The Problem of the Week That Obama Can Avoid
Published in de Volkskrant
(Netherlands) on 9 January 2009
by Paul Brill (link to original)
(Netherlands) on 9 January 2009
by Paul Brill (link to original)
Translated from
by Anne Hukkelhoven.
Edited by Louis Standish.
Every Shock Wave in the Middle East is Felt Too Far Outside the Region
An equally unique flammable mixture of historical sentiments, religious beliefs, ethnic ties, economic interests and strategic intentions are present. In practically no other conflict zone is the contamination danger so large.
In the past few weeks, more than 1,500 Zimbabweans succumbed to cholera. The epidemic is a direct consequence of the notorious misgovernment of Robert Mugabe. The number of deadly victims is twice as much as in Gaza. The teller will for sure continue for a while, because no truce can be made with the epidemic. In numerous capitals, Mugabe's relentless acting is called a disgrace, boycott measures are taken or proposed. But as long as the crisis does not cross the borders of Zimbabwe, the effect will be restricted to some superfluous damage to South Africa, which would be the ideal place to put pressure on the dictator.
And take the war in Sri Lanka, which has already cost the lives of 70 thousand people and has made 200 thousand inhabitants homeless. The government army is now engaged in a large scale and apparently successful offensive against the rebellious Tamils. What exactly goes on is almost completely lost on the outside world. As long as India (with its Tamils in the federal state Tamil Nadu) stays put, no one worries about the events on the island. If I would devote the remainder of this feature to Sri Lanka, nobody would be the wiser. Now that I switch to the Middle East, I am assured of a reaction.
American presidents have often moved into the White House with the firm intention to leave the Middle East for what it is for the time being. Often did they watch their predecessor bite off more than he can chew on the unruly problems of the region.
Always on the Agenda
To a certain level that goes for Barack Obama as well. It is true that the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq initially played a central role in his election campaign, but in the course of a few months, that theme was more and more superseded by the ailing economy and the credit crisis. That is what he concentrated on after his election victory. But whatever the plans of a president are, “the Middle East has the special habit to nestle itself in his agenda,” so write the expert analysts Richard Haass and Martin Indyk in the latest edition of “Foreign Affairs.” The economy screams for full presidential attention, but whether he wants to or not, Obama also gets the Gaza problem on his plate from day one.
Plus everything attached to it. Even if a ceasefire will hopefully be reached within a few days, the Gaza problem does not stand alone and will therefore not disappear. It fits into a historical development and has a regional context. With all understandable dismay over the destruction that is currently being committed, that analytical perspective tends to be neglected, which lead to an attitude of who hits hardest (Israel) and who gets the most blame attached, period. But with that, a sustainable solution does not become more likely.
The current military action in Gaza actually is the fourth time that Israel’s attacking that land strip. The first time, the area was already almost conquered during the first Israeli-Arab war in 1948, but it ended under Egyptian rule. Next, Israeli troops marched through it during the Sinai operation in 1956. Finally, it fell into Israeli hands during the Six Day War in 1967. The Israeli occupation lasted 38 years until 2005 when the government of prime minister Ariel Sharon ended it one-sidedly.
The Gaza strip that Israel left behind in 2005, bordered on Egypt. The Gaza strip where Israel is now borders Iran, “New York Times” columnist Thomas Friedman noted earlier this week. It is a pointed way to indicate how important Iran has become, even if it concerns the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Hamas has become an army of significance mainly with Iranian weapons, just as Hezbollah in South Lebanon has been rigged militarily by Iran (with the aid of Syria).
Tehran
Assuming that Hamas can be weakened, but not defeated, militarily means that the road to a political neutralization of the movement runs via Tehran. There, the Obama government will have to gauge in direct contacts whether there is true interest in a grand bargain.
Considering the Islamic streak of the Iranian regime, that is an extremely uncertain undertaking, but there are factors that make it not futile. Did Israel stand in past times opposite an almost closed Arabic “rejection front,” now when there is no lack of “peace partners”: numerous countries are in principle willing to acknowledge the country and there is a Palestinian party with which at least the West Jordan bank can be negotiated.
Should Washington be able to encourage Israel to take serious steps forward in this respect, then the Iranian confrontational politics will loose some of its glory. But on order to accomplish that, there must be a government in Jerusalem that lets itself be motivated. It is rather blunt to say, but this is the reality: that requires for Hamas to take a serious blow and for Tzipi Livni and Ehud Barak to come out of this otherwise uncontrolled war with a reasonable domestic prestige.
An equally unique flammable mixture of historical sentiments, religious beliefs, ethnic ties, economic interests and strategic intentions are present. In practically no other conflict zone is the contamination danger so large.
In the past few weeks, more than 1,500 Zimbabweans succumbed to cholera. The epidemic is a direct consequence of the notorious misgovernment of Robert Mugabe. The number of deadly victims is twice as much as in Gaza. The teller will for sure continue for a while, because no truce can be made with the epidemic. In numerous capitals, Mugabe's relentless acting is called a disgrace, boycott measures are taken or proposed. But as long as the crisis does not cross the borders of Zimbabwe, the effect will be restricted to some superfluous damage to South Africa, which would be the ideal place to put pressure on the dictator.
And take the war in Sri Lanka, which has already cost the lives of 70 thousand people and has made 200 thousand inhabitants homeless. The government army is now engaged in a large scale and apparently successful offensive against the rebellious Tamils. What exactly goes on is almost completely lost on the outside world. As long as India (with its Tamils in the federal state Tamil Nadu) stays put, no one worries about the events on the island. If I would devote the remainder of this feature to Sri Lanka, nobody would be the wiser. Now that I switch to the Middle East, I am assured of a reaction.
American presidents have often moved into the White House with the firm intention to leave the Middle East for what it is for the time being. Often did they watch their predecessor bite off more than he can chew on the unruly problems of the region.
Always on the Agenda
To a certain level that goes for Barack Obama as well. It is true that the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq initially played a central role in his election campaign, but in the course of a few months, that theme was more and more superseded by the ailing economy and the credit crisis. That is what he concentrated on after his election victory. But whatever the plans of a president are, “the Middle East has the special habit to nestle itself in his agenda,” so write the expert analysts Richard Haass and Martin Indyk in the latest edition of “Foreign Affairs.” The economy screams for full presidential attention, but whether he wants to or not, Obama also gets the Gaza problem on his plate from day one.
Plus everything attached to it. Even if a ceasefire will hopefully be reached within a few days, the Gaza problem does not stand alone and will therefore not disappear. It fits into a historical development and has a regional context. With all understandable dismay over the destruction that is currently being committed, that analytical perspective tends to be neglected, which lead to an attitude of who hits hardest (Israel) and who gets the most blame attached, period. But with that, a sustainable solution does not become more likely.
The current military action in Gaza actually is the fourth time that Israel’s attacking that land strip. The first time, the area was already almost conquered during the first Israeli-Arab war in 1948, but it ended under Egyptian rule. Next, Israeli troops marched through it during the Sinai operation in 1956. Finally, it fell into Israeli hands during the Six Day War in 1967. The Israeli occupation lasted 38 years until 2005 when the government of prime minister Ariel Sharon ended it one-sidedly.
The Gaza strip that Israel left behind in 2005, bordered on Egypt. The Gaza strip where Israel is now borders Iran, “New York Times” columnist Thomas Friedman noted earlier this week. It is a pointed way to indicate how important Iran has become, even if it concerns the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Hamas has become an army of significance mainly with Iranian weapons, just as Hezbollah in South Lebanon has been rigged militarily by Iran (with the aid of Syria).
Tehran
Assuming that Hamas can be weakened, but not defeated, militarily means that the road to a political neutralization of the movement runs via Tehran. There, the Obama government will have to gauge in direct contacts whether there is true interest in a grand bargain.
Considering the Islamic streak of the Iranian regime, that is an extremely uncertain undertaking, but there are factors that make it not futile. Did Israel stand in past times opposite an almost closed Arabic “rejection front,” now when there is no lack of “peace partners”: numerous countries are in principle willing to acknowledge the country and there is a Palestinian party with which at least the West Jordan bank can be negotiated.
Should Washington be able to encourage Israel to take serious steps forward in this respect, then the Iranian confrontational politics will loose some of its glory. But on order to accomplish that, there must be a government in Jerusalem that lets itself be motivated. It is rather blunt to say, but this is the reality: that requires for Hamas to take a serious blow and for Tzipi Livni and Ehud Barak to come out of this otherwise uncontrolled war with a reasonable domestic prestige.
Next article![]( "In Response to John Bolton and the Three-State Option")
