The Middle East road map
by
S.Madhusudhana Rao |
Groping in the dark for signposts
The events that unfolded in the ongoing search for a Middle East peace breakthrough past week were a denouement to high expectations raised by US President Barack Obama. During his presidential campaign and after assuming office, Obama has made Mideast peace one of the top priorities of his foreign policy. In June this year, he extended a hand of friendship to Arabs and tried to bridge the gulf between the West and the Muslim community through his landmark Cairo speech. For nine months Washington’s special envoy to Mideast George Mitchell has been shuttling between various Arab capitals and Tel Aviv to revive the stalled peace talks.
Obama even hosted a tripartite summit between Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington in October to resolve their differences but the talks yielded little. All American attempts have failed to move the biggest roadblock — Israel’s refusal to halt Jewish settlements in the occupied territories — to reopen the path to peace negotiations. Now enters the US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to salvage the moribund peace process.
Her whirlwind tour, instead of finding a way out of the impasse, complicated the situation further. The villain of the piece was her wholesome praise for Israel and endorsement of Israel’s view that the expansion of settlements in the Occupied West Bank should not be a bar to resuming talks. Her fortuitous comment buoyed up Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who has been insisting on de-linking the Jewish settlements issue from the peace talks’ moves and angered Palestinians and Arab leaders.
Hillary realised her faux pas a day later when the Arab backlash reached her. She could be excused for her unguarded moment without thinking the repercussions and regional sensitivities. But what she said had challenged the very basis of Obama’s Middle East policy. The US president has been telling the Israeli leaders to freeze new settlements first to pave the way for peace talks. Palestinians and Arab leaders too have made it a precondition before resuming the dialogue. But now, Hillary’s unwarranted praise for Israel’s stubborn policy has turned the clock back.
In her subsequent meetings with regional leaders, including her last-minute- included talks with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo, Hillary was careful and tried to placate Palestinians with aid offer of a few millions. What Israel gets in comparison is billions annually. But her charm diplomacy has failed to undo the damage already done to the US image in the region. When the chips are down, Washington reveals its true colours that it will stand by its ally Israel.
The US rejection and criticism of Richard Goldstone’s report on Israel’s atrocities that amounted to war crimes during its 22-day Gaza offensive has buttressed the Arab and Palestinian view that the US is taking a calculated U-turn on its Mideast policy. Nevertheless, the US doesn’t want to give up its diplomatic efforts to find a solution to the Mideast imbroglio. In the coming days Mitchell will be resuming his painful negotiations with the Israeli and Palestinian leaders. But, I am afraid, he may be groping in the dark for a peace chimera.
Like in a Shakespearean tragedy, between Act I and II much has happened. Since Mitchell’s last visit Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has announced that presidential and parliamentary elections would be held in the Palestinian territories, including the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, on January 24 and that he would not seek another term. His announcement is the fallout of the US backtracking on its Middle East policy. But it is also seen as a tactical move to force Washington to act tough with Israel.
As expected, Abbas’ move has stirred up a hornet’s nest. The Obama administration’s dilemma is, if Abbas carries through his decision who will replace him. Since the death of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in 2004, Abbas has been leading the main and moderate faction of Fatah and so far no leader has emerged from within the group to challenge him despite bickering about his style of functioning and being amicable to the US.
Israel, too, is concerned about his stepping down though it considers it as an internal matter of Palestinians. Its concern arises out of the fact that it does not want to deal with a non-moderate leader. Israeli leaders have been maintaining a stoic silence over the issue, leaving it to Fatah. But, Netanyahu’s Washington’s visit, ostensibly to address Jews, is aimed at discussing the latest developments in the region with the Obama administration. Though his visit is not on the White House agenda, Obama is most likely to spare some time for Netanyahu before leaving on his South-East Asia tour.
After successfully check-mating all American and Arab attempts to kick-start the peace process, Netanyahu has driven everybody to a corner to fight back. He can’t have the cake and eat it too. The Middle East jigsaw puzzle has become too complicated to pick up a few pieces and rearrange them. Too many players have been rocking the boat instead of steadying it.
Netanyahu is not tired of saying he wants peace talks. If he is so serious about them he has to prove by his deeds. The least he could do is to halt the expansion of Jewish settlements as a first step, allowing the Palestinians to pick up the threads and move forward. The US role in facilitating such a seemingly easy task is pivotal in securing peace in the region. After having raised high hopes the Obama administration’s reputation is at stake in this region.
Oman Tribune |
Other comment for S.Madhusudhana Rao
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NEWS UPDATES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
