When Israel was still bombing Gaza full-bore, back until two days before the end of George Bush’s presidency, president-elect Barack Obama said he did not want to adopt any kind of public position on the war because “We have only one president at a time.”
Now, he is it.
Israelis go to the polls on February 10. The parallel-but-unnegotiated ceasefires announced by Hamas and Israel on January 18 are looking very shaky indeed. Israel’s Military Intelligence has reported that it is the non-Hamas groups that have continued launching some hostile acts (an ambush, some small-scale rockets) against Israel since January 18. Today, Israeli PM Ehud Olmert promised to undertake “disproportionate” retaliation against Gaza for the latest rocket attack from Gaza, sendung warplanes against Southern gaza and threatening even greater escalations over the days ahead.
Olmert himself is not running in the upcoming election, though he is campaigning desperately to save the “legacy” of a term as PM that was stained by the strategic debacle of the 2006 war against Lebanon and the corruption charges that have snapped ever closer and closer to his own heels (and which forced him to step down as head of Kadima some months ago.)
Though Olmert is not running, his colleague at the head of Kadima, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, most certainly is. And so is Labour Party head Ehud Barak, currently the Defense Minister. Since January 18, this troika has come in for considerable criticism from Israel’s hard-right parties who claim– with some justification– that they did not “finish the job” they started when they launched the war december 27, in terms of suppressing the ability of the Palestinian militants to fire their (often home-made) projectiles against Israel.
Over the past few years the major political momentum inside Israel– including among an apparently broad swathe of the Jewish-Israeli public– has been pushing toward ever more hawkish stances and actions, though there are now, as always, several significant voices in the country that point out that suppressing the Palestinians’ will to resist Israel’s occupation and siege is an unachievable task and therefore Israel should seek to engage Hamas in negotiations.
But what of Barack Obama? Now, as the violence starts to re-escalate, he needs to speak out forcefully for de-escalation, and for a return to authoritative final-status peace negotiations, human solidarity, and calm.
He needs to do this before February 10, otherwise the bellophilia that has been holding so many Israelis in its thrall might sweep a very heavily rightwing and anti-withdrawal government into power.
He needs to do it now, to try to knock some sense into the heads of the current Israeli government, who throughout eight years of the Bush presidency got used to having a complete “carte blanche” from Washington, regardless of the serious bad effects that their actions had on US interests spread throughout the region. (For many years now, Washington has been overwhelmingly the main provider of help to Israel at the military, political, and financial levels. Everyone in the world knows that.)
Obama also needs to do this now because the people of Gaza are still suffering. During the recent war, Israel– using overwhelmingly US-supplied weaponry– bombed thousands of their homes and businesses and the physical facilities of many of their major social institutions to smithereens. People are in tents, and the Gaza winters can be biting cold. The work of physical and social reconstruction urgently needs to get underway– but the Olmert government still won’t allow even basic construction materials to pass into the Strip.
There is an urgent humanitarian crisis in Gaza. But the crisis is not the kind of “humanitarian” issue that can be dealt with only by endlessly sending food and hygiene supplies in to Gaza’s people. It is, at its core, part of the deep and continuing political crisis of the Palestinian people– a crisis that has been awaiting an authoritative political resolution for 61 years now.
Obama did despatch Sen. George Mitchell to the region for a “listening tour,” last Monday. So I hope that, even though Mitchell is still in the Middle East, he has already been able to convey back to Obama some of the urgency of the situation he has found there.
But now, even before Mitchell gets back to Washington DC, Obama needs to start speaking out: for de-escalation, for a true spirit of human solidarity with the peoples of Gaza and of Israel, for strengthening the ceasefire in Gaza, and for launching a top-priority, international project to secure the terms of a final-status peace between Israelis and Palestinians within the next nine months.
Diplomatic delay has always been fatal on this issue. The US has only one president. President Obama: step up to the plate now!
13 thoughts on “Obama, act now for peace and humanity!”
Comments are closed.
