Obama Has Let Us Down. Let's Go Europe!

Barack Obama was elected president of the United States in January 2009, soon after the elections in Israel, which marked a resounding defeat of the Israeli left and gave leadership to Netanyahu’s Likud party.

I remember when the president arrived in Chicago with his wife and daughters in November 2008 after being told the results of the elections. The cheering public was as euphoric and exhilarated as were the peace supporters in Israel.

Naturally, we were happy that a different kind of politician, with genuinely progressive ideas and who would have reformed the health and economic system was about to take office.

We thought that the fact that an African-American man was elected to the most prestigious office was representative of a real success for the liberal doctrine. We also recall Barack Obama being the only senator to vote against the war in Iraq, so we hoped that a man with such solid principles would contribute to a reconciliation between the United States and the Arab world, and launch a peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. To a certain extent, Obama’s election was a consolation for the left’s defeat in the Israeli elections.

At the beginning, it looked promising, both on a domestic level with healthcare reform and on an international level with the speech to the Arab world at Cairo University. He put the pressure on Israel for a moratorium on the new construction of settlements and an announced that the borders of a future Palestinian state would return to the 1967 borders.

However, we slowly started to feel a certain disappointment, thanks to America’s persistent economic problems and the deadlock in the Middle East. In the face of the awakening of right-wing extremist religious forces aiming for the next presidential campaign, it seems that Obama has given up trying to convince Israelis and Palestinians to reach an agreement.

The lack of success in obtaining a promise from Netanyahu to stop the construction of settlements and preventing Palestinians from bidding for recognition of their own state in the United Nations (thus avoiding the American veto at the Security Council) leads us to think that the hopes placed on this president were excessive. Obama looks more like a placid, well-intentioned healthcare worker who is convinced that inspired speeches will convince his troubled patients to accept valid solutions, as opposed to a leader with strong authority who can impose sanctions.

His last speech to the U.N. General Assembly not only revealed an excessive support for Israel, but also a sense of discouragement over his failure to find a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Now the Israeli left is disappointed with both Obama and the United States’ incapacity to impose a fair peace agreement on Israel.

However, when I speak with journalists, intellectuals and European leaders — whether they are Italian, French, German or British — and I ask them why Europe is so hesitant to take the reins in the peace process, I often receive a defeatist tone accompanied by considerations such as the fact that Europe is weak, divided and cannot take on such a task. This is generally followed by the usual complaints about the economic instability of the Old Continent, the internal tensions which prevent common action, the old and new divergences, etc.

Knowing the history of 20th century Europe well, allow me to distinguish myself from these pessimists, especially those in Germany, Great Britain, France and Italy. Europe has never been as rich, pacifist and ideologically united as it is now. It is not subject to external military or political threats. Its whole population is bigger than that of the United States, and the standard of living among Europeans is, on average, better than that of Americans. Europe is absolutely capable and should take on the task of leading the peace processes in the Middle East, a region geographically closer to Europe and with whom they have close historical ties.

It is true that the coalition between Great Britain and the United States discourages the former from supplanting the latter. Yet having dominated Palestine for 20 years in the first half of the 20th century allows Britain to maintain a certain degree of responsibility towards a region that has been under its control. Germany, which still feels a profound sense of guilt toward the Jewish community, might dread making any political move that could be considered hostile to Israel, even if the intention would be to achieve peace. The current Italian government has drawn an ideological alliance with the Israeli right-wing government and France may fear going back to a time when its diplomatic relations with Israel had plunged to their lowest levels following the severance defined by de Gaulle and his successors following the Six Day War.

But all of these arguments become null in front of the responsibility that Europe should take (especially in light of the U.S. failure to be a valuable intermediary) in the peace process and in creating two states for two populations, a principle publicly accepted by both Palestinians and Israelis.

It is therefore necessary to find a way to establish a European peacekeeping force that ensures the demilitarization of the Palestinian state, discourages any Middle East army from jeopardizing the peace in Israel, and also guards the sophisticated electronic equipment from strategic positions so as to prevent the launching of missiles at centers of the Israeli population. A European force could also ensure the security of Jewish settlers who decide to accept Palestinian citizenship rather than be uprooted from their homes.

These peacekeeping missions would not involve any European contingent in any bloodshed, but they would secure adequate supervision and trust from both parties.

European peace mediation would not be a provocation towards the United States, but would rather help to unfreeze a peace process that has been in its final phase for over 20 years. Lastly, it must not be ruled out that a firm, determined and generous European participation in the Middle Eastern peace process could also help countries on the Old Continent to rid themselves of the attitude of self-pity which does not, in my opinion, have anything to do with their true situation.