RAMZY BAROUD paints a bleak picture of the peace prospects in the Middle East.

[Thinking Man's Idiot]

There's no change a-coming

(Tuesday 30 September 2008)

RAMZY BAROUD paints a bleak picture of the peace prospects in the Middle East after Bush.






George W Bush sounded rather uncertain about his vision for peace in the Middle East when he received Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas in Washington last week.

A lot has changed since the 2007 conference in Annapolis, Maryland, where Bush and his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice proclaimed that a Palestinian state could only come about through moderate forces and designated Hamas and other Palestinian groups as enemies of peace.

They slated the end of 2008 as the deadline for an agreement to create that state.

It has become clear over the last 10 months that the Bush administration is not ready to abandon its pro-Israel position, which has long jeopardised any chance of peace, nor has the Israeli government under Ehud Olmert been ready or willing to advance the cause of peace.

It has also become obvious that Abbas is hopelessly unable to exercise any leverage to determine the speed or direction of peace negotiations with Israel.

All this merely reinforces the suspicion that the relaunch of peace talks under US auspices in November 2007 was merely a strategic manoeuvre aimed at isolating Hamas following its democratic election victory in January 2006 and its clash with Fatah last summer.

Last week, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat reportedly conveyed Bush's pledge to Abbas, made behind closed doors, "that, if a Palestinian state does not come about during his presidency, it will happen in the near future, not more than a year."

If this is true, it would be the first indication that the 2008 deadline is being abandoned as unrealistic and unfeasible. But can a truly viable and just peace agreement be achieved "not more than a year" following Bush's departure?

There is certainly no indication that either a Barack Obama-Joe Biden presidency or a Republican administration led by John McCain and Sarah Palin would bring any discernible change.

The main difference will probably be that, while Bush disowned the peace process altogether during his early years in office, the next president is likely to avoid such a miscalculation.

Various factors contributed to a reluctant return as peace-broker by the Bush administration. One was the death of Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat. Another was the need to create a distraction from the Iraq fiasco.

Abbas was presented as the antithesis of Arafat and so worthy of enjoying the legitimacy of a statesman. His position was further bolstered following the political rise of Hamas, whose existence was presented as the only obstacle to the peace process.

It seems highly unlikely that either an Obama-Biden or McCain-Palin approach to the Middle East's toughest conflict will bring a satisfactory peace deal, especially now that the political landscape in Israel is being reshaped following Tzipi Livni's election as Kadima party leader.

This is not blind pessimism. It's just that none of the names above has exhibited any promising signs of change.

Obama's grovelling to Israel at a recent American-Israeli Public Action Committee conference and his increasingly hawkish foreign policy stance is meant to assure Israel and its backers that his Muslim middle name will not interfere with the "historic responsibility" that every US administration is obliged to feel towards Israel.

Obama's devastating declaration that Jerusalem would remain the "undivided capital of Israel" was a violation not just of international law but US foreign policy itself.

His choice of Senator Joe Biden, a devout friend of Israel who declared in an interview with Jewish-US cable network Shalom TV: "I am a zionist," was meant to further demonstrate that his love for Israel is unmatched and undying.

Yet the Obama-Biden ticket is faced with real competition.

The McCain-Palin pairing represents precisely what compels many US citizens to stand for Israel, right or wrong.

One is a hawkish militant, the other is a religious extremist. It's this mix of militancy, which led McCain to declare himself willing to stay in Iraq as long as it takes and to bomb Iran at a whim, and the biblical terms in which Palin comprehends world affairs that Israel and its backers in Washington find particularly comforting.

This mindset guarantees unqualified support for Israel's occupation and militarism in the Middle East and ignites the passion and, therefore, political and financial support for Israel among a growing constituency of Christian zionists.

Whoever ends up in the White House, they are likely to maintain the special relationship between the US and Israel.

If their administrations were to differ on anything, it would be on the kind of symbolism that would accompany their tangible support.

A McCain presidency is likely to infuse more religious symbolism into the US-Israeli rapport and to continue to champion the Israeli cause separate from the UN and the EU.

An Obama administration will likely emphasise the need to enlist the support of the international community, but only to maintain the existing regime of unconditional support for Israel, which often means the isolation and targeting of Israel's enemies.

A similar situation exists with regard Israel. Regardless of whether Livni manages to steer a course through Israel's stormy politics and shaky coalitions or Likud opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu manages to snatch a win in possible general elections, the outcome is likely to remain the same as far as the peace process is concerned.

Livni would likely maintain the charade of a peace process to no particular end, maintaining the illusion of peace-making but never real peace.

Netanyahu is likely to stall, delay and postpone his dealings with Palestinians to please his more hawkish supporters. Different approaches, same outcome.

Similarly, Livni would exploit unconditional US support of Israel to fit whatever agenda she deems suitable for her country's alleged security needs.

A worldly Livni with experience in foreign policy and international espionage is likely to present a better match with an Obama-Biden administration.

Livni is an intelligent, shrewd and calculating right-wing politician with reasonable foreign policy experience. She would certainly struggle to explain Israel's war and regime-change doctrine to Palin, who has repeatedly proved herself clueless in foreign policy matters and a lot more besides.

There are no signs that change, true change, is coming, regardless of who wins the White House and regardless of who rules Israel.

The fact remains that the relationship that governs the US-Israeli love affair is much too convoluted, deep-rooted and institutionalised to be affected by the exit of one man and the arrival of another.

Ramzy Baroud is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle is out now published by Pluto Press.

Download today's front page - pdf file

Contact Us
Copyright Morning Star, all rights reserved
published by the Peoples Press Printing Society