It is time for a more balanced
U.S. approach the Israeli-Palestinian question and a truly transformational
alteration in policy dealing with the region as a whole. The unfolding debacle
sets the stage for such development. If handled diplomatically and with
consideration to all parties involved, the U.S. could exploit the present
crisis and craft an opportunity to assert long-lasting peace. Mandating a
settlement along the lines of the pre-1967 borders with adjustments and minor
land swaps to accommodate the biggest Jewish settlement in the West Bank could
initiate the birth of a truly New Middle East and pave the way for
unprecedented development that promotes both economic well-being and self-determination
for the region's citizens as a whole.
On the eve of Barack Obama's
first term, Israel launched its attack on Gaza and Obama remained silent. Now,
on the eve of his second term, with failed promises of transformational change
behind him, there is a risk that the Obama administration will utilize Egypt
only to broker a temporary ceasefire. Such a move may reduce conflict but would
exasperate the variables that would ultimately lead to regional war. Instead,
all parties should be discussing long-term settlement.
Senator John McCain has already
suggested that a high profile figure like Bill Clinton be sent to the region to
referee negotiations but the Clintons represent a continuation of the
pro-Israeli status quo and the PLA he once negotiated with at Camp David has
been largely sidelined by the rise of Hamas highlighted by Shaikh Hamd bin Khalifah
al-Tani's visit to Gaza to see Ismail Haniyah, prime minister of Gaza, but not
including Mahmud Abbas who has been marginalized due to a betrayal of the
Palestinian cause. Only a truly
transformation in U.S. policy persuasion can help to craft the kind of balanced
and aggressive stance needed to facilitate a movement toward real negotiated
peace. It would be much better to recognize the importance and necessity of
assuming this stance now rather than waiting to rebuild a new Middle east from
the ashes of World War III.
The Obama administration failed
to get serious about a long-term resolution during its first term. As a result,
the region underwent tectonic shifts that have radically altered the
perspectives of all negotiating parties. This most recent episode has presented
the result of these altered realities for the first time in real terms. While
it is improbable the Obama administration will take such a bold and truly
progressive stance, it is important to contemplate the possible consequences of
an inability to broker Mideast peace. In a recent Washington Post editorial Dr.
Henry Kissinger explained that religious division, the persistent threat of
conflict and sustained misdevelopment in the Middle East pose not only a threat
to countries in the region but to the Post-Westphalian nation state system
itself. As Dr. Kissinger described it, the Sykes-Picot nation state system in
the Middle East was drawn on lines completely foreign to indigenous
identity. He rightfully foretold of a
potential breakdown that now emboldens the voices of violence when he explained
that, "the more sweeping the destruction of the existing order, the more
difficult the establishment of domestic authority is likely to prove and the
more likely to resort to force or the imposition of a universal ideology."
"The more fragmented a society grows, the greater the temptation to foster
unity by appeals to a vision of a merged nationalism and Islamism targeting
western values." Sustaining the
typical rejectionist and unconditional pro-Israeli U.S. position could foment
such an evolution which certainly opposes the stated objective of preserving
the interests of both Israel and the U.S.
Now is the time for true
alteration. All parties involved have no choice but to accept such propositions. An altered policy perspective based on the
advocacy of a two-state solution along prre-1967 borders would lead to the
reassertion of an Arabist counter to pro-Israeli stance of most influential
U.S. policymakers. This paves the way,
not only for something that could look like a new King-Crane Commission but for
comprehensive development that could include something like a Marshall Plan for
the New Middle East. As the tension heightened over the weekend, President
Obama was in Myanmar trying to complete his "Asian Pivot" away from
the Mideast, but he would be better to redirect Air Force One to Cairo and in
order to present a second inaugural speech in the Muslim world. However, this
effort should stand in contradistinction to his merely rhetorical performance
there on June 4, 2009. Instead, he should repeat his remark that it is easy,
"to point fingers... but if we see this conflict only from one side or the
other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the
aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and
Palestinians each live in peace and security," but this time he should
follow the rhetoric up with concrete action. Such proclamations and
implementation would almost document the President's common claim that America
is "the one indispensable nation."
The other alternatives, whether they spark war tomorrow or some time
down the road, could prove that all nations are indispensable, especially a
Palestinian one the U.S. continues to refuse exists.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
