Can Obama bring peace to the Middle East?
Or to put it another way: can anyone bring peace to the Middle East?
Plenty of people have tried - and failed. So, with a new President about to move into the White House, I reckon it won't be long until someone tries again.
But what's the best way to go about it? In a fascinating piece in the Financial Times, Gideon Rachman divides would-be peacemakers into "lumpers" and "splitters" - those who favour trying to sort out all the problems of the region in one big lump, and those who prefer to split them off into individual problems and deal with them one by one.
Rachman says that while "lumping" works as an argument, he fears that it would fail as a policy. So he wants Obama to be a "splitter".
But maybe the "lumping" approach might be made to work, even as a policy. Here's how:
1. Obama sends out invitations to a grand Middle East peace conference. On the invitation list: Israel, Fatah, Hamas, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Hizbollah, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia. (One pre-condition: no participant may engage in a hostile act against another while the talks process is under way.)
2. Hold the conference at Camp David. President Obama chairs the opening session. Each delegation sets out its position: a maximum of five demands per delegation.
3. Divide into working groups of officials and technical experts: each delegation can choose which ones it wants to be represented in, but it might go something like this ... Israel with Fatah and Hamas; Syria with Israel and Lebanon; Iran with Israel and Iraq; Saudi Arabia with Jordan, Syria, Iran and Iraq. They remain closeted at Camp David.
4. The US, the UN, the EU and Russia (the "Quartet") have observers/facilitators in each working group. Once a week they convene to compare notes and report back. For example: if Iran thinks there may be a way of doing a deal with Israel on nuclear weapons, word may reach Hamas and Hizbollah that they should start being more flexible in their talks with Israel. Or if Syria sees the prospect of a deal on the return of the Golan Heights, it might pass word to Hamas that Damascus's support should no longer be assumed. Or if Israel sees the possibility of an agreement with both Iran and Syria, it may be prepared to concede more to the Palestinians on territorial borders and the right of return for refugees.
5. After six months, heads of state and government reconvene at Camp David, President Obama presiding. If they've made progress, he encourages them to make more. If they haven't, he reads them the riot act. (Remember, three key players - Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia - are hugely dependent on US aid and trade; and Fatah would disappear without constant injections of cash to the Palestinian Authority from the EU.)
6. And so it goes on, for as long as it takes. The point of the exercise is to maximise the numbers of cards in play. Yes, it makes it much more complicated, but it also makes the winning hand much more tempting. Each delegation has the prospect of getting some of what it wants, and the opportunity to put pressure on proxies and/or allies to facilitate a deal.
It would need maximum commitment from all parties. It might fail. But I reckon it could be worth a try. What do you think?
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~25~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
The major obstacle to peace is in the attitude of the USA to its 'enemies'. The USA attitude is very well expressed in Dick Cheney's remark - "we don't do nation building'. It is the inability of the USA as a country to grasp the need to make peace. They seem to only understand making war, but are unable to come to terms with the need to make peace. In consequence whilst a military victory is declared they mostly loose the peace.
If, and it is a big if, President Obama can overcome the multi-generational blindness in the State Department and the CIA that in the end one has to talk to one's enemies there is a chance, but I don't hold out much hope.
To make peace first you must grant humanity and human rights and talk to your enemies and that goes for your surrogate wars too (the Middle East).
Complain about this comment
Do not ignore the series in which Tim Sebastien on HARDTALK had de facto negotiations. That could be a starting point.
Let the USA withdraw underwriting of 10 billion of Israeli debt and all subsidies to Israel. THAT will get their attention.
Recognize that all the "settlements" fostered by Sharon et seq. while lying to the United States, must go back behaind the 1967 line.
Debate over Jeruselem and the compensation to be paid to those not allowed to return to their homes and lands.
Recognize that Israel and the Palestinians have nothing to do with happens or happend to Jews elsewhere in the World. This aspect of tribalism must be eschewed.
Complain about this comment
Can Obama bring peace to the Middle East? Yes!
Will he? That depends.
The first, and very great, obstacle, is the control of the US Congress exercised by the Israel lobby, especially AIPAC and the American Heritage Institute, as documented in the Mearsheimer and Walt report (q.v.). Essentially, Congressmen are bribed with campaign contributions and return the contributions many thousand-fold with tax dollars and special legislation.
