Prelude to Peace

The year 2009 came with the crackling fireworks in Gaza. As if Operation Cast Lead had not already reverted the peace process between Israel and Palestine, the government that was formed by Israel’s legislative election in February has yet to send out signals of sincere commitment to renew the efforts in order to achieve piece with the Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority in Ramallah is still struggling to exert its authority over its own territory. With deep divide between two parties, Fatah and Hamas, within the government, the Palestinian government’s ineffectiveness is also eroding the patience of the international community, especially that of its hawkish neighbor.

Daniel Barenboim, the conductor of Chicago Symphony Orchestra and a close friend of Edward Said, once made an analogy between the Oslo peace process and Beethoven’s 7th symphony during a televised interview with Charlie Rose. He remarked that the Oslo Accords have all the right elements in it to establish peace between Israel and Palestine but the execution of it by both parties were impeded by reluctance and therefore the faith of commitment had been worn out by the delay. He compared this phenomenon to conducting Beethoven’s 7th Symphony in Largo when it was written for Presto. All the notes would remain the same and yet the music would sound completely different.

A quick review of events that succeeded the Oslo Accords would validate Barenboim’s claim. After Rabin and Arafat shook hand in front of the White House, Israelis continued to settle in the West Bank as the Palestinians struggled to reach a unanimous recognition of Israel as a state. In 1996, after Oslo II, which established Palestinian authority in major cities in the West Bank, the number of violent incidents took an upturn. Then the Second Intifada started in 2000, followed by a major war between Israel and Lebanon in 2006. Finally, the Gaza war that took place earlier this year falls into an almost predictable sequence.

Israel’s new prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu met with U.S. president Barrack Obama on Monday at the White House. The main objective of the meeting is to discuss the archetypal Israeli concerns: Iran’s nuclear capacity and activities of various anti-Israel organizations. The gist of the 90 minutes meeting can be encapsulated into the following series of inquiries and responses:

Israel: Are you on our side, will you support us as your predecessors did?

U.S.: You are one of our most important allies, of course we support you. But only under the condition that you accept a two-state solution.

Israel: I agree with you that Israel must be recognized as a state, more importantly, a Jewish state [Ruling out Right of Return as a possibility]. Israelis are committed to live side by side with the Palestinians in peace. [Notice the omission of the words “two-state solution”]

U.S.: Let me reiterate that the acceptance of a two-state solution is nonnegotiable.

Israel: Let’s the change the topic. Say if we have evidence which lead us to believe that Iran’s nuclear capacities is imminent, and we initiate military retaliation, are you going to back us?

U.S.: Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons is simply unacceptable and it must be stopped. I am willing to take a tough stance on this matter.

Israel: So you are going to provide us with the proper aid to strike Iran.

U.S.: I certainly hope we won’t reach that point. In fact, I will not let the situation get to that point. Remember “Yes we can!”.

Israel: “No you won’t!” [Next time, I will be back with a detailed military.]

Although the White House claimed that the meeting was productive and conclusive, with the Obama’s signature “effectiveness”, it is not difficult to realize the strains that Obama faces in trying to push his agenda of resolving the Palestine-Israel conflict forward. As brilliant and effective as he is, Obama cannot boast in the experience department. Netanyahu, his Israeli counterpart, has already served as prime minister once in the late 1990s, which means that he operates on experience, not theory. America’s unconditional support is crucial to Israel’s foreign policy, and this is exactly why Netanyahu made this trip. Netanyahu’s ultimate goal is to renew the U.S.’s steadfast commitment to support Israel in its national security agenda.

The last administration had established a somewhat troubling legacy in regard to the Palestine –Israel conflict. Bush’s unwavering support for Israel has tipped the balance among government in the region. Empowered with American support, Israel grew bolder and careless with its national defense measures. The most dangerous consequence of American’s unconditional backing of Israel is the moral hazard it creates within the Israeli government. An article in an earlier issue of The Economist had the perfect analogy to capture this problem: The American dog should be wagging the Israeli tail, not the other way around. It would not be too long of a stretch to say that America’s staunch support for Israel has lead to the formation of the present right-leaning government. “Yes, we can. The Americans are onboard with us” is an accurate way of describing the Israeli mentality in the recent past.

In order for the peace process to move forward, America needs to redefine its role as a peace broker. During the Bush administration, America could hardly call itself a mediator. It would not be an exaggeration to call Bush-era America a perpetrator of violence in the region. As a mediator, the U.S. must maintain a sensible neutrality to promote fairness in this process. In order to remain neutral, the U.S. must find its own independent stance in the conflict and remain firm. So far, the Obama administration has managed to stick to its principle, emphasizing two-state solution as a sine qua non to the continuation to the peace process. Israel is likely to be forced to accept this condition at openly at some point because resolving the century long conflict with the Palestinians is in its best interest and ultimately, it has no other choice.

By pinning the support for Israel on top of the two-state solution, the U.S. government is sending out a clear signal to Israel that it must be willing to compromise its hawkish positions. The European Union will mostly likely take the lead from the U.S. and assume a similar stance on Israel. Israel must soon realize that it needs to muster all the support that is available, not just in the Western world but in its locality as well. Israel’s aggressive attitude towards the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank is both perplexing and inimical to its interest. Knowing that Hamas is at odds with the Fatah-dominated government, it is not difficult for Israel to exploit this situation and alienate Hamas. Why make an enemy when you can make a friend? Excessively pressuring Mahmoud Abbas is not going to curb Hamas’ terrorist activities in Gaza. In addition, with the upcoming election in Lebanon and the increasingly likelihood that Hezbollah will be taking a more dominant role in the Lebanese government, Israel really needs to make friends. Hopefully, its current right-leaning government can keep Israel from being alienated in a hostile environment.

Even if Israel were to overtly embrace the two-state pretext for further peace negotiations, the peace cannot be achieved unless the Palestinian Authority can demonstrate its ability to curb terrorist attacks on Israel by its own people. The current state of the Palestinian government is pathetic. Mahmoud Abbas is being forced into a political cul-de-sac, with pressures coming from Israel as well as his fellow Palestinians. If the Palestinian Authority cannot form a coalition government that is committed to make peace with the Israelis, then not only will the peace process stall, the hope of ever establishing the state of Palestine will die as well. However, this is no easy task. Convincing Hamas, an organization whose goal is to annihilate the state of Israel, to give up its weapons along with its raison d’etre is almost impossible to perceive.

There is a reason why the conflict between Israel and Palestine lasted this long. The issue itself is extremely complex and difficult. For America, not only does President Obama have to compose a peaceful melody with the right tunes, he must also to conduct it well and stick to the original score. And to actually perform the prelude to peace, Israel and Palestine better be playing on the same tempo.