“Force Is Needed Here”
Hillary Clinton’s visit to Israel heralds the Obama administration’s intention to seek peace in the Middle East. But Middle East expert Margret Johannsen thinks nothing can be achieved with negotiations alone. Johannsen is a Middle East expert and Senior Research Fellow for the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg. She was interviewed by Süddeutsche Zeitung.
Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ): The donor’s conference in Sharm el-Sheikh and Hillary Clinton’s trip to Israel shows movement again in Middle Eastern diplomacy ...
Margret Johannsen (MJ): Yes, when someone flies somewhere, that’s movement, I suppose.
SZ: Would you say, then, that you don’t expect much to come of the U.S. Secretary of State’s visit?
MJ: Clinton traveled to Israel six weeks after taking office and signaled America’s interest, but that alone means nothing. Her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, traveled constantly in the region for years and accomplished practically nothing.
SZ: President Obama quickly made clear after taking office that he wished to become engaged in the Middle East peace process. What are the chances he will be successful where no other president was?
MJ: In order to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a great deal of political capital will be necessary. The word “engaged” isn’t the right term here. What’s needed is coercion. The Americans are the only ones able to exert enough force on the parties involved in the conflict – especially on Israel – that they make concessions, i.e., that occupied lands be returned. The Palestinians have wanted the same thing for years: their own state. Therefore, pressure has to be exerted on Israel, by which I mean not only rhetoric, but also measures painful to Israel as well.
SZ: What sort of measures might those be?
MJ: The United States shouldn’t sacrifice its friendly relationship with Israel, of course. But it could withhold financial support; no longer give them credit guarantees. America, whose ties to Israel extend far beyond financial support, has to ensure that Israel finally comes to its senses. That hasn’t happened in the past.
SZ: Will it happen under Obama?
MJ: This dynamic young president is willing, no question. But I have doubts that he will be able to deal with Israel like that. During the campaign, he emphasized the indivisibility of Jerusalem in an address to the Israel lobby. He took that stand, but he might have to recant in order to end the conflict by way of a two-state solution. Obama has an impossibly large agenda. He doesn’t have the political capital he will need to deal with that powerful a lobby. Or better said, he will need to spend it in other places. I don’t think he can do it and that’s why I believe the conflict in the region will continue along with periodic outbreaks of violence.
SZ: After meeting with the Israelis, Clinton met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Hamas, the real power in Gaza, was completely ignored. Is that a wise path to follow?
MJ: The same serious mistake was made at the conference in Sharm el-Sheikh that’s been repeated now for three years. Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections. Those were democratic elections in which weapons and force played no part. Whether one likes Hamas or not is irrelevant. It’s true that Israel has refused to recognize Hamas so far, but when the time comes for the two-state solution, it will have to recognize Hamas in one form or another. Until then, Hamas has to be dealt with in such a way as to avoid damaging the potential for its future development as a political organization. During the Gaza War, the currents within Hamas seeking to further that goal were severely damaged.
SZ: So Hamas has to have a part of the discussions?
MJ: Yes. Hamas made a concrete decision in 2004 to develop into a political party. It must be allowed to do so. Until now, only the militant wing of Hamas has been addressed. Nations have tried boycotting them, cutting financial aid to them and bombing them out. Now they’re trying again to circumvent them by building new settlements in Gaza. Support for Fatah, a cause for the fratricidal war between Palestinians, must cease. And the population, many of whom support Hamas, must be able to see that the organization is included as an active participant in reconstruction in the Gaza Strip.
SZ: The United States wants to open a dialogue with Syria and have diplomatic relations with Iran. In view of that, is it safe to assume that the Americans, under the leadership of their new president, will also soon begin talks with Hamas?
MJ: Syria and Iran are the stages on which Clinton will have to demonstrate the most involvement. In spite of that, I think it’s safe to assume that the United States will eventually start talking to Hamas. George Mitchell is a very capable facilitator as he proved in Northern Ireland. He understands that a conflict can only be solved when both sides come to the realization that victory is impossible. Hamas as well as Israel must understand that as well. The problem right now is that both sides have decided they can live with the status quo. Hamas can continue operating as a guerilla organization – it already survived the war in Gaza – and Israel knows the Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli soil are no real threat to the government.
Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ): The donor’s conference in Sharm el-Sheikh and Hillary Clinton’s trip to Israel shows movement again in Middle Eastern diplomacy ...
Margret Johannsen (MJ): Yes, when someone flies somewhere, that’s movement, I suppose.
SZ: Would you say, then, that you don’t expect much to come of the U.S. Secretary of State’s visit?
MJ: Clinton traveled to Israel six weeks after taking office and signaled America’s interest, but that alone means nothing. Her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, traveled constantly in the region for years and accomplished practically nothing.
SZ: President Obama quickly made clear after taking office that he wished to become engaged in the Middle East peace process. What are the chances he will be successful where no other president was?
MJ: In order to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a great deal of political capital will be necessary. The word “engaged” isn’t the right term here. What’s needed is coercion. The Americans are the only ones able to exert enough force on the parties involved in the conflict – especially on Israel – that they make concessions, i.e., that occupied lands be returned. The Palestinians have wanted the same thing for years: their own state. Therefore, pressure has to be exerted on Israel, by which I mean not only rhetoric, but also measures painful to Israel as well.
SZ: What sort of measures might those be?
MJ: The United States shouldn’t sacrifice its friendly relationship with Israel, of course. But it could withhold financial support; no longer give them credit guarantees. America, whose ties to Israel extend far beyond financial support, has to ensure that Israel finally comes to its senses. That hasn’t happened in the past.
SZ: Will it happen under Obama?
MJ: This dynamic young president is willing, no question. But I have doubts that he will be able to deal with Israel like that. During the campaign, he emphasized the indivisibility of Jerusalem in an address to the Israel lobby. He took that stand, but he might have to recant in order to end the conflict by way of a two-state solution. Obama has an impossibly large agenda. He doesn’t have the political capital he will need to deal with that powerful a lobby. Or better said, he will need to spend it in other places. I don’t think he can do it and that’s why I believe the conflict in the region will continue along with periodic outbreaks of violence.
SZ: After meeting with the Israelis, Clinton met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Hamas, the real power in Gaza, was completely ignored. Is that a wise path to follow?
MJ: The same serious mistake was made at the conference in Sharm el-Sheikh that’s been repeated now for three years. Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections. Those were democratic elections in which weapons and force played no part. Whether one likes Hamas or not is irrelevant. It’s true that Israel has refused to recognize Hamas so far, but when the time comes for the two-state solution, it will have to recognize Hamas in one form or another. Until then, Hamas has to be dealt with in such a way as to avoid damaging the potential for its future development as a political organization. During the Gaza War, the currents within Hamas seeking to further that goal were severely damaged.
SZ: So Hamas has to have a part of the discussions?
MJ: Yes. Hamas made a concrete decision in 2004 to develop into a political party. It must be allowed to do so. Until now, only the militant wing of Hamas has been addressed. Nations have tried boycotting them, cutting financial aid to them and bombing them out. Now they’re trying again to circumvent them by building new settlements in Gaza. Support for Fatah, a cause for the fratricidal war between Palestinians, must cease. And the population, many of whom support Hamas, must be able to see that the organization is included as an active participant in reconstruction in the Gaza Strip.
SZ: The United States wants to open a dialogue with Syria and have diplomatic relations with Iran. In view of that, is it safe to assume that the Americans, under the leadership of their new president, will also soon begin talks with Hamas?
MJ: Syria and Iran are the stages on which Clinton will have to demonstrate the most involvement. In spite of that, I think it’s safe to assume that the United States will eventually start talking to Hamas. George Mitchell is a very capable facilitator as he proved in Northern Ireland. He understands that a conflict can only be solved when both sides come to the realization that victory is impossible. Hamas as well as Israel must understand that as well. The problem right now is that both sides have decided they can live with the status quo. Hamas can continue operating as a guerilla organization – it already survived the war in Gaza – and Israel knows the Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli soil are no real threat to the government.
Next article![]( "Wednesday: Dinner at the White House")
