A bridge too far for peace

By Cyrus G. Robati

(May 23, London, Sri Lanka Guardian) With Iran and its allies dreaming the destruction of Israel, Americans, the traditional outside interlocutors, having an awful diplomatic credibility throughout the eight years of George Bush's presidency, have plenty of problems at home. But their Middle East emissary, George Mitchell, has already toured the Middle East thrice. With his soft-spoken, easy manner and intriguing blend of Irish and Lebanese blood, Mr Mitchell is not a bit like patrician James Baker, but one can hear those Middle Eastern heads being knocked together already.

As American officials are signalling at bolder aspirations, Barack Obama has invited a galaxy of regional leaders to Washington for a series of mini-meetings to hammer out a peace plan. In early June he plans to deliver a speech in Egypt and the biggest Arab and Muslim city, to fulfill a promise to address the world's 1.3 billion Muslims in an attempt to salvage American prestige and perhaps also to lay out a vision enormous enough to shake off the region's cynics and spoilers out of their negative obstinacy.

Several Middle East actors averse to what they are beginning to hear. Israel's government, for one, looks more discomfited by the new wind blowing from Washington. Premier Binyamin Netanyahu argues, among other things, that Mr Obama should somehow stop Iran's nuclear ambitions before pushing Israel to address the Palestinians.

Surely, America also views Iran's nuclear ambitions and its support of Islamist guerrilla groups in such places as Lebanon and the Gaza Strip as threats. But in contradiction to Israel's insistence that the option of using force against Iran must be maintained, Secretary of Defence Robert Gates has cautioned that a military attack would only delay rather than destroy its nuclear programme.

Mr Obama's quietly tough National Security Adviser, James Jones, has remarked pointedly that working towards a two-state solution of the Palestinian question could do a great deal to diminish Iran's threat. He also invokes the experience of Yugoslavia to explain that in pursuing peace it is more effective for America to be involved directly in negotiations rather than leave parties to sort things out: a hint that America may scarcely shy from squeezing its Israeli ally. Susan Rice, America's representative at the United Nations, endorsed a unanimous Security Council call to create a Palestinian state. Unusually for an American official, she used such terms as “fully”, “unequivocally” and “urgently”.

Yet the Arab and Muslim rejectionists are also less than delighted by America's new tune. Iran's leaders sniff that they want to see action, not just nice words. Their ally Syria, basking in recent Western courtship and sensing that the world has recognised its wisdom in supporting “resistance” movements and its indispensability to any regional progress, got a recent shock when Mr Obama ordered a renewal of American sanctions against it.

The Palestinian Islamist movement, Hamas, and Lebanon's militia-cum-party, Hizbullah, cheered by Europe's less hostile attitude to them and hopeful that America may one day stop demonising them as terrorists, are still shunned, though it is likely that Mr Mitchell is quietly pondering ways to draw them into dialogue, perhaps at first through third parties. After all, both movements remain powerful potential spoilers. Hizbullah looks set to make gains in Lebanon's imminent elections -- and could play a bigger part in the next Lebanese government. And without Hamas, no Palestinian government is likely to strike a deal with Israel that would stick.

Yet, Mr Obama's efforts are beginning to generate support and even enthusiasm. King Abdullah of Jordan, the first Middle East leader to be received at the White House by its new incumbent, says the Americans now accept the urgency of a need to build momentum towards a permanent (or comprehensive) peace. He also reckons they realise, as Mr Bush's team never did, that almost all Arabs and Muslims would recognise Israel if it relinquished the Palestinian territories under occupation. President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, a staunch American ally whose relations with Mr Bush grew strained to breaking point, praises the new president as precise, reasoned and willing to listen, in sharp contrast to his predecessor. Meeting Mr Netanyahu before both of them were due to go to Washington, he was careful to insist that pursuing peace with Palestinians, not confronting Iran, should be the priority.

Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak has said he thinks an agreement with the Palestinians could be achieved within three years. “I think and believe that Netanyahu will tell Obama this government is prepared to go for a political process that will result in two peoples living side by side in peace and mutual respect.”

But he did not use the word state, leaving open other options for Mr Netanyahu.

Overall, Mr Obama has advantages that his predecessor never enjoyed. He has unusually strong backing in the world at large, which shares his impatience to settle the Middle East's squabbles. He is still personally popular abroad. In a recent poll of six Arab countries he was viewed far more favourably than America itself. Most Arabs think he will have a good effect on the region. But by raising expectations of a big diplomatic push, Mr Obama risks damaging American credibility more, should his efforts prove vague or toothless. Huge obstacles remain, not just regional saboteurs but also an American Congress still reluctant -- though a shade less so than before -- to flout Israel's wishes. But behind the as-yet-undefined specifics of American policy, there appear to lay some new assumptions that augur well for success. One is that regional peace must be sought as a goal, not a process. Another is that the region's troubles are all linked. Perhaps the most important is that in seeking to fix things, America will be acting neither out of charity nor in pursuit of ideological ambition but simply in its own national interest.

Mr Obama's administration is still under probation, and will remain so until it proves its determination and ability to do what must be done, rather than being contented with merely cosmetic operations or incomplete steps that would be the most of what can be achieved. It is necessary for Arab parties, however, and especially those that have loud and angry voices, to contemplate and appreciate the steps being taken then encourage them instead of blaming and denouncing them. They must also check what they should do themselves, to truly help the Palestinians and rid them from the oppression or the occupation, or both.

-Sri Lanka Guardian