>> The Daily Star

PEACE URGENTLY NEEDS THE RADICALLY NEW

The Daily Star - September 5, 2009 by Rami G. Khouri It is at once heartening and perplexing to see the growing expectations that US President Barack Obama will make some sort of formal gesture on Arab-Israeli peacemaking during his speech at the United Nations later this month during the opening of the General Assembly session. It is heartening because the United States is an essential player in any serious peacemaking effort, mainly because it is the only party Israel trusts. So it is important that the US actively engage in trying to restart peace negotiations, yet it is perplexing that Obama seeks to do this now, when almost all indicators – including Washington’s own posture – do not inspire confidence in an optimistic outcome. The Palestinians are deeply divided, the Israelis are governed by an extreme right-wing coalition whose “peace” terms would be closer to war crimes in normal countries, the Arab world remains fragmented and passive, and many other issues attract greater attention from the world, such as Afghanistan and Iraq. Most importantly, the US seeks to push the negotiations forward while its own credentials and impact reflect mixed fortunes rather than compelling credibility. The Americans are experiencing difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan, their counterterrorism and non-proliferation policies show few successes, their Iran policy remains inconclusive, their sanctioning of major Islamist movements has not reduced these movements’ popularity, their re-engagement of Syria has yet to produce practical results, their on-and-off attempts to promote freedom and democracy in the Arab world have become an erratic side show, their pressure on Israel to freeze settlement building unconditionally has generated an ongoing negotiation that will probably see a partial freeze for a short period of time only, their cajoling of Arab states to make confidence-building gestures toward Israel seems to be generating limited steps that have mostly been tried before, without any impact, and their laudable hug-a-Muslim rhetoric has generated reciprocal hugs, but not much else in real policy terms. The rickety foundations of US policymaking in the Middle East have combined with the Obama administration’s vulnerability on domestic issues and other global matters, meaning that a new US Middle East initiative risks going nowhere because of serious constraints and weaknesses among all the principal players in the region and abroad. Yet, the US has transformed its image and posture in the Middle East since January, especially with respect to links with Iran, Syria, Iraq, Israel and the Arab-Israeli peace process. The shift in American rhetoric on these issues has been decisive and impressive, and has primarily provided the US with a platform of renewed seriousness from which people listen to it now, whereas a year ago the US was widely ignored in the Middle East. One can argue that the Washington is moving prudently by changing its tone, being more realistically involved by speaking to all governments, taking limited initiatives, and trying above all to re-establish its credibility as a truly impartial mediator that addresses the interests of all concerned, rather than acting mainly as Israel’s protector and ally. It would be understandable for Obama to continue this limited action approach when he speaks at the United Nations, perhaps livening it up with a meeting with the Israeli and Palestinian leaders. That would essentially be a replay of the Annapolis process that former President George W. Bush tried nearly two years ago, without success. It would also perpetuate the stalemates and failures of the past. A radical new approach to Arab-Israeli peacemaking is needed, and the US is in a position to drive such a process if it really wants to help the parties achieve peace. If the UN General Assembly is the platform for Obama’s speech, he might consider going back to two key General Assembly resolutions on Palestinian-Israeli relations, Resolutions 181 and 194, which called for the partition of Palestine in 1947 and then addressed the Palestinian refugees’ rights in 1948. Obama might suggest that the core of a credible peace process can be extracted from existing UN General Assembly resolutions, updated to take account of today’s realities.A serious peace process requires grasping the mutual, simultaneous, equal and legitimate rights of Israelis and Palestinians. Revisiting the principles of these two seminal resolutions could be a dramatic way for the Obama administration to push for peace. If we’re going to take a few steps back before moving forward, it makes more sense to go back to the core issues of 1947-1948 than to the marginal comedy and legacy of failure of phenomena like the Annapolis process, the Quartet, the “road map,” and anything related to the Middle Eastern phase of envoy Tony Blair. The approach to Arab-Israeli peacemaking, like most other things in the political world that Obama has inherited and is now trying to shape, requires real change, not cosmetic remakes or illusory magic shows.

Segnala questa pagina