Conversations with The Enemy

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s tour of the Middle East did not provide answers to the latest core questions, so the many contradictory declarations about the pragmatic goal of “speaking with enemies,” President Barack Obama’s expression which is trendy in Washington, impel us to postpone judgment to ponder if we will see a real change in strategy, complete with concrete and attainable objectives, or if we are in the presence of rhetorical skirmishes that mask a genuine dead end.

The idea of speaking with the enemy was popularized during the presidential campaign. Then-candidate Obama presented it in February 2008 with regard to Cuba, but his rival Clinton insisted that she would not meet with Raul Castro until he showed unequivocal signs that change was in progress. In Iraq, General David Petraeus’s successful strategy consisted of arming and paying Sunni militia to combat Al Qaeda. Last October, after being promoted to general of Central Command, leaving Afghanistan for the Mediterranean, the same general urged the probing of the most moderate members of the Taliban.

Obama referred to Tehran as a probable interlocutor in the meeting concerning Afghanistan. Conversations are underway with Syria, which was, until recently, subdued in a regime of economic sanctions. Now, because of its isolation, it is Iran’s most forceful ally. The American calculation is that the Damascus regime, although always suspected of plotting various abominable assassinations to perpetuate their presence in Lebanon, might be able to exert its influence on Lebanese Hezbollah and Hamas. The greatest inconvenience is that the incoming Israeli government will not be willing to return the Golan Heights to Syria, which Israel has occupied since 1967. One of the Hebrew state’s vital resources, the water-bearing Jordan, lies in that area.

Obama’s openness toward the Arab-Muslim world is consistent with his plan for “a new association based our mutual interests.” After the militaristic fanfare of the neoconservatives who supported George Bush, a military withdrawal and diplomatic advance is being seen in Washington – “the new American music,” as they say in Cairo – as they try to preserve the status quo founded on oil and dictatorships. Yet they stop abruptly at the doors of the inferno of Gaza, where more than a million Palestinians are sinking into poverty and desperation under the rigid Islamist rule and the Israeli blockade.

In Jerusalem, Clinton reiterated the three conditions for negotiation with Hamas, which has been stigmatized as a terrorist group: recognition of Israel, rejection of terrorism and acceptance of the commitments made by the Palestine Authority in the Oslo Accords (1993). The same old tune. Why discriminate against Hamas if your plan is to speak with your enemies? A double standard exists when that which is demanded of Hamas is yet not expected of Hezbollah. The two groups are similar, each protected by Iran, and yet Hezbollah’s only condition is to stop the violence and halt the firing of rocket missiles against Israeli territory.

Obama and Clinton face a very difficult dilemma after experiencing their first setback in Israel: The Israeli government will more than likely be ruled by Benjamin Netanyahu (Likud), a notorious adversary of the Palestinian state, who is supported by the prophetic right wing and the vociferous and xenophobic far right, whose leader propagates that the only solution is to expel the Palestinians past the borders of Jordan.

Speaking with Israel as a friend and ally seems more difficult than speaking with protected dictators or sworn enemies. An American envoy has arrived in Damascus while Egyptians, with Washington’s consent, are trying to reunite Palestine between Hamas and Al Fatah. But the peace plan supported by the U.S., which would entail the creation of a Palestinian state, the actual partition of Jerusalem, the evacuation of the Jewish colonies in the West Bank and militarized security in Jordan with NATO’s support, seems unacceptable not only to Netanyahu, but also to the majority of Israelis.

Israel’s suspicions are understandable in an ocean of hostility; in addition, the hardened intransigence that appeared from the ballot box is the logical aftermath of the incessant increase of colonization, the American complacency, and a fossilized electoral system that produces conspicuous results. In order to come up with solutions that are not immediately shot down, Obama and Clinton will have to deal with the Jewish lobby in the U.S.

Now we know that the war in Gaza was a strategic disaster. The results include a devastated territory, a renewed arsenal of grievances and hate, a Hamas that has now grown larger than just a resistance movement, and a government in Israel with its back against the wall. And this is how it will continue, unless Obama presents a miraculous plan to exit the labyrinth.

* The author is a writer and historian