Gaza Clouds Obama's Prospects

So, why didn't they give peace a chance? Why did the leaders of Hamas and Israel not wait for the incoming U.S. president's inauguration before mutually escalating hostilities? Here was a president-elect chosen, in part, on the expectation that he could enhance prospects for Mideast peace, even if it meant negotiating with people thought to be enemies.

Why not give that approach an opportunity to succeed regarding the future of Palestine? Why not see if Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose husband had been more successful than any other president in advancing the prospects for peace in the Mideast, could have accomplished more than the lame-duck secretary of state she will soon replace?

The question answers itself.

Unfortunately, neither Hamas' nor Israel's leaders believe that a meaningful peace of the sort all U.S. presidents have endorsed is in their interest. That peace stipulates two independent and viable national entities, one Israeli and the other Palestinian. Clearly, Hamas and its hard-line supporters in the region reject the goal of an Israel at peace with its neighbors and secure within its boundaries, even if those borderlines return to those existing in 1967 at the time of the Six-Day War.

Further, Islamic nations in the region obviously don't want a secure Palestine, as some support only the most radical of Palestinian movements, and the oil wealthy regimes, while eagerly throwing money at Wall Street, refuse to invest in any serious way in the Palestinian economy.

What is less obvious, particularly to Israel's many knee-jerk supporters in the United States, is that the dominant Israeli politicians of all parties just as consistently reject the goal of a meaningful two-nation solution, if by that is meant a vibrant and truly independent Palestinian state. This last sentence represents heresy to those many who insist, as an article of faith and despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, that Israel has never wanted anything but to live in peace with its neighbors.

Their view is colonialist propaganda, pure and simple. I first heard it while reporting from Gaza and the West Bank in the immediate aftermath of the Six-Day War, brought on by Egypt and Jordan, which were then the occupiers of what remained of Palestine. Maybe Israel's leaders, most prominently the conquering war hero Moshe Dayan, meant it when they claimed that they had no desire to permanently occupy this land. After all, they were mostly secular Labor Party Zionists, who shunned any notion of a divine mandate to remain in control of the Promised Land.

Whatever their original intentions, the occupation created its own logic of suppression, first breeding discontent and then rebellion. It doesn't matter whether that rebellion takes the form of stone-throwing or rocket launching; the Israeli response will always be wildly disproportionate, further damning the prospect for rational solutions. And uncritically underwriting that disproportionate Israeli response to any and all dissent will be the United States, the supplier of those F-16s doing so much damage in Gaza today.

But most U.S. presidents, with the possible exception of George W. Bush, came to view the blank check for Israel as a loser's game. The madness at the center of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute has been widely acknowledged as the prime source of a much greater madness now codified as terrorism. And even Bush, as represented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, recently has been forced by that reality to put pursuing a meaningful peace back on the agenda.

The fact that settling the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is central to international stability ends up informing U.S. policy, much to the chagrin of the region's hard-liners on both sides. Throw in the prospect of a new U.S. president, who has put the waging of peace into the conversation, and it is understandable why that would threaten many in the Mideast who are wedded to the old ways of doing business. It is why Jimmy Carter, as an ex-president, has worked so courageously to confront that deadly dynamic.

Obama's challenge will be to turn his mantra of change into a practical road map for Mideast peace, a prospect made much more elusive by the Israeli blitzkrieg. But if he fails to do that and simply panders to those who have grown comfortable with this disastrous status quo, he will seriously undermine the prospects for his administration. With our severe economic problems, the last thing we need is increased Mideast instability, driving up U.S. military expenditures and the price of oil.

Robert Scheer is the editor of Truthdig, where this article originally appeared.

Comments

[MissT]

I have great hope for the Obama administration on many levels with the exception of the Iraeli/Palestinian conflict. His close relationship with Rahm Emanual, a person who has dual citizenship, and his selection of him as Chief of Staff, not to mention BO's choice to separate himself from any idea that he is sympothetic to Muslims, does not bode well for the Palestinians in any conflict between them and the Israelis. I hope I'm wrong, but we shall see.

[mjc]

Sadly, your article rings too true. The position of the United States makes it even more certain that there will never be two states or peace in Gaza. Even with elections giving Hamas the winners' position, the United States ignored their vaunted position that elections were the only legitimate guarantee of a Palestinian government and therefore peace. Don't think it is likely that Obama will be able to overcome the years of American negativism toward Palestinians and the blind eye to Israel's policy toward the Palestinians, building a prison, locking it and now threatening a massive assault on Gaza. Israel has always claimed that its neighbors want to push Israel into the sea; however, now it is Israel that wants to push Palestinians and Hamas into the sea. There are way too many politicians who take as their first policy, before even being sworn in, the right of Israel to defend itself and the pledge to support Israel no matter what. Palestinians know they are isolated unless the atrocities on them are given wide circulation. And of course they hope there will be Arabs who will come to their aid.

[mamacat]

On the one hand, I realise that Obama will be the next President, not the next Prophet, and therefore I do not believe he has a magic wand with which to solve the MidEast problems.