The current intensification of Israeli ethnic cleansing in Gaza seems clearly timed to the interregnum in the USA. It will not succeed. The Israelis have been trying the same tactics for decades and have reduced the Palestinians to grinding disease and poverty but have not succeeded in driving them from their homes and into Jordan. Despite all, the Palestinians are out-breeding the Israelis and add to the paranoia of the latter by creating a perceived “demographic problem”.
The Saudis (and many others) agree that normalization will result if the Israelis return to the 1967 borders. This would require giving up the illegal “settlements” on Palestinian Occupied territory that the Israelis fostered despite their promises to the US administration.
If the USA were to withdraw its guarantee of 10 BILLION in Israel loans, stop all tax- funded donations to Israel (c. 3 BILLION per year) and halt military aid, then Israel would suddenly discover that it could clean out the “settlements”.
Israel cannot follow its religio/ethnic policy and allow the return of 700,000 Palestinians driven from their homes, together with their descendants. Thus, Israel must pay compensation to these ethnically cleansed people.
Palestine must become a viable state. This includes air, land and sea access not subject to Israeli blockade.
There is little hope that Israel will change from its Orthodox fanatic and ultra-rightist control or from it religio/ethnic persecution. There is deep-seated paranoia coupled with sociopathy. Although the secular moderates may be in a majority, they have eschewed, in disgust, participation in the political process.
Peace can only come from Us intervention- but, has the US Congress been too solidly bought?
Complain about this comment
The key argument in favour of this plan is in no. 6 - more cards in play. This is very important and special and clever way to think about the issues. Everyone needs a compromise; everyone needs to be able leave wtih some positive news for their home land. With more issues on the table, there are more opportunities for this compromise.
There's something unimaginable about Iran/Israel, Syria/Lebanon, Hamas or Hezbollah/anyone sitting down together, but it sounds a wonderful idea.
Good luck, really
Complain about this comment
Those who want a new outlook should read Olmert's Yom Kippur interview. (It is available in English translation on the New York Review of Books website [nybooks.com]).
Iran could become a key strategic ally of the USA and regime change could be effected through trade, culture and exchange but, as the poster above indicated,
Iran must be recognized as a sovereign, equal, nation.
My take is that the influence of Israel is too pervasive within the United States to permit this to happen.
Complain about this comment
Balderdash. This is one more pipe dream. One more exercise in mental masturbation. It won't happen.
Complain about this comment
What's there to negotiate?
UN resolutions and the International court of Justice are already clear on borders and the occupation and the wall.
One of the excuses that the Golan Heights haven't been returned is because of the dispute between Syria and Lebanon about the Shebaa farms, Israel agrees with Syria that it is part of Syrian territory but as this area is a disputed the whole region it will remain occupied.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII,
I uploaded this just for people like you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Tdxxm5IA80
Complain about this comment
straightchris
Any confused pathetic wretch like Norman Finkelstein can post his incoherent rantings on youtube. So what?
Complain about this comment
The World can choose:
was it Bush/Cheney or Obama?
will it be Netanyahu or civilization for Israel?
Let us hope for the improbable and that the Israeli people will go to the polls depite the corruption of their political class.
Complain about this comment
The Israelis should not forget that they still are as they always have been in a war for their very existance. Many around the middle east still want their country to disappear from the map. Iran is suspected of secretry trying to build nuclear weapons for that purpose. Hamas is the elected government of the so called palestinians and its one unifying dogma is the destruction of Israel. Syria has helped Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran towards that end. The desires of Israel's enemies cannot be met. The Golan Heights has no value except militarily as very few people live there. It has a commanding view and would serve Syria well in another war to destroy Israel. There are over 400,000 Israelis living in settlements on the West Bank of the Jordan river. This area also serves as a buffer to deter Syria and others from seeing Israel's geography as militarily undefendable as it was before 1967. Besides, who would pay for the relocation of 400,000 people even if it were possible. Certainly not Israel or the US. Jerusalem, the holiest spot for Jews was denied them when it was under Arab control. Why should they give it up and take their chances again that they might be denied access to it? Nor can the Israelis accept the right of return of up to 5 million "palestinians" and their descendants that would overwhelm them demographically and economically. A palestinian state would most likely be a terrorst state, a platform for future aggression. We've seen what use they've made of Gaza now that it has been returned to them. In a sense, Israels does not occupy any land the palestinians live or or are likely to get. Instead they have created a quarantine around it only making incursions into it militarily when it is necessary to kill terrorists plotting against them or preparing to launch attacks.
Barack Obama has many more important things on his plate than to be just one more president wasting time, resources, energy, and money on what has proven a hopeless problem. And what will happen in the region? God only knows but it doesn't look good.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII,
What Israel's neighbours are like is irrelevant, Israel is just a bad, what Norman and his supporters are asking for are two states, the end of occupation and for Israel to rebuild its wall elsewhere other than Palestine.
Complain about this comment
straightchris, Norman and his supporters can want whatever they choose, it's irrelevant. It was one thing for Israel to move a few thousand settlers out of Gaza to free up many troops there in the hope that there might be a beginning to peace but that land is only used for launching more rockets at Israel. Abandoning the land that gives Israel a real buffer to invasion that 400,000 people now live on is an entirely different matter. It doesn't matter what the UN wants either. It can say whatever it likes about what is legal and illegal but that doesn't add up to a row of beans. Launching four wars to destroy Israel was also illegal. The terrorist attacks and the indiscriminate rockets and bombings from Gaza are illegal. That doesn't seem to matter either. I hear a lot of concern over 1.5 million Gazans who created their own plight with the help of their Arab neighbors but not much concern from Arabs about 2 million non Arab Moslems whose lives are in immediate peril in Darfur, the result of Arab terrorism.
If the palestinians are smart, they'll make the best of the situation they're in and move on with their lives. A palestinian state is out of the question for the forseeable future. They also won't get the wall down or likely even moved much if at all and they won't get 5 million refugees back to what is now Israel. But then if the palestinians were smart, they wouldn't have created the predicament they are in. They still haven't given up their hatred that got them there, if anything it's only gotten worse.
Israel will be around as long as the rest of us are. Israel may be small but it is a nuclear power on a par with Britain and France. It has the power if it chooses to use it and is made desperate enough to bring about the end of the entire middle east, even all human life on earth. Any suggestions of what should be done must take that immutable fact into account. They made it clear to President Bush early on that they are not Czechoslovakia. At the first sign of wavering, they will make that clear to President Obama as well.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII: "But then if the [P]alestinians were smart, they wouldn't have created the predicament they are in."
Please spell Palestinians with a capital 'P' even if you are going to insult them.
It is evident that Chaim Ben Pesach, who has been banned from YouTube, has decided to post here.
Complain about this comment
straightchris
I don't know who Chain Ben Pesach is and frankly I don't care. As for me, I've never posted anything on You-tube.
IMO there is no such thing as a palestinian people, just Arabs who lived in that area. This was made up after the 1967 war to justify the continued war aganist Israel's existance which hasn't let up to this day. If I ran Israel, that war would have ended a long long time ago. As a lifelong chess player, I know the game isn't over until you kill the king. You don't attack a snake at its tail, you go straight for its head if you want to feel safe from it.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII ,
Your comments are deliberate misinformation and serve no other purpose but to insult and annoy.
The UN and the International Court of Justice have been clear regarding Israel, history has remembered and will continue to remember their decisions.
Obama needs a lesson in geography before he talks about a "united Jerusalem."
Complain about this comment
Initial postings dealt with a manner of bringing peace to the Israel/Palestinian
situation.
A more important vector would be the establishment of intensified, friendly dialog and exchange with Iran.
That country could be a vital ally in brining a stable situation of peace to the Mid-East.
It cannot be done with boycott and threats.
Greatly intensified coverage of real people and their lives in Iran is a key contribution that media can make to this process.