Obama’s hands are obviously pretty much tied while Hamas refuses to return to the PA. That’s probably why George Mitchell issued a brief press statement (Fri – reported in Haaretz) calling for the crossings to be opened:
“on the basis of the 2005 AGREEMENTS.”
Also probably why Abbas has stepped up his rhetoric:
“I say clearly there will be no dialogue with those who reject the PLO,” Abbas said at a Palestinian gathering in Cairo. “They (Hamas) must recognize in no hidden terms and WITHOUT VAGUENESS that the PLO is the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, then there can be dialogue.”
And also why Abbas spokesman Nabil Abu Redeineh said:
“Hamas officials have to recognize the PLO as the sole representative, WITH ALL ITS COMMITMENTS AND ITS OBLIGATIONS”
So far Obama and Mitchell have not deviated one iota from demanding Hamas recognise Israel and accept the PLO/Israel Oslo recognition and basically return to the authority of the PA.
Until it does, how could Obama possibly launch a top priority, international project to secure final-status peace as you want? Who would be speaking for Palestine, Helena? Those who don’t recognise Israel, those who do or both of them? It’s pretty ridiculous.
Perhaps you should be giving Obama some help by backing him up with Hamas?
Helena is right, Obama shouldn’t wait one more day before doing something to restrain the Israelians and put pressure on them.
It’s a little too easy : the Israelians have destroyed all the governing structures put in place by the Hamas; in particular, during one of their first attack against Gaza, they have bombed the police buildings and killed and disorganized the police), so it’s not surprising if the Hamas isn’t able to control a strict respect of the cease fire by all the small dissident groups which are ired by Israel crimes against humanity; yet now the Israelians are threatening to use this in order to attack the Gazaouis civilians once more and in a “disproportionate” way (which is clearly a breach of the Geneva conventions).
Such tough talk on the part of Olmert leaves me thinking : is he just posturing ? is it just an electoralist showing ? or does that mean that the Israelians haven’t reached their goals and want to start bombing Gaza again ? Would they dare to do it with Obama president ? are they testing how far they can go to far with Obama ? I mean, if Obama doesn’t react firmly to such threats, all his capital of sympathy in the rest of the world will dissipates quickly, especially in the Arab world.
That said, I don’t share your optimism concerning what Obama can do to help solving the Israelo-Palestinian conflict. Unlike you, I fear that it’s too late for a “two states solution”. I fear that in fifteen years (under the Oslo accords), the unchecked Israelians have changed the facts on the ground with the implementation of the new colonies and with the wall. We are silently witnessing the exclusion of a whole people by another. It is profoundly unjust, unfair, but I don’t see how, given the present conditions and the never failing support of the US, this can be undone. A return to the pre 1967 war frontier seems highly improbable.
Gilbert Achkar has what I think a very interesting and comprehensive analysis of the situation in Gaza and the PO. He was interviewed in the middle of the crisis, before the frail cease fire, took place, but waht he said then still holds.
His conclusion is striking and contradicts here” TARGET=””>your optimism in that he think that the facts on the ground aren’t reversible given the actual political conditions and that the two states solution is dead. For him geopolitically, the only possible solution would be a reunification of the two sides of the Westbank aka the creation of a state uniting both Palestine and Jordan, but for that to work one will need a more democratic form of government in Jordan, which he doesn’t see in the near future. Neither Jordan, nor Egypt, he says, are willing to accept the Palestinians in their states, for political reason : they don’t want protests and opposition to their authoritarians regimes.
Something didnt’ work with the second link. Here it is again, hopefully correct this time.
His conclusion is striking and contradicts your optimism in that he thinks that the facts on the ground aren’t reversible given the actual political conditions and that the two states solution is dead.
Obama needs to talk to Hamas. Simple as that. But it would take political courage and there’s no sign that Obama has that.