On the other hand, I expect him to use his brilliance, hard work, and integrity to at least try to bring peace and justice to the Mid East. It is difficult to believe that we allowed ourselves to suffer through eight years of Dubya and Cheney.

[JISantiago]

Who are we kidding? Is there anyone out there who still believes that peace in Middle East a possibility in our lifetime?

Is Israel genuine in seeking peace with the Palestinians, thereby prepared to give up the territories it illegally grabbed from the Palestinians?

Are the Palestinians, after losing so many lives of their beloved ones and their precious land, genuine in their declaration to recognize Israel in return for a patched-up Palestinian state?

Do you think the rest of the Arab world, particularly the Saudi royalty and the Kuwaiti Sheiks to name a few, will want to see peace prevail between Israel and Palestinians? It would be only a matter of time for these reactionary Arab kingdoms to hit the dust once an independent Palestinian emerges. Saudi King and President Mubarak will be the first casualties, believe me!

And what's more, a continuous turbulant Israeli-Palestinian saga is good for boosting the crude oil price and fill the coffers of the rich Arab playboys!

So, take it from me, peace in Middle East will continue to be a mirage. Even President Obama cannot bring the change we can believe in!!

[WorkingClass]

Me. I still believe that peace is possible. The United States together with Iran could work out a deal that Israel and the Palestinians could not refuse. After they have settled their own differences.

[JISantiago]

Dream on, as the rest of the world had dreamed on for decades with no avail.

It's no doubt good to feel optimistic. But hypothesis is one thing, reality is another. It's mirage vs reality!

[Luvial]

If Obama was going to change US foreign policy he would not have put Hillary at State. Obama is a neocon.

[TJCole]

Really good article Robert well said it's a conundrum for sure...

People really only want Peace in these type of conflicts, when both sides are equally sick of war and ruin and destruction...really just sick of it...

Sadly and unbelievably we're still not there yet...

[ProudLiberalDan]

Sad but true.

[SEQUOIABISON]

Nice article Mr Scheer, very balanced, but I am still sympathizing with the Palestinians for the moment, I am not sure how the Israelis can get away with making the captive, confined residents of Gaza continuously look like the terrorists in this contentious conflict.

Using tanks and powerful F16 American built fighter Jets and Apache Helicopters to pummel and smash Palestinian civilians is beyond comprehension and must be equated with mindless uncivilized terrorism.

It is unconscionable that America is allowing the slaughter of so many innocent defenseless people with American weapons, this is a barbaric act of immorality, allowing an occupied country and its suffering inhabitants to be mascaraed by their occupiers like sitting ducks in a shooting gallery.

[Prattvictory2]

With all due respect the Palestinians are starving due to the Israeli siege and have been throughout the "ceasefire." To typify the crisis in Gaza as anything other than a crisis of Israel's making is at best naive. Israel's actions are in opposition to the counter insurgency doctrine that has effectively quelled the violence in Iraq. The Israeli government has provoked violence with the Palestinians for 60 years and then claimed to be the victims. The cease fire was a sham and the next one will be too.

[Rudyabdul]

This is my opinion. The real focal point of the Israeli assault isn't Gaza nor Hamas " it's Washington, D.C. The whole point of this exercise in futility " which will not create a single iota of security for Israel, will not topple Hamas, and will not prove any more successful than the second Lebanese war " is to set the terms by which the Israelis will deal with the incoming U.S. president. Before Obama even gets a chance to appoint his Middle East team, his special envoys and advisers, the Israelis will have sabotaged the peace effort they can clearly see coming " and put the Americans on notice that whatever "change" is in the air will have to be to Israel's advantage. In short, the Gaza massacre is a preemptive strike against the prospect of American intervention on the Palestinians' behalf, or, at least, a more evenhanded policy framework.

I hope that Obama don't allow himself to get punked into pandering to these politicans who only cares about what's only good for their agenda.

[WmC]

If Robert Scheer is accurate in this assessment, "What is less obvious . . . is that the dominant Israeli politicians of all parties just as consistently reject the goal of a meaningful two-nation solution, if by that is meant a vibrant and truly independent Palestinian state." Then the only way peace will come is if it's imposed, somehow, from the outside.

[chaos4700]

"Further, Islamic nations in the region obviously don't want a secure Palestine, as some support only the most radical of Palestinian movements, and the oil wealthy regimes, while eagerly throwing money at Wall Street, refuse to invest in any serious way in the Palestinian economy."

While you do have a point here, I'm compelled to point out that it is impractical to invest in a Palestinian economy that is blockaded -- and that doesn't just refer to Gaza, there are accounts of produce from Palestinian land being left to rot while it is held up at Israeli military checkpoints. Not only does Israel physically sabotage such efforts, it sabotages them politically -- after the US cut off foreign aid to the Palestinians and Israel began withholding collected tax revenue that was due to the Palestinian government, Arab countries offered to step in and were promptly accused of "funding a terrorist agenda." Just look at the neocon rhetoric that attempts to blame Iran for the actions of Hamas because Iran stepped in to provide monetary aid to Gaza, and weapons to counterbalance the lopsided weapons /we/ were shipping to Fatah in an attempt to spark a Palestinian civil war.

