDonald salutes Barack Obama’s initial engagment with the Middle East, but there’s a long way to go
MANY Presidents of the United States have attempted and failed to deliver peace in the Middle East. Barack Obama’s capture of the White House brings with it fresh optimism and new hope for change.
But fate has not dealt Obama a good hand. With Binjyamin Netanyahu again Prime Minister of Israel there is a major obstacle to a two-state solution to the war with the Palestinians and consequently, many fear, an insurmountable barrier to peace.
Although George W Bush was the first US President in office to give public endorsement to a two-state solution, for a number of years this has been the fundamental principle behind the American-led peace process and the only basis on which the Palestinians will accept peace talks. But Netanyahu has always been opposed to this, believing that Palestinians right to self-determination would threaten Israel and fearing that a two-state solution would ultimately mean the return of the 4.5 million Palestinians living in refugee camps throughout the Middle East. This would spell the end of the Jewish state, Netanyahu and Likud, the party he leads.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu faces a domestic threat from the hard right with which he formed a coalition government after the recent election. Any move towards a two-state solution could destabilise this coalition and require Likud to look to Tzipi Livni and Kadima for support.
But the biggest obstacle to a two-state solution lies with Netanyahu’s continued support for the settlements in the West Bank. Earlier this year, Netanyahu said he would continue with Ariel Sharon’s policy of expanding the settlements, with the aim of ensuring that Israel has a permanent presence on Palestinian territory. Even as Netanyahu left for Washington to meet Obama, Israel began constructing a new settlement in the Jordan Valley, in flat contradiction of an earlier commitment by the Prime Minister not to build any such settlements.
There are about 500,000 Israeli Jews living in settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Many of the settlements are self-contained towns with tens of thousands of residents. Some of the settlements are in the middle of Palestinian communities, such as in Hebron, where this adversely affects the daily lives of the community. Freedom of movement is prevented in a town, which sometimes has more Israeli soldiers than settlers.
In recent years, Israel has built a series of modern roads crossing the West Bank. Most of these are for Israelis only and closed to Palestinians. Added to this is Israel’s security wall, which separates whole Palestinian communities. It’s no wonder some have come to think that Israeli has more in common with white South Africa than modern democracy.
In his book, Palestine Peace, Not Apartheid, Jimmy Carter accused Israel of creating an apartheid system. The former US President said: “Palestinians are deprived of basic human rights. Their land has been occupied, then confiscated, then colonised by the Israeli settlers.” Carter concluded: “Israel’s continued control and colonisation of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land.”
Getting Netanyahu to agree to the withdrawal of settlements will not be easy and is probably impossible. His reluctance to accept the creation of a Palestinian state is based on long-held beliefs which cannot be overcome with the election of a new American President – no matter how popular he is. Although Netanyahu accepts that there can only be peace when the people of Israel and Palestine agree to live side by side, Netanyahu prefers to focus on discussion of economic development initiatives and will not commit to any timeline for a peace deal.
Obama has a pragmatic and bold vision for the Middle East, calling for a peaceful resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict and seeking a comprehensive peace between Israel and the whole of the Muslim world. This has been the main motivation behind his engagement with the 57 members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which includes Iran.
At the same time, Obama has sent a strong message that Israel’s security is of paramount importance and anything that threatens this is non-negotiable.
The President’s first steps on this latest road to peace have been positive and Netanyahu has reluctantly agreed to hold talks with the Palestinians. The world will be watching when Obama delivers a speech in Cairo next month. Here, in the heart of the Arab world and the birthplace of modern jihadism, he is expected to put profound distance between himself and the neo-conservative policies of the previous US administration.
Mark McDonald is vice chair of Labour Friends of Palestine and a human rights barrister
About The Author
“fate has not dealt Obama a good hand. With Binjyamin Netanyahu”
If Hamas hadn’t celebrated the withdrawal of Israeli settlements by firing over 8,000 rockets into Israel, then maybe Israelis would have more willingness to do the same and withdraw from the west bank. They saw what happened there and don’t intend to have their whole coastal area (10km wide from the sea) to be subject to rocket fire from the west bank.
Strangely enough though, the last prime minister of Israel Olmert only a few months ago was willing to do just that. He offered to recognise a Palestinian state, to give them half of Jerusalem for their capital, and uproot nearly all the settlements and evacuate 97% of territories taken in the 1967 war (when Jordan attacked Israel and occupied the UN buildings and neutral territory surrounding it) and swop territory in Israel for the remaining 3%(needed by Palestinians to make a corridor between Gaza and the WB).
What was Abbas’s response? “Nyet”. He will not give up on swamping Israel with the great grandchildren of those who fled/fought Israel along with the 5 arab invading armies in 1948.
As far as Hebron had jews in its town, why not? There was a thriving community there until the 1929 massacre of jews of Hebron- they weren’t even Zionists, but a community that had lived there for hundreds, even thousands of years. The problem is not Israeli ‘racism’ but of Palestinian anti-semitism dating back to their leader the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin El Husseini (recruited the Bosnian SS Islamic legion that massacred hundreds of thousands of jews, gypsies and partisans during WWII).
Mr McDonald has nothing to say of the Palestinian anti-semitism, of Hamas and others constantly committing acts of terror against Israel(dating back to the 1950’s, before the wb occupation) of not wishing jews to live amongst them. How can Mr McDonald justify that?
As Dahlan the Palestinian advisor to Abbas and strongman said only recently:
“They say that Fatah has asked them to recognize Israel’s right to exist and this is a big deception. For the one thousandth time, I want to reaffirm that we are not asking Hamas to recognize Israel’s right to exist. Rather, we are asking Hamas not to do so because Fatah never recognized Israel’s right to exist.”
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1237114855755
The problem is not Israel, but that Palestinians will not give up on the hope of destroying Israel. The settlements are a red herring. Once palestinians give up on this futile hope of doing away with Israel, they will find that the Israelis vote in again a party of peace (The last party of government Kadima was elected solely on a peace ticket, of withdrawing from Gaza and the WB).