The two state solution appears to be beyond any reasonable chance of happening. The PA and the PLO have both proven to be corrupt and basically useless. The Palestinians need to start over with a new organization and a new plan – civil rights where they live. One person , one vote in the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan. It is clearly time to move on to the next stage and abandon fairy tales. As unrealistic as the one state solution is, it is no more unrealistic today than the two state solution, and it, at least, has the benefit of history and decolonization on its side.
Is peace suite lies?
Erdogan speaks out for humanity
bb,
When you colonized the native Arabs and robed there land and turned them to refugees you needed no one to talk to .
Rather than being deeply ashamed of your deeds and undoing the evil you glorify every time a genocide is committed in your name on the Palestinians you ask Helena who will represent the Palestinians.
The disgust of Zionism have reached its climax, to include not only Israelis but all those supporters of this perverted racist ideology, its adherents must be stopped . The danger is no longer confined to the longest occupation but its spreading world wide. The awakening of the citizens of the United States of America.
Dr. James Petras interviews George Kenny, a 56 minute interview, an eye opener
http://petras.lahaine.org/articulo.php?p=1773&more=1&c=1
The Petras interview is well worth listening to.
An eye-opener, indeed.
Yes, it is very popular now to say that the two-state solution is dead. Everybody is saying it. What those people do not see, or are not saying, is that no other solution is any better.
It seems to me that Uri Avnery has well shown that a one-state solution in the present atmosphere is worse for the Palestinians (Ref “The Devil’s Hooves” in the archives at http://www.avnery-news.co.il/english/index.html). The Israelis will simply expropriate Palestinian land, legally.
The three-state solution, returning the West Bank to Jordan, and Gaza to Egypt, is no better either. Egypt and Jordan are unlikely to accept, for fear of revolution. King Hussein was quite clear why he let the West Bank go, and his son, who is not so great a thinker, would hesitate to reverse his father’s policy. It would likely mean the end of the Hashemite dynasty.
The problem here is Israeli, and settler, bullying. Those who declare the two-state solution dead, take that bullying as a given, even if they are pro-Palestinian. Israel is not in fact offering any sort of livable solution, at best a few penned “native reservations”, complete elimination to be preferred.
The Israelis are somewhat overplaying their hand. The settler population is actually quite low, and, I suspect, less permanent than Israel would like to pretend.
The Palestinians would do best to persist, and resist a half-way solution, even if it means many more deaths.
I have no particular expectation of Obama. As a politician, he has bent to the winds. However, he is an intelligent man, and has a record of dealing with the poor in Chicago. What the Israelis have done in Gaza, and are likely to do, if Netanyahu wins the election, must stick in his gullet.
Absolutely, a revolutionary change of direction cannot be expected, even if he felt that. I would not be surprised, though, if he put out remarks intended to discourage any new Netanyahu plan to eliminate Hamas from Gaza. Any such attack would put a stain on his presidency.
U.S. envoy Mitchell: Mideast peace process faces substantial hurdles
Barak Ravid, Haaretz, 01/01/09)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1060275.html
“Mitchell told Israeli officials that the new administration was committed to Israel’s security, to the road map, and to the 2004 letter by president George W. Bush stating Palestinian refugees would not return to Israel and the border between Israel and the Palestinian Authority would take into consideration facts on the ground, meaning large settlement blocs would remain in Israeli hands.”
Scary, isn’t it ?
U.S. envoy Mitchell: Mideast peace process faces substantial hurdles
Barak Ravid, Haaretz, 01/01/09)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1060275.html
“Mitchell told Israeli officials that the new administration was committed to Israel’s security, to the road map, and to the 2004 letter by president George W. Bush stating Palestinian refugees would not return to Israel and the border between Israel and the Palestinian Authority would take into consideration facts on the ground, meaning large settlement blocs would remain in Israeli hands.”
Scary, isn’t it ?