I don't want to sound critical of your article, however. There was a lot of ground to cover, and you covered it quite thoroughly. You also offer a fair, rational analysis of the failure of both Hamas and Israel to commit to the peace process.

[youknow]

Since we are giving Israel about 3 Billion a year it would handily convert into a big stick as well as military equipment. First off Obama could reduce that figure to 2 Billion and divert 1 Billion to the Palestinians. Any more disproportianed attackes by Israel and reduce it to 1 Billion Israel 2 Billion Palestine. The Israelis understand Money. I say no more pussyfooting around. The Gig is up. Also Obama must take Hamas off the Terror List, after all they were a legitimately elected. (Just not according to the taste of Israel and the U.S.)

[ProudLiberalDan]

Yes, the Palestinians deserve their share of the blame for this situation, but...

We need to treat this situation with the interests of the United States first, not Israel's Likud Party first. It is not in the United States' interest for Israeli far-right to jeopardize a future peace treaty by allowing continued settlement expansion in the occupied territories.

We should tie our foreign aid to Israel to settlement activity. If we give Israel 3 billion, we should tell them that for every dollar that gets spent on expanding or maintaining ideological settlements, we will deduct that from our foreign aid. This way the choice for Israel becomes clear -- security or settlements. If they choose ideological settlements over security, that is their choice and they can live with the consequences. The settlers movement is one of the chief obstacles to peace.

I'm hoping we can be objective enough to separate the pieces here. An disagreement with the human government of Israel is not a disagreement with Judaism itself. Standing up to the settlers movement that jeopardizes a future peace agreement is not turning our backs on all of Israel.

For a peace agreement to happen the mainstream Israeli political leaders need to crack down on the settlers who have no interest in peace.

Unfortunately in this debate, the hardliners on all sides are the ones who control the microphones.

[WeWon]

Beautifully written. Let's pray that BO will be the first POTUS to stand tall and tell Israel that we will no longer give them billions of dollars to destroy their neighbors all in the name of God.

[EngineerBill]

The anti-Israel bias in this article isn't what bothers me. What is really annoying about the statement "...dominant Israeli politicians of all parties just as consistently reject the goal of a meaningful two-nation solution,..." is the monolithic assumption that it implies about Israeli politics. Israel is a democracy. It has its neo-cons and its doves. To make a sweeping statement of "dominant politicians of all parties" is what is really insulting. Okay, go ahead, attack Israel as evil incarnate, I don't care. For that matter neither does Israel. What Mr. Sheer got right is that Hamas is a rejectionist movement. If there is to be peace, Hamas has to be weakened to the point that Mahmoud Abbas can control all of the Palestinian territories.
It's that simple.

[chaos4700]

You're suggesting that we install Abbas as a Western-backed dictator for the Palestinian people? That we de-legitimize the democratic process that weakened his party?

First, you war hawks say that Palestine can't be recognized until they have a democratic government. Then, when they hold a vote (one that was observed and certified by international agencies), you promptly refuse to acknowledge the government -- worse, you attempt to isolate, starve and decimate the entire citizenry with acts of collective punishment. So essentially, it matters not what the Palestinians do -- they get punished regardless.

The article has no anti-Israel bias. You simply have a anti-Palestinian bias.

[EngineerBill]

I just want to reply to say that I personally don't care whether Palestine is a democracy or not. Idiotic neo-cons may have pushed for democratic elections but Israel cautioned the U.S that a Hamas victory would have been the consequence for pushing democratic elections. I have never believed that democracy is the end-all and be-all of world affairs. Hitler was democratically elected prime minister of Germany in 1933.
I do not have an anti-Palestinian bias. I have an anti-Hamas bias.

[Skepticat]

No argument that Hamas is rejectionist. There's a lot of rejectionism in Israel as well and it isn't limited to any one party nor is the statement a slight on democracies, elections etc. To have lasting peace, both sides would have to give up far more than they would like and extremists on both sides would still do their best to sabotage the peace efforts. Given the consequences of peace making for Anwar Sadat, and later Yitzhak Rabin after the Oslo accords - it seems obvious that there are still too many people that prefer conflict to resolution.

[Henry]

How about taking a chapter from the vaunted General Patreus? We mobilize the "enemy" by enlisting them in their own militia and the U.S. Taxpayer pays each of the $300 per month to protect themselves from themselves. This injects all kinds of purchasing power into the neighborhoods, keeps the households purchasing essentials, and occupies and otherwise shiftless unemployed terror base. We do this for the state of Israel to the tune of approx $4 billion per year. It's the way we have had success with Egypt(more or less). And it has worked as the "surge" in Iraq. Pickup trucks and ipods for the Palestinian Guard with seed money from the investment minded Republican think tank mentality...

[chaos4700]

I think it's a solid idea. I would have objected to it were it not for the fact that it has proven to be a successful strategy in Iraq -- this, more than the "surge" has been what led to the drop in violence and allowed us to regain some lost ground in Iraq. Empowering and uplifting the Palestinian people would go along way to undermining the militant elements within and aligned to Hamas -- much much farther than the suffering and atrocity that has been inflicted by Israeli tactics thus far.