Washington's Waning Influence in the Middle East
Published in Le Monde
(France) on 21 May 2011
by (link to original)
The situation in the Middle East is dangerous — even more than usual. The "Arab Spring" could have been the opportunity to reopen the negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. But this is not the case. We are witnessing a hardening of positions on both sides.
What is even more worrisome is that the United States seems less than ever able to have an influence on the course of events. This is not a question of will — Barack Obama's good intentions are not questioned on this matter. But the United States is not listened to as much as before. Its influence seems to be declining. Its words seem to be just that: words. This is what the events of the very last few days showed.
On Thursday, May 19, Mr. Obama said in a speech dedicated to the Middle East that he was in favor of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. The United States added that mutually agreed land swaps were a possibility in order to take into account Israel's security interests. Nothing worked. Israel rejected this proposition. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not want to accept it. He said so on Thursday and repeated it on Friday when he was received at the White House by Mr. Obama.
All of the more important Republicans supported the flat refusal that the prime minister addressed to the Democratic president. Mr. Netanyahu is using Congress to play against the White House. And he is quite sure to win. Mr. Obama is reluctant to exert any kind of pressure on Israel.
In his speech, the president of the United States was still urging the Palestinians to give up their project to have a declaration of independence signed by the United Nations in September. But Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian National Authority, will not follow Washington if Israel does not accept the principle of negotiation based on the 1967 borders. He will present his resolution at the United Nations during next fall’s session. We are getting nowhere.
More examples of this — relatively — waning influence of the U.S. in that region could be found. It is a disturbing evolution. As a friend of Israel and an ally of the Arabs, the United States seemed to be the only power that was able to assist both sides, or even impose and guarantee a solution.
Left to their own devices, Israelis and Palestinians have already shown a million times that they were incapable of reaching a peace agreement. If the history of those last 20 years of fruitless Israeli-Palestinian discussions proves something, it is this: Peace will have to be imposed by a third party to a large extent.
But who will be that third party if the United States has lost influence in the region? And what is going to happen if Israelis, Palestinians, Egyptians and Saudis decide to ignore the U.S. injunctions, just as they already did?
No other power can replace the United States. Europe is divided, China does not want to play that role at all, and the Russians are out of the race. It is possible that this region, in the middle of a transformation, could be on the brink of a phase of strong disruption.
What is even more worrisome is that the United States seems less than ever able to have an influence on the course of events. This is not a question of will — Barack Obama's good intentions are not questioned on this matter. But the United States is not listened to as much as before. Its influence seems to be declining. Its words seem to be just that: words. This is what the events of the very last few days showed.
On Thursday, May 19, Mr. Obama said in a speech dedicated to the Middle East that he was in favor of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. The United States added that mutually agreed land swaps were a possibility in order to take into account Israel's security interests. Nothing worked. Israel rejected this proposition. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not want to accept it. He said so on Thursday and repeated it on Friday when he was received at the White House by Mr. Obama.
All of the more important Republicans supported the flat refusal that the prime minister addressed to the Democratic president. Mr. Netanyahu is using Congress to play against the White House. And he is quite sure to win. Mr. Obama is reluctant to exert any kind of pressure on Israel.
In his speech, the president of the United States was still urging the Palestinians to give up their project to have a declaration of independence signed by the United Nations in September. But Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian National Authority, will not follow Washington if Israel does not accept the principle of negotiation based on the 1967 borders. He will present his resolution at the United Nations during next fall’s session. We are getting nowhere.
More examples of this — relatively — waning influence of the U.S. in that region could be found. It is a disturbing evolution. As a friend of Israel and an ally of the Arabs, the United States seemed to be the only power that was able to assist both sides, or even impose and guarantee a solution.
Left to their own devices, Israelis and Palestinians have already shown a million times that they were incapable of reaching a peace agreement. If the history of those last 20 years of fruitless Israeli-Palestinian discussions proves something, it is this: Peace will have to be imposed by a third party to a large extent.
But who will be that third party if the United States has lost influence in the region? And what is going to happen if Israelis, Palestinians, Egyptians and Saudis decide to ignore the U.S. injunctions, just as they already did?
No other power can replace the United States. Europe is divided, China does not want to play that role at all, and the Russians are out of the race. It is possible that this region, in the middle of a transformation, could be on the brink of a phase of strong disruption.
Previous article![]( "Say No to Right of Return")
Next article![]( "No Crisis with America")