Complain about this comment
straightchris
The UN and International Court are political instruments and serve no useful purpose. The UN has been around for over 60 years and has failed its primary mission to bring peace at every opportunity. I cannot think of even one success it has had. It is faliing in Darfur this very minute where over two million people are in grave peril while its sits on its hands and spouts its endless useless rhetoric. If it serves any purpose at all, it's to boost the local economy of Manhattan where throngs of diplomats rent luxury apartments and eat in expensive restaurants all at their taxpayer's expense. The down side is that they take up valuable on street parking spaces which are in limited supply. We'll see if Obama and Congress is dumb enough to join the ICC. IMO, the US should pull out of the UN immediately along with leaving a lot of other organizations like NATO and the WTO. These are of no benefit to America.
Xie Ming, Iran's real problem is its Islamic Revolution. Right now most of its people are suffering under the consequences of it and the sanctions will make their suffering worse. The alternative is war and it may come to that. Iran was far better off under the Shah. The average Iranian had much better prospects for a good life if he was not a political dissident then. Dissidents in Iran don't fare any better now and their economy is a shambles.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
# 19
Unfortunately, this must include those who have divided loyalities and want to advance the policies of Israel.
Both the UK and the USA are somewhat at risk here.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Rebuttal to Xie_Ming 08:55am Post #17
I agree that peace might be served by greater coverage of people and their lives in Iran:
Specifically we need access to those people who work in the nuclear technology branches of the Revolutionary Guard. The International Atomic Agency complains that it does not have enough access to these people. The truth or Iran would become apparent with for example, the BBC, (and other media organisations) being allowed access to free interviews and investigation at Narantz and other plants.
The reason Iran hides these people is because some allege it has an illegal nuclear weapons program that is the very reason there is so much tension in the Middle East. If there is no nuclear weapons program then give media access. No media access demonstrates that Iran does have an illegal nuclear weapons program as the International Atomic Agency has stated is its suspicion.
Dare you disagree? Dare you answer? I think you will ignore this very important observation that I have made.
Complain about this comment
There is a problem with the idea of medieval Iran being invited to the same conference as Israel. The Iranians will not compete with Israelis in international sports, preferring to concede the competition if Israelis are involved. So I don't see them sitting down at the same table with the Israelis.
The Iranians are way too small-minded and prejudiced to negotiate peace. There is another small difficulty of course: they want to destroy Israel.
Complain about this comment
Interesting:
Moderators have determined that it is a breach of House rules to prove that Jerusalem is a solely Jewish city which had its Jewish occupants ethnically cleansed out of it by successive Islamic Empires. History is obviously a breach of BBC House Rules. This is perhaps a parallel of why the history of the Holocaust has been removed from the teaching syllabus in Britain. This in turn explains why this forum has so many denying the Holocaust took place.
Again I ask those who want a fair peace to include these three principles in any peace agreement. For there to be a true peace in the Middle East I believe these three simple principles need to be included in any deal:
1) If any compensation is paid to Arabs who left Israel in 1948, then equal rights for compensation should be given to those Jews who were forced to leave Arab and Islamic countries at that time; including compensation for loss of Oil sale revenues on their lands there.
2) As Arabs are to be allowed to live freely in Israel then Jews must be allowed freely to live in Arab countries; with equal rights and protection under their laws.
3) Islamic theologians must issue universally binding Fatwah(s) that protect the Jews and make it un-Islamic to kill Jews. This will prevent splinter extremist groups from ignoring any peace deal.
Complain about this comment
This is too easy; the outcome already decided. Radical Islam has the perfect plan. The minority who aren't afraid of anything, let alone death will continue to murder torture and maim all in the name of Islam. The moderate Muslims rush out in front of the media after each horrific attack and claim "we are but a peaceful religion". Then the liberal press and run every story about "oh my, it must be our fault". The moderate Muslims go back into their homes having accomplished their goal of providing cover for the radical Muslims who have just killed in the name of religion. We all wait for 6 to 9 months and then BAM! another horrific attack on innocent civilians again and the cycle of moderate Muslims running to the cameras and claiming peace starts all over...
