FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Playing From Strength in the Middle East

The peace plans proliferated shortly after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. In these “land for peace” deals, Israel would evacuate the territory it had occupied in exchange for peace with the Arabs and in line with the United Nations Security Council resolution 242.

Israel concluded such deals with both Egypt and Jordan. But as it continued to colonize the occupied Palestinian territories and the Golan Heights, Arabs began to worry about a “peace for peace” scenario: Israel keeps the land while Arabs get the peace.

Today the Obama Administration appears stuck in a “freeze for peace” moment: an Israeli freeze on settlements in exchange for further Arab normalization. This might have been a good idea when first mooted. Not any more. It has been undermined by reports of an American-Israeli thaw to continue construction of some 2,500 housing units in the illegal settlements.

And it has hit up against an Arab position. As Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister put it starkly this week, unless Israel is clearly committed to withdrawing from Arab lands, there is no interest in incremental “confidence-building measures.” This is hardly surprising — given that Israel has expanded settlements for 42 years.

The problem with “freeze for peace” is that the Obama administration is playing from weakness. It is like a poker player with a large pile of chips facing a belligerent player with only a few chips left — most of which the administration has given or lent him — just shelling out hard-earned cash to keep the old game going.

America, instead, should play from strength. Here are five suggestions, none too politically costly to Obama:

First, up the ante. The administration can neatly step out of the trap it has unwittingly set for itself by shifting the discourse from a settlement freeze to an evacuation.

Here’s what Obama could say: “Let me be clear. I have already stated that my administration does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. There is no point having ‘natural growth’ in structures which must be evacuated, as required by international law. Peace with the Palestinians — based on two sovereign states along the 1967 borders with minor, mutually agreed modifications — is the best guarantee of Israel’s survival and security. We call on the world to act: Not against Israel, but against Israel’s occupation.”

Second, the administration should heed the growing mainstream demands to stop those American Jewish organizations that are funding the illegal settlements. The Washington Post has carried two solidly researched pieces questioning these organizations’ tax-free status — one by David Ignatius in March, and one by Ronit Avni in June. You don’t get more mainstream than the Post, and these columns reflect a fast-growing shift in American public opinion, including among American Jews, in support of tougher action for peace.

Third, just as Israel is stalling on what America has described as one of its national security interests — peace in the Middle East — the administration should similarly stall on issues important to Israel. For instance, sharing military technology, providing military aid or loan guarantees, and conducting joint military exercises. Bureaucracies can find ways to slow things down without a policy shift, and the administration should use them all.

Indeed, Obama should recall that the Bush administration slapped tough sanctions against Israel in 2005, when it violated restrictions on sharing American technology by selling Harpy killer drones to China. Israel got the message and toed the line.

Fourth, engage Hamas so as to rescue Gaza and enable reunification of Palestinian ranks. This is easily done. Hamas has upheld a ceasefire with Israel. Its leader, Khaled Meshal, supported a two-state solution in a May interview with The New York Times. The Quartet (Russia, America, European Union, and United Nations) could interpret this as constituting acceptance of its conditions that Hamas renounce violence, recognize Israel’s existence, and accept past agreements

Fifth, encourage Europe to deflect some of the heat from the United States. The European Union has shelved an upgrade of relations with Israel. Some member states are taking action against Israeli imports made in the illegal settlements. But Europe could do much more, given that it is Israel’s largest trading partner.

European leaders are ready for such measures. For example, in late July several British members of parliament forcefully challenged a government minister for not doing more to end Israel’s occupation. As one parliamentarian put it, “Our Government’s response has been to protest to the Israeli ambassador, but [this] is like shouting at a fish. All the evidence is that, when we protest, the Israelis build the settlements even faster.”

There is much more the Obama administration can do. The five steps outlined above are just a few of the chips it has to hand — powerful diplomatic ways to bring about peace.

NADIA HIJAB is an independent analyst and a senior fellow at the Institute for Palestine Studies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More articles by:

December 19, 2018
Carl Boggs
Russophobia and the Specter of War
Jonathan Cook
American Public’s Backing for One-State Solution Falls on Deaf Ears
Daniel Warner
1968: The Year That Will Not Go Away
Arshad Khan
Developing Country Issues at COP24 … and a Bit of Good News for Solar Power and Carbon Capture
Kenneth Surin
Trump’s African Pivot: Another Swipe at China
Patrick Bond
South Africa Searches for a Financial Parachute, Now That a $170 Billion Foreign Debt Cliff Looms
Tom Clifford
Trade for Hostages? Trump’s New Approach to China
Binoy Kampmark
May Days in Britain
John Feffer
Globalists Really Are Ruining Your Life
John O'Kane
Drops and the Dropped: Diversity and the Midterm Elections
December 18, 2018
Charles Pierson
Where No Corn Has Grown Before: Better Living Through Climate Change?
Evaggelos Vallianatos
The Waters of American Democracy
Patrick Cockburn
Will Anger in Washington Over the Murder of Khashoggi End the War in Yemen?
George Ochenski
Trump is on the Ropes, But the Pillage of Natural Resources Continues
Farzana Versey
Tribals, Missionaries and Hindutva
Robert Hunziker
Is COP24 One More Big Bust?
David Macaray
The Truth About Nursing Homes
Nino Pagliccia
Have the Russian Military Aircrafts in Venezuela Breached the Door to “America’s Backyard”?
Paul Edwards
Make America Grate Again
David Rosnick
The Impact of OPEC on Climate Change
Binoy Kampmark
The Kosovo Blunder: Moving Towards a Standing Army
Andrew Stewart
Shine a Light for Immigration Rights in Providence
December 17, 2018
Susan Abulhawa
Marc Lamont Hill’s Detractors are the True Anti-Semites
Jake Palmer
Viktor Orban, Trump and the Populist Battle Over Public Space
Martha Rosenberg
Big Pharma Fights Proposal to Keep It From Looting Medicare
David Rosen
December 17th: International Day to End Violence against Sex Workers
Binoy Kampmark
The Case that Dare Not Speak Its Name: the Conviction of Cardinal Pell
Dave Lindorff
Making Trump and Other Climate Criminals Pay
Bill Martin
Seeing Yellow
Julian Vigo
The World Google Controls and Surveillance Capitalism
ANIS SHIVANI
What is Neoliberalism?
James Haught
Evangelicals Vote, “Nones” Falter
Vacy Vlanza
The Australian Prime Minister’s Rapture for Jerusalem
Martin Billheimer
Late Year’s Hits for the Hanging Sock
Weekend Edition
December 14, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Andrew Levine
A Tale of Two Cities
Peter Linebaugh
The Significance of The Common Wind
Bruce E. Levine
The Ketamine Chorus: NYT Trumpets New Anti-Suicide Drug
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Fathers and Sons, Bushes and Bin Ladens
Kathy Deacon
Coffee, Social Stratification and the Retail Sector in a Small Maritime Village
Nick Pemberton
Praise For America’s Second Leading Intellectual
Robert Hunziker
The Yellow Vest Insurgency – What’s Next?
Nick Alexandrov
George H. W. Bush: Another Eulogy
Patrick Cockburn
The Yemeni Dead: Six Times Higher Than Previously Reported
Brian Cloughley
Principles and Morality Versus Cash and Profit? No Contest
Michael F. Duggan
Climate Change and the Limits of Reason
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail