An Israeli View: The new administration signals it means business

Last week's intensive Middle East tour by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has sent a very strong message: President Barack Obama intends to be active in pursuing a peace process. Observers and pundits who may have surmised that the global economic crisis would absorb all the new administration's energies, leaving limited resources for other issues, should reexamine their analysis.

But Clinton did more. She repeatedly set the objective: the two state solution. In and of itself, there is no novelty in this stated US position. What is worth underlining is that it is most unlikely that the guidelines of the new Israeli government will include a reference to the idea, certainly not by name. An Israeli government that relies on the votes of two ultra-right parties whose sole agenda is maintaining Israeli control over the West Bank and expanding the settlements will be strongly averse to the idea.

But even if Prime Minister-designate Binyamin Netanyahu manages to convince Obama and his team that the failure of Oslo, Camp David II and Annapolis creates a sufficient body of evidence that a new paradigm is necessary, other issues contain potential for confrontation between Israel and the US. In Jerusalem, Clinton said on March 3 that the US would express views that may differ from those of Israel. The following day, in Ramallah, she made it clear that she meant the settlements and Jerusalem. When asked about the Jerusalem municipality's intention to demolish houses in East Jerusalem built without a permit, she replied, "Clearly, this kind of activity is unhelpful and not in keeping with the obligations entered into under the roadmap."

In her talks in Israel, Clinton indicated that as soon as a new Israeli government is in place the US would raise the issue of settlement activity. Beyond insisting on the implementation of promises made by the Sharon government to Washington in April 2004 to remove unauthorized outposts in the West Bank, the US will demand a settlement freeze. That ensures a collision course is set between the two new governments in Jerusalem and Washington.

During her visit, Clinton emphasized more than once that the administration intends to give full support to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) and to Prime Minister Salam Fayyad (who has since resigned): "The United States supports the Palestinian Authority as the only legitimate government of the Palestinian people." She made it clear at the donors' conference in Sharm al-Sheikh and in Ramallah that the US would work with the two on Palestinian needs both in the West Bank and in Gaza. From the Israeli defense minister she demanded opening the crossings into Gaza to allow entry of humanitarian assistance. New US pressure is expected on issues such as free movement between Palestinian cities in the West Bank.

In this respect, Netanyahu will have to beef up his "economic peace" plans for the West Bank. He called for creativity following his meeting with Clinton: he could propose several steps that would increase the PA's control over additional areas in the West Bank and allow for enhanced economic activity. Some of these measures might entail taking risks that could be reduced by either additional equipment or faster completion of the security fence. Yet it is still unlikely that the Obama administration will emulate its predecessor's silence on the settlements.

Netanyahu may partially blunt US pressure if he agrees to pursue the Syrian track. If he does--and notwithstanding his own statements on the issue on the eve of Israel's February 10 Knesset elections and those by his major coalition partner, Avigdor Lieberman of the Yisrael Beitenu party (calling for "peace for peace" with Syria as against territories for peace)--he might deflect some of the American pressures on the West Bank issue.

The pledges made during the Sharm al-Sheikh conference in support of reconstruction of Gaza amount to approximately $4.4 billion, of which $900 million will come from the US. Even if met only partially, this is a far-reaching commitment by the international community. It raises many questions--in particular, how will it be possible to channel these enormous funds toward constructive purposes in Gaza without having to deal with Hamas?

US officials have avoided Gaza for several years, now. With no effective PA presence there, the US has to work with international agencies and organizations that are present and active in Gaza. Unavoidably, these organizations will be in touch with Hamas-led local authorities there. Even the establishment of a Palestinian government of "technocrats" may not solve this dilemma for the US. Other donor governments may be even less scrupulous in maintaining the no-dialogue policy with Hamas.

This would give the organization yet another achievement in the wake of what was considered just a few weeks ago a clear military victory for Israel.- Published 9/3/2009 © bitterlemons.org

This column is re-published with the permission of bitterlemons.org.