Now some of you will say but it's America's fault...yes an easy sell to your failing society's, very easy...but have you ever looked in the mirror? Yes Western religions have had a bad past, but the key word there is "past" We no longer Crusade into other Countries planting Christianity, nor do we plant bombs onto our woman and children rather Western society has gotten lazy w/ success and will continue to buckle under the pressure of those willing to kill because of their lack of success. I read yesterday where Saudi wants to raise the price of oil...well I for one couldn't be happier, the sooner it goes back to $150 dollars a barrel, the sooner Western society will force our leaders to hold people accountable for getting new technology out that will for once and all end dependence on foreign oil. Then when the Middle East has nothing left to sell but colored sand? Think about it, take away the hot button issue and then we’ll truly see what radical Islam claims now…
I am also amazed at when a terrorist attack happens and I log onto world opinions such as BBC, etc., that again media outlets are quick to start talking America this and America that…as if Briton has no past in India, hmmm maybe I’m missing something but it seems the US tried to colonize before in the Philippines and that failed miserable. Did Briton ever rule India or anyone else for that matter and make some decisions that might not have fared well for that region? Wouldn’t know it by reading your news; it’s all America…I just don’t understand how that tactic can continue to last?
Now I say the above w/ a grain of salt because I understand as you do that the past cannot be changed because I fully understand the WRONGS as well as the good that America has done. I know the great that England has brought to this world but to allow a religion to take over the world because we are too busy worrying about shifting blame or being politically correct is at this point in time absurd…
Now I understand some reading this will break their fingers to respond about the bad ol' US and blah, blah, blah, but trust me when I say...that the days of everyone including some Western Countries blaming the US for everything are coming to a close. One day people will wake up and realize that they don't really want their woman to wear Burkas and that they don't really want men to run 100% of their society and make woman 2nd class citizens...or they won't and the slow assault of radical Islam, protected by the silence of the moderate Muslims will continue and the weak will go down. It's that simple...Another nice trend I've noticed is that when the bad terrorist attacks happen, the weak crawl back in their holes, the tough go and confront the tough...time passes and then the weak crawl out from their holes and start to complain saying "hey these people aren't bad their religion is peaceful we should all hold hands and sing songs"...
Look I gave up on religion a long time ago but I still believe in ones right to practice whatever religion they want. I hope I'm wrong about my views on a God and that some benevolence comes my way by the way I treated others throughout my life. But until Western society wakes and realizes that a very violent form of oppression is coming at them head on, not here in the next 5 to 10 years but if we continue this denial… our kids or their kids will truly inherit a religion they don’t necessarily agree with...of course there are those of us that never crawl back into a hole during tough times...so maybe there is some hope left?
As for those rushing to claim that I'm religious intolerant...sorry again, I've been with more people throughout this world in my travels and experienced the greatness of mankind along with the horrors of mankind. I've met the most amazing Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc...and understand that people when talked with one on one are mainly of the same thought process, "how can I live a good life, raise my family and contribute to society" but right now I'm afraid the Muslim issue is out of the Western society's hands until the moderate Muslims once and for all confront their own people or we force our bloated leaders to find alternative energy and truly put the ball back into the Muslims hands on coming into the new century peacefully or continuing w/ the status quo...just my observations...
Complain about this comment
The IAEA have made their report, the only evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons was a "doctored" document and some speculation about a stolen laptop.
Melanie Philips yells from the page that it is not strictly true that Iran doesn't have nukes as CAMERA the (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) says that, despite the IAEA report, there is no conclusive proof that Iran is incapable of developing Nuclear warheads.
Scott Ritter (a conservative weapons inspector) points out that even if Iran were determined to develop nuclear weapons they don't have the capacity to do so, the numbers don't add up.
Why not discuss Thorium and link this with improved trade with Iran?
Complain about this comment
It seems strange to me that serving Police Officers have been proven to have told lies about challenging John Charles before opening fire with a lethal firearm! Why are they still being employed! Had they challenged, one could argue that the shooting of John Charles was at least ‘Legal’! However, the Coroner has proved that no challenge was issued by any Police Officer, and therefore the shooting of John Charles MUST have been illegal!
The refusal of the Coroner to allow an Illegal Killing verdict proves just how bent our Justice system is. If any ordinary member of the public had done the same to any other person, they would have been charged with First Degree Murder as it would have been said that they left to perform this Crime ‘With the intention of shooting their victim’, which is the definition of ‘First Degree Murder’! So why are Police treated to a different set of rules?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS