Can Obama bring a two-state solution?
ON May 18, President Barack Obama met the new right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. They talked for about three hours -- one hour more than originally scheduled.
The US president must have wanted to know one thing. What was the Israeli prime minister's vision for peace in the Middle East?
Netanyahu's visit was the latest in a string of visits of Middle Eastern leaders to the White House in the run-up to Obama's long-awaited address to the Muslim world in Cairo on June 4. Obama had met Palestinian Chairman Mahmoud Abbas on May 29.
Although both Obama and Netanyahu described the talks as productive, the body language of the leaders in the TV footage showed no meeting of minds. Netanyahu publicly committed to resuming negotiations but Obama failed to secure a firm commitment from him on the two-state solution, which was the basis of the roadmap to peace endorsed at last year's talks in Annapolis.
In March, while visiting Egypt, US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton reportedly said: "The US is committed to a comprehensive peace between Israel and its Arab neighbours. And we will pursue it on many fronts. So too will we pursue a two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians."
To make sure there was no doubt about what the US administration wanted, the president sent Vice-President Joe Biden to the strongest Jewish lobby group in the US, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) annual congress in Washington during trhe first week of May.
"You're not going to like my saying this," Mr Biden reportedly began. "If there is going to be a serious peace effort with Palestinians, Israel must work toward a two-state solution. It must freeze further settlement construction in the West Bank and dismantle roadblocks between Palestinian cities and towns not needed for security. Israel must also grant Palestinians more responsibility for security to the extent that they combat extremists and dampen incitement against Israel."
Netanyahu does not, in his heart, believe in the "two-state solution," and the appointment of controversial politician Avigdor Lieberman as foreign minister is a clear sign of what Netabyahu wants. The hawkish foreign minister rejected the "two-state solution" after assuming office.
Netanyahu's main concern is Iran and not the Palestininian issue because Israel suspects that Iran wants to upset the supremacy of Israel in the region. Israel has always been a "bully" in the region, armed with nuclear weapons. Israel cannot accept that any state in the region will have even technical knowledge of manufacturing nuclear weapons. In 1981 Israel destroyed Iraq's nuclear Osirak's reactor with impunity.
Netanyahu alleges that Iran has been trying to subvert, corrupt or influence every regime and militant group across the region, most particularly Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Islamic Jihad in the West Bank, and that here has never been a worse time for a Palestinian state.
From Israel's perspective, there would have been only a small measure of comfort in Obama's comments on his approach to Iran and its nuclear ambitions. The president said that he "would not foreclose on a range of steps, including international sanctions," if Iran did not not stop pursue nuclear weapons and abide by its international obligations.
But he also refused to put a timetable on how long he was prepared to keep talking to Iran's leaders, noting that Iran was approaching national elections.
Observers suggest that the Israeli-Palestinian issue should not be confused or merged with other issues in the Middle East. The US administration should take an initiative that is perceived as impartial and inclusive.
Some suggest that in 1978 President Jimmy Carter was able to bring peace between Israel and Egypt, and the accords at the Camp David in 1978 led directly to the 1979 Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty. It also resulted in President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin sharing the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize.
President Obama may keep the precedent in mind in forcing both parties to do what they themselves are unable to do -- give up their more extreme claims and reach some kind of agreement -- while security of the borders between the two states may be guaranteed by the US.
For success in peace efforts, the president may ensure that the US does not get sucked into an Israeli approach and should be a non-partisan and credible mediator of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
On May 11, in an interview with The Times newspaper in Britain, Jordan's King Abdullah warned that President Obama's credibility would be damaged if he failed to broker a deal. The King said: "If we delay our peace negotiations, then there is going to be another conflict between Arabs or Muslims and Israel in the next 12-18 months."
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments