Fresh Thinking on the Way
Wednesday, 14 January 2009
An interviewer asked late last night Israel’s radio correspondent in Washington if, in the light of the US Senate confirmation hearings of Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State, Israelis should be optimistic. He answered in the affirmative and gave two reasons: (1) you can’t be the senator for New York, as Hilary Clinton has been, without having close ties to the Jewish community and its support for Israel; and (2) in the course of his campaign, Barack Obama himself came to appreciate the justice of that support.
The determination of the new US Administration to make foreign policy in general and the Middle East in particular a priority is good news. Though many believe that nobody will be as good for Israel as George W. Bush had been, there’s much to suggest that the more farsighted and coherent approach that Obama promises will benefit Israel. For while continuing the US commitment that exists across party lines, it’ll pursue peace options with greater vigor and greater skill. And peace is Israel’s lifeline.
That vigor and skill are likely to manifest themselves in US pressure on both Israelis and Palestinians to pursue peace realistically, not only (as hitherto) cosmetically. This means talking to all parties in the dispute. Despite the anticipated Israeli victory over Hamas in the Gaza war, it seems that, though it’ll be severely damaged, it won’t be broken. This is bound to make the US, either directly, or initially through intermediaries, talk to all parties. Though Iran and not Hamas are currently on its list of potential dialogue partners it may, in the end talk to them all: Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria.
Sceptics and ideologues say that such talks will yield nothing good and only give underserved international status to Israel’s most persistent enemies. Others, on the other hand, believe that diplomacy means allowing talks to precede military action, not only follow it. As they say, you don’t negotiate peace with friends, only with enemies.
Notwithstanding the growing pragmatism in many Israeli political circles, there’s bound to be a lot of opposition, should the US try to impose an overall settlement that’s inevitably going to mean curbing the settlements on the West Bank, even if to remove them all isn’t, and cannot be, on the cards.
I therefore still believe that a right-wing Prime Minister will do better than an alternative, because he’s more likely to rally many of the fierce opponents to making substantive concessions. As it still seems that Netanyahu’s Likud party will do better than its rivals in the forthcoming elections – though less convincingly that originally predicted - serious rethinking of Israeli policies is on the way. About time, too!
Those of us who believe that there can never be a military solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are in favour of this scenario, even though we couldn’t make ourselves vote for Likud. I myself will compromise by voting for a party to the left of Netanyahu in the hope that he’ll include it in his coalition and keep the far right at bay.
Both wars under Ehud Olmert’s watch (second Lebanon and Gaza) as well as the first Lebanon war should have persuaded Israelis that the old formula isn’t working anymore, even if this time Israel seems to have recovered its military prowess. Fresh thinking is called for and Obama promises precisely that.
In view of the deficiencies in the old thinking both here and in the US, his inauguration next week should be cause for celebration.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
