1/7/09

News out of Gaza this morning seems to have taken a more hopeful turn with some progress toward an Egyptian-French plan that is being offered to generate a ceasefire – though the situation remains unclear. Moreover, Israel has declared a three hour a day truce to allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza and Hamas officials are saying they will not fire rockets during those three hours.  

There are some welcome indications that the Bush administration may be working with Egyptian and French negotiators behind the scenes, but the reality is that the US remains conspicuously absent.  While it is the parties to the conflict that will ultimately have to make the difficult choices that bring about a resolution both to the situation in Gaza and more broadly to the Arab-Israeli conflict, history shows that constructive American engagement is a key ingredient for spurring progress. This was the case with the disengagement agreements of the 1970s, the Camp David Accords, the Madrid Conference in the early 1990s, and negotiations throughout the Clinton administration. Episodic or superficial engagement undermines US credibility and leads to deterioration on the ground.

Going forward the U.S. must be more constructively engaged in helping bring about a peaceful solution both in Gaza and to the overall conflict. The new administration will face a full plate with a global economic crisis and two wars; the Arab-Israeli conflict cannot be its only priority.  Nonetheless, playing a constructive role in settling the conflict is an important national security interest that will have positive repercussions for the U.S. in the Middle East and around the world.  It will not solve all of America’s problems in the region.  But it will surely help.

Israel put in place a three hour daily truce to allow humanitarian aid to flow into Gaza, and while there seems to be some progress on a French-Egyptian plan, the U.S. remains conspicuously absent.  Following “international pressure to ease its 12-day bombardment of the Gaza Strip, Israel briefly suspended its fighting on Wednesday and agreed to do so for three hours each day to permit humanitarian relief goods to reach the beleaguered population... Hamas officials were quoted as saying that it would not fire any rockets while Israel suspended its bombing.”  Meanwhile, President Sarkozy of France announced that Israel and the Palestinian Authority had accepted a French-Egyptian plan put forward Tuesday evening by President Hosni Mubarak and called for it to be implemented immediately.  However, Hamas is still considering the plan, and while Israeli Prime Minster Olmert “welcomed” the plan but it was not clear if and when Israel would end military operations.  In all of these efforts the U.S. seems conspicuously absent.  Although there are some signs that the Bush administration is working behind the scenes.  [NY Times, 1/7/08]

While the parties will ultimately have to make the difficult choices that bring about a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, history shows that constructive American engagement is a key ingredient for spurring progress, while episodic or superficial engagement leads to deterioration.  For years, the U.S. had a strong history of engaging in the Middle East peace process.  Several major breakthroughs, including the Camp David Accords, the disengagement accords of the mid 1970s, the Madrid Conference and the Oslo Accords all occurred amidst robust U.S. engagement.   In many of these cases, American Presidents, their Secretaries of State, and special envoys spent weeks shuttling around the region, helping bring about this progress.   Meanwhile, the disengagement of the early Bush years led to a serious deterioration and no progress in resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Overall, the U.S. still wields greater influence over the region than any other country and while its engagement is not sufficient to solving the conflict, it is necessary.  As Richard Haas and Martin Indyk recently wrote in Foreign Affairs, “the vast majority of Middle Eastern states still look to the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security and the power most able to help them achieve their objectives.”  [Foreign Affairs, January/February 2009]

The U.S. needs to be much more diplomatically engaged in helping bring about an end to the crisis in Gaza.  While European and regional initiatives are making some progress, there is no question that American involvement would help set the scene for a quicker end to hostilities and improve U.S. credibility.  Laying the groundwork for a ceasefire now that ends the fighting in Gaza, stops Hamas rockets from coming into Israel, and over time brings an end to the blockade ensures that it can be brought about as quickly as possible when the situation is ripe.  This argues for American engagement regardless of whether the Bush administration believes that Israeli military operations should currently continue.  [Newsweek, 1/12/08]

Helping bring about a peaceful resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict is an important American national security interest.  The new administration will face many difficult challenges with an economic crisis at home and serious problems in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Iran. The Arab-Israeli conflict cannot be its only priority and helping to bring about an Arab-Israeli peace will not be easy.  It will take time and with the current situation on the ground, especially the Palestinian split between Hamas and Fatah as well as Israel’s fragile internal politics, it will be extraordinarily difficult.  A resolution to the conflict will not solve all of America’s problems in the Middle East.  However, there is no question that the conflict continues to undermine American credibility in the Arab world and limits our policy options in the region.  A resolution through a two state solution and a comprehensive peace between Israel and all of its Arab neighbors that is strongly supported by the United States will undoubtedly have tremendous positive benefits for the American position in the Middle East.  [Foreign Affairs, January/February 2009.  Newsweek, 1/12/08]

What We’re Reading

Russia halts all European fuel supplies transported through the Ukraine, with shortages occurring in several European nations from Bulgaria to France

India presents a dossier of evidence connecting Pakistan to the Mumbai attacks.

In a new al Qaeda message, Ayman al-Zawahiri calls the Gaza violence “a gift” from President-elect Barack Obama.

Pakistan’s intelligence chief says there will be no war with India over the Mumbai attacks, and that terrorism poses a greater threat to Pakistan than India.

Pakistani President Ali Asif Zardari visited Afghanistan, where he pledged to continue working closely with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in fighting terrorism.

National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley says Pakistan is the greatest challenge for President-elect Obama, not Afghanistan or Iraq.

A firebomb attack on a synagogue in Toulouse raises concerns that Gaza strife will spread to France, which has the largest Muslim and Jewish populations in Europe.

Iraq gears up for the provincial elections.  Candidates’ names will be printed on ballots for the first time.

NATO forces killed 32 Taliban fighters in eastern Afghanistan.  

Blackwater guards plead not guilty in the 2007 Baghdad killings.

Commentary of the Day

Les Gelb defends President-elect Obama’s pick of Leon Panetta for the CIA, saying “only an outsider can save Langley.”

Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defends Israel’s actions against Hamas and says that the fight against militant Islam is one that “we cannot afford to lose.”

Israeli writer Etgar Keret offers an interesting look in the LA Times at “proportionality” and the Gaza conflict, saying the “only equation I can wholeheartedly accept is one whereby zero bodies appear on either side of the equation.”