“We need to finish Rabin’s work.” It has been 15 years since the assassination of the Israeli prime minister who had made the most progress on the road to peace. This phrase was recently used by Bill Clinton — call it a tribute that vice pays to virtue.
In reality, at a time when Hillary Clinton is heavily involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — didn’t she just spend almost eight hours in one-on-one with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last week? — a significant evolution is underway for American politics related to Israel. Yesterday, the United States considered Israeli security as a “national security interest” for the country. Today, it is the settlement of the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict that is described as a national security interest for Washington. It is not a Copernican revolution — doesn’t Israel’s security depend on achieving peace with its neighbors, and isn’t the creation of a Palestinian state the condition of this peace? — but a significant inflexion of language.
Certainly, by itself a peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians does not bring about an answer to the dilemmas that Americans are faced with in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and Iran. Nor does it help with the increase in Islamist terrorism around the world. But “peace in Jerusalem” transforms the nature of the relations between the Muslim world and the West. It both summarizes and gives sense to the speeches delivered by Barack Obama in Cairo and Istanbul at the beginning of his presidency.
As one of the world’s superpowers, America, whose means are no longer what they used to be, cannot allow itself to ignore the problem and not devote part of its energy to the cause. “Men arrive at a fair solution just after trying all the other ones,” as the saying goes. In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is without a doubt the right moment to save the day for the “two-state” solution; this is the only way to guarantee that Israel be both “secure and democratic,” as the American administration repeatedly tells the Israeli government.
Confronted with the urgency of the situation, one can no longer depend on people such as George Mitchell and Dennis Ross, who are competent emissaries but carry little political clout. It is up to the secretary of state to get involved. Haven’t she and her name played a significant part in bringing confidence to the two sides? Should she succeed, she would win the Nobel Peace Prize as Henry Kissinger did before her, and it would justify the confidence that the Oslo jury had in Barack Obama.
The United States has a new strategic vision for the settlement of the conflict that is both clear and appealing. The message and the messenger are in harmony with each other. But are the means and, even more so, the willingness present? In reality, Obama’s America has lost two years. Hasn’t the president been a little “soft” and lacking in confidence? Faced with this situation, Netanyahu can reasonably tell himself that he only has 10 more months to stand firm against pressure from the United States. In less than a year, America will again be in the middle of a presidential campaign. Isn’t the window of opportunity just too small? Aren’t America’s other areas of focus, both internally and externally, just too burning and numerous?
And yet Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have very real advantages, both in America — where he has the support of a significant part of the unorganized Jewish population on this issue — and in the Middle East. The majority of Israelis and Palestinians continue to hope for a settlement to the conflict. For the first time in their history, the Palestinians have a competent prime minister, Salaam Fayyad. His effectiveness and pragmatism have been shown to work wonders.
Admittedly, both sides face considerable difficulties. The rightward shift in Israeli politics is becoming an increasingly worrisome reality. Also, the divisions between Hamas and Fatah are still large. Today, in order to be successful, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton must be convinced, just as David Ben Gurion in his time, that it is realistic to believe in miracles.
Pardon me for drawing the attention of both America and Israel that the “New Situation” is not what has been discussed and argued in this story. The “New Situation” is fraught with painful perils for both Israel and also America. Israel had intruded in the holy land as a secular entity. Its founding father had the sagacity to dismiss God in His Holy Land. Israel’s foundation was laid denying faith in God. Everything abbot Israel is a negation of Judaism. The Knesset is a den of thugs. This is not how the Jews had envisaged coming to the Holy Land. Is this the Knesset in which Hillel taught Torah? Would the Messiah do in Jerusalem the blatant desecration Netanyahu is doing? A nuked Israel is crying wolf about Iran. And here is America that has contributed heavily to the tragedy of Palestinians. Sorry dear readers, both stand wrong-doers in the sight of God. Israel is a Gentile in the holy land. Obama’s America is inching towards a probable harm as a result of a sudden scourge from the heavens on the Gentile Israel. There might be a little pause in which Obama and Hillary Clinton might bow down in repentance to God and seek His mercy and forgiveness. Palestine is most likely to revert to its provincial status in a resurgent Middle East. I have offered suggestions and options to President Obama how to salvage the peaceniks Jews. Netanyahu is doomed along with the radical Zionists. The Rabbis have read the writing on the wall.