This interview with the boss of the International Red Cross Committee (ICRC) was hold in Davos (Switzerland) during the World Economic Forum (WEF), at the end of January. It was issued in “24 Heures” (24 hours) a local newspapers published in Lausanne (Switzerland). Given the neutrality of the ICRC and its experience in dealing with conflicts, I tought it was interessant to translate it for English speaking readers. Here is the link to the French version and below the English translation. To sum it up, Kellenberger is issuing the same call as Helena concerning Gaza.
Jakob Kellenberger ” How many more deads will it need for Gaza !
CRISIS ¦ The president of the ICRC Jakob Kellenberger calls for “finally launching a sincere and honnest peace process on Gaza”. He don’t want to limit himself to the humanitarian discourse which avoids the real questions. The use of heavy weapons in a zone as densely populated as Gaza raises a serious problem, he notes. His statements contrasts with the usual reserve of the ICRCInternview by Pierre Ruetschi, Davos, 02.02.2009
Jakob Kellenberger, president of the ICRC doesn’t have the profile of the typical participant to the World Economic Forum (WEF). In Davos, the financial crisis has clearly outweighted the humanitarian crisis. “I come here mainly in order to meet with the representatives of governments working with the ICRC, or of countries where we have important operations going on.”
So, he has jumped from appointment to appointment, with the Columbian president Uribe, with the prime minister of Pakistan Gilani, with the Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt, or with the vice-president of the EU, to name a few. Among the subjects of these talks, the hostages and prisonners, the migrations, but also the question of Gaza, the subject of explosive debates at the WEF.
” The humanitarian question shouldn’t be used to avoid real questions. How many more deads will it takes ?” he throws, insisting on the exceptional character of the last military intervention in Gaza.
Q You went in Gaza during the Israelian intervention and uttered forceful statements, speaking of an extreme humanitarian crisis, which contrasts with the usual moderation of the ICRC. Did Israël step over a threshold during his intervention ?
A First I was actually the only leader of an humanitarian organisation to visit Gaza during the war, like I did in 2006 in Lebanon. It is important to forge your own opinion on the spot, in the realiy of the field. This reinforce then my credibility, when I talk with the authorities in Tel-Aviv and in Ramallah. The humanitarian situation in Gaza was extremely serious. In the other hospitals which I visited in war times, I never saw, like in Gaza wounds caused uniquely by heavy weapons. The numbers, you know, are one thing, but when you see so many civilians, so many women, so many children mutilated, so many amputations and wounded heads, it is very painful.There was a very big problem of human cost in this context.
Q Do you assess a blatant violation of the International Humanitarian Laws (IHL)
A As you know, we don’t make that kind of public statements. We have undertaken several tractations to promote the respect of the IHL. Three points have been raised : the evacuation of the woundeds, which should have been permanent instead of restricted to three hours a day, the distinction between combattants and civilians and finally, the proportionality of the force used. Even if you want to respect these two last rules, it is very difficult to achieve it if you are using heavy weapons in such a densely populated area. To have a point of comparison, Gaza is three times as densely populated as Manhattan in New York. Under these circumstances, the military modus operandi chosen raises a serious problem.
Q And what is actually the situation in Gaza ?
A There are urgent humanitarian needs and important needs of infrastructural rehabilitation. But the question of Gaza should be addressed seriously. To begin with, the embargo should be lifted and the isolation of Gaza from the rest of the world should end. The population should be able to work. I have a real sorrow : every one is concentrating on the humanitarian action to-day. But I’m no more ready to restrict my discourse to the humanitarian aspect. All these talks on the humanitarian actions should not serve, as I fear, to avoid the difficult political questions. With all what I saw, I ask myself how many deads, mutilated and disabled, among them so many civilians, it will take before we understand that there is no alternative to a honnest and sincere peace process. A process which should include all the states and armed groups having an influence on this situation. .
Guantanamo : ” just the least to do … ”
Q The new Obama administration has aroused much expectations. What are those of the president of the ICRC?
A What I appreciated the most from the new president is his following statement : the effective fight against terrorism isn’t uncompatible with the respect of life and human dignity. This faith in the relevance of the international humanitarian law has always been ours, but it is really in the heart of our thoughts since the aperture of the Guantanamo prisonners camp in 2002.
Q What kind of challenges rises the closing of Guantanamo to the ICRC ?
A As of now, we are continuing our visits to the prisonners. The question of the return of liberated prisonners is important. Some will not want to return home, because they fear for their life. The principle of no back turning is concerned. For us, this is a crucial principle. If the prisonner is liberated, it is because after inquiring he has not committed crimes and isn’t a danger for security. In this case it is the least of things that he finds a host country after having lost years of his life in the detention conditions we know. The United States have to play a prominent role in the search of a host country. They should also ponder the possibility of hosting the liberated prisonners on their own soil.
” Once more the crisis will hurt the weakests “
Q One hears that the crisis has brought the Davos leaders back to reality and to a more humble attitude. What is your view ?
A I have a lot of respect for M. Schwab who has founded this institution. At all costs, we must not underestimate the interest of this platform of exchanges. But we should recognize that some modesty in Davos, and not only at the rhetorical level, would be a good thing. The world isn’t rebuilding in Davos.
Q From your point of view, did the participants really draw lessons from this crisis ?
A Here I do really have doubts. When I look at the debate around the financial crisis, I’m surprised to see how much one points at the structures, while it’s human beings who are fulfilling the key functions in the world financial system.
Q Does the crisis have an effect on the humanitarian activities of the ICRC ?
A I highly fear a well known scenario : the financial crisis and the following economical crisis will finally hit the weakests. And the persons assisted by the ICRC are precisely the weakests of the weaks, victimes of the war in addition to the food and energy crisis. Once again the same populations will be the most severely hurt by the financial crisis.
Q Does the crisis have a direct impact on the financing of the ICRC ?
A Last year, we have had records spendings, given our engagements, the highests since the Second World War, but we won’t be in deficit. This situation should also persist in 2009. In reference to my contacts with the donators, I don’t have reasons to worry too much, at least not for 2009. In 2010, we will see.
alex:
uri avnery’s critique of the one-state solution assumes a few things which are, i (along with many israeli anti-occupation activists and increasing numbers of palestinians) believe, problematic. most notably:
(1) that the israeli state is not *already* expropriating dunam upon dunam of palestinian land, and acting as if it’s legal. every israeli government, and its agent the KKL/JNF, has stolen as much land is it felt it could hold, and created legalistic cover for it whenever it felt it needed to. a single state would make no difference in that process, except for giving the palestinian majority a chance to pass laws severing the KKL/JNF’s connection from the state, and restoring land stolen in the past throughout mandate palestine to its owners.
the one thing avnery’s two-state fantasy can never do -and, arguably, is specifically designed to never do – is deal with the land thefts ‘inside’ the green line. justice for these destroyed villages, towns, and cities, and their historic populations (both refugees and ‘present absentee’ internally displaced palestinian citizens of israel) is explicitly impossible under a two-state solution.
(2) that a one-state model is automatically and eternally an annexation model; or, phrased differently, that the structure of the state will never change. a one-state solution creates a palestinian majority. which can (and hopefully would) then transform the ethno/racial/religious state of israel into a democratic state of its citizens. which is a necessary (if not sufficient) part of any just solution that involves state structures.
some, myself included (as well as the israeli authors of the classic pamphlet “2 states for 2 peoples is 2 states too many”) would argue that there is no possibility for a lasting just solution within the framework of state structures. but that’s a debate for a different context.
(3) that the israeli settlements in the west bank will either become acceptable to the palestinians whose land they’ve stolen or be evacuated by an israeli government. the former is just plain ridiculous; the latter merely extremely implausible. the settlements are – as the israeli government says – fully integrated into the state of israel. they’re necessary to the continue functioning of the state in its current form, both as inexpensive bedroom suburbs for a pinched middle class and as a safety valve for the religious right. and without full withdrawal of the settlers, there is no two-state solution.