Part I: Israel and Palestine

Part I: Israel and Palestine

Some pragmatists might tell you: don't focus too much on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's too entrenched. A peace deal is too far out of reach. Clinton tried it–in fact, he bet his legacy on it–and failed. You think you can do better? Good luck getting Israelis and Palestinians to START negotiations, much less reach an agreement. That can only come when Israelis and Palestinians themselves take the initiative, the U.S. can't force it.

This misses the point on several levels. You may not be able to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but if you want to be respected in the Middle East, you'd better try. No Syrian, Iraqi, Saudi or Iranian citizen is going to take U.S. calls for democracy seriously when U.S. bombs drop on Palestinian targets and U.S. bulldozers demolish the homes of innocent Palestinian civilians–especially if the U.S. President isn't even trying to resolve the fundamental differences between the two parties. The fact that we are giving massive amounts of foreign aid to Israel gives us a moral imperative to ensure that this money isn't being used in a way that violates the fundamental rights of Palestinians or erodes either party's chances for security and peace.

Here's a few things you could do right off the bat:

1) Call for a settlement freeze–and set conditions on U.S. aid to Israel. Expansion of Israeli settlements is one of the key barriers to peace. Every U.S. presidential administration in Israel's history has called for Israel to halt or minimize expansion of settlements, but few have backed this up with either carrots or sticks. Palestinians and Israelis alike are tired of empty rhetoric. For every new settlement built or settlement expanded, there must be a corollary reduction in U.S. aid to Israel. We choose how and why we aid other countries. We expect a give and take. Israel is–or should not be–an exception (nor should the funds we send the Palestinian Authority be unconditional).

+ Sarkozy Urges Settlement Freeze

2) Make an immediate personal visit to both countries. Sending an envoy isn't enough. Meeting, in person, with Israeli and Palestinian leaders will help demonstrate that your administration is serious about peace. Make it your first trip as president.

3) Take a risk–speak frankly. Suicide bombing is terrorism and a grotesque violation of human rights. Bulldozing the homes of innocent Palestinians is flat out wrong. Collective punishment (such as holding the entirety of Gaza prisoner) is unforgivable. Israel has a right to exist. Palestine has a right to exist. Security is the right of every human being–not just Palestinians and not just Israelis. There's a lot of things you can say that will make you unpopular with someone or other–but, if they also happen to be true, then they are statements that deserve to be heard.

4) Involve neighboring Arab states. Engage the Arab League on the issue. Lasting peace will only come if the countries neighboring Israel and Palestine also have a stake in it. The Arab Peace Initiative was a positive first step, and something we can build on.

5) Yes, through intermediaries, talk to Hamas. The United States would have greatly preferred it if Hamas had not scored major victories in Palestinian elections. And Hamas' violent take over of Gaza is anything but "democracy in action." But it's fairly inconceivable at this point that we can achieve a comprehensive peace agreement without talking directly or indirectly with Hamas. You never make peace with friends (you never need to), you make peace with enemies. If Hamas can be reconciled with the simple fact of Israel's existence and call for and sustain a ceasefire with both the Palestinian Authority and Israel, this would be a major achievement. But it won't happen if they don't have a seat at the table.

+ Let's Talk to Hamas by Charles Grant.

6) Call for an end to the Gaza Siege. Imagine that we carve out a piece of Iraq, say the Sunni Triangle. We tell every Iraqi civilian who lives there: you cannot leave. We cut off their trade routes. Maybe we shut off the water. Maybe we shut off their electricity. Pregnant Iraqi women try to leave the area to reach a hospital. We don't let them through. Then we wait–and watch. We watch as the economy in that area collapses. We wait and watch as food shortages create a man-made disaster on par with the aftermath of a hurricane. We wait, in other words, for complete and total societal collapse–affecting insurgent and civilian alike. Well, the world would respond with outrage. This, in fact, is what is happening in Gaza. And the U.S. can't assume a leadership role in the world if it stands idly by and says nothing. Gaza is not simply going to disappear. Collective punishment against civilians and collective trauma will only result in further radicalizing Palestinian public opinion.

+ End the Gaza Siege Campaign, Gush Shalom

__________________________________

What the Candidates Would Actually Do

Obama: Obama was originally (and absurdly) accused of being "radically pro-palestinian" because of a quote from a campaign stop in Iowa: "Now, in the interim, nobody's suffering more than the Palestinian people from this whole process. And I would like to see -- if we could get some movement from Palestinian leadership -- what I'd like to see is a loosening up of some of the restrictions on providing aid directly to the Palestinian people." When Obama's rivals pull this quote, they usually strip out the tail end of it, which (rightly or wrongly) seems to place the burden of Palestinian suffering on the Palestinian leadership. For example, note this political t-shirt some clever seller is trying to pitch for public consumption.

On the campaign trail, Obama made clear that the United States and Israel have a "special relationship" and he described his commitment to Israel's security as "non-negotiable." Obama made a surprise comment before the American Israel Public Affairs committee that "Jerusalem will remain the capitol of Israel, and it must remain undivided." This was largely seen as a political gaffe and interpreted as a complete dismissal of Palestinian claims on the Eastern half of that city (which would hardly make the U.S. a fitting peace broker between the two parties). He, in fact, rapidly backpedaled. A campaign advisor made clear that he was not commenting on this a final status issue, but just that he did not think Jerusalem should be divided by checkpoints and barbed wire. But it gave Israeli, Palestinian and American peace advocates just pause when considering Obama's presidency bid.

Nevertheless, of the two candidates, because of his eagerness to talk to world leaders (and even, in some cases, enemies rather than allies) many see Obama as the far more likely candidate to make peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine a priority. (See: Obama and Palestine by Daoud Kuttab). Obama has also been received warmly as a "breath of fresh air" by many Israelis, even Israeli generals, who feel the U.S. must change its approach to the region.

McCain: John McCain has described himself as "proudly pro-Israel." McCain has said "First and foremost, we must continue to provide Israel with whatever military equipment and technology required to retain Israel's qualitative military advantage and to defend itself... I would work to further isolate the enemies of Israel such as Syria, Hamas and Hizbullah and I would never pressure Israel to make concessions to states or movements committed to its destruction."

If Israel is not to be encouraged to make concessions of any kind, it is unlikely that negotiations would bear much fruit. Sarah Palin echoed this in statements that "the U.S. cannot second guess Israel." If this statement is a fair representation of his actual policies, John McCain is not likely to stand in the way of peace negotiations if they occur, but he is also not likely to do anything to encourage them or bring appropriate pressure on the two parties. John McCain has also stated that the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv should be moved to Jerusalem, a step which would be seen by many as an endorsement of Israel's claim over that city, though McCain also states that the final status of the city is an issue that will be addressed in negotiations.

View John McCain's full speech to AIPAC

_____________________________

Next Week: Iraqi Refugees