ANALYSIS:Resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is key to the US administration's plans for the region, writes DENIS STAUNTON
AS A new president confronting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, an unprecedented global economic crisis and a slew of domestic policy challenges, Barack Obama could be forgiven for shying away from fresh foreign policy initiatives.
From the day he took office six months ago, however, Obama has made the search for peace between Israelis and Palestinians a priority, appointing George Mitchell as special envoy, seeking to engage Arab states more closely in the peace process and travelling to Cairo to deliver a major address to the Muslim world.
The president’s efforts have already produced results, notably Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s explicit acceptance, for the first time, of a two-state solution and a significant improvement in popular attitudes to the US in the Arab world.
Obama’s initiative moved into a new phase this week with Mitchell’s second visit to Damascus, promising Syria an easing of US economic sanctions and the arrival in Israel of some of the administration’s top national security officials, including defence secretary Bob Gates and national security adviser Jim Jones.
Obama views the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a US national security interest that could help Washington realise other policy goals in the Middle East. These include preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability and securing the stability of Iraq after US forces withdraw.
Administration officials believe the window of opportunity for agreeing a two-state solution is a narrow one, making the push for a comprehensive settlement an urgent priority.
“Our goal is to bring to this region, and to all of its people, an opportunity to live in peace and dignity,” Mitchell told reporters in Damascus on Sunday.
“If we are to succeed, we will need Arabs and Israelis alike to work with us to bring about comprehensive peace.”
Publicly, the diplomatic effort has been dominated by a noisy dispute between the Obama administration and Netanyahu’s right-wing government over Washington’s demand that Israel freeze the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. A settlement freeze is one of Israel’s obligations under the 2002 “road map” agreed with the international quartet made up of the US, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations.
The US administration’s tough line on settlements, which Netanyahu has rejected, has contributed to a perception among some Israelis that Obama is abandoning Washington’s traditional support for the Jewish state. One recent poll found that just 6 per cent of Israelis considered the Obama administration to be pro-Israel, while 50 per cent said its policies are more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli.
At a pro-settler rally in Jerusalem this week, Rabbi Eliezer Waldman told more than 1,000 demonstrators that Obama was a “racist” who was picking a fight with Israel to enhance his standing in the Muslim world.
“How dare he tell the Jews where they can or can’t live? The era when Jews were banned from living in different places has ended,” the rabbi said.
Far from being hostile to Israel, Obama stands firmly within the US political mainstream that views Israel as Washington’s indispensable ally in the Middle East. He remains hugely popular among American Jews and when he hosted Jewish groups at the White House this month, none expressed outright opposition to his policy on the settlements. Mainstream Jewish and pro-Israel groups in the US, including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) have never campaigned in defence of settlement activity, which the international community condemns as illegal.
The public nature of the dispute has served, however, to illustrate an important shift in Washington’s relationship with Israel, which has become less exclusive under Obama than under his two most recent predecessors.
Under George W Bush and to a slightly lesser extent under Bill Clinton, Washington avoided public criticism of Israel, co-ordinated negotiating positions with Israeli leaders and allowed Israel’s interests to become the point of departure in crafting US policy in the region.
Obama remains unequivocally committed to Israel’s national security but he has been more willing than his predecessors to acknowledge the legitimate aspirations and grievances of the Palestinians.
Apart from the settlements issue, Obama and Netanyahu are also at odds over Iran, with Israel calling for a more confrontational approach to Tehran’s nuclear programme. Obama has offered to engage with Iran over the issue and secretary of state Hillary Clinton appeared to acknowledge the possibility that Tehran would indeed acquire a nuclear weapon when she floated the idea of a “defence umbrella” for the Islamic republic’s neighbours.
In common with most Israelis, Netanyahu views the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat and he has refused to rule out a pre-emptive strike to prevent it from becoming a reality. Vice-president Joe Biden said this month that, as a sovereign state, Israel could not be stopped from taking military action it deemed necessary but other administration officials, including Gates, have warned Israel against making any such move.
Here, the Obama administration is following the policy of Bush administration, which told Israel the US would not offer any assistance if it chose to attack Iran.
The arguments over Iran and the settlements and the dramatic change in US rhetoric in the region should not obscure the formidable obstacles in the way of a US-led peace initiative.
Chief among these is the Palestinians’ divided leadership, with Hamas holding sway in Gaza and a fractured Fatah movement in charge of the West Bank. Egyptian efforts to broker a unity government have failed to bear fruit until now and Palestinian institutions remain far too weak to produce a capable and legitimate government.
Any attempt to talk directly with Hamas before the Islamist group renounces violence and recognises Israel would expose Obama to a revolt among pro-Israeli members of Congress. European governments, which have until now trailed behind the Obama administration in promoting a peace settlement, might have more leeway in opening talks if Hamas moves towards accepting the international community’s conditions.
Finally, Obama should consider following his Cairo speech to Arabs and Muslims with a direct appeal to Israelis, making clear that his promotion of a peace plan is an expression of Washington’s enduring commitment to Israeli security rather than a departure from it.
Denis Staunton is Washington Correspondent of The Irish Times