In advance of meeting new Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, President Obama has made a very public commitment to a Palestinian state; part of a broader effort to build political capital in the Islamic world. Netanyahu, whilst accepting previous agreements including the Roadmap, has been reluctant to speak about Palestinian statehood, leading to anticipation of a clash in Washington. Such speculations are mistaken.
Whilst US policy towards the Middle East Peace Process is shifting, and the new administration is more inclined to pressure Israel than its predecessors, including on the issue of settlements, the fundamentals of the relationship are not changing. The relationship is deep rooted not only in US strategic thinking but in US political culture, and both sides will search for consensus.
The threat posed by Iran is Israel’s central priority, and the US shares Israel’s concerns. The suggestion that US determination to stop Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is the quid pro quo for Israeli flexibility on the peace process is a crude misinterpretation. The Obama team does believe that advancing the peace process will help isolate Iran, but preventing nuclear proliferation is a priority for Obama in any case. Iran going nuclear on his watch would be a personal failure, regardless of what happens with the peace process.
On the Palestinians, there are differences of opinion. But Netanyahu, whilst concerned to avoid splits within his broad based coalition, well understands the need to find common ground with the US. He has long called for a focused effort to improve economic conditions on the West Bank, and in his very first speech as prime minister he went further, calling for comprehensive peace talks with the Palestinians on security, economic and political issues. Even some left of centre European leaders have come to believe that he could make a dramatic change in the region. But for now, both sides will recognise that implementation of a comprehensive two state solution is not possible as long as the Palestinians themselves remain divided.
For this first Netanyahu-Obama summit, success will be determined as much by what happens in front of the cameras as by the talks behind closed doors. The parties will need to ensure that the outcomes of the meeting are communicated in a manner that does not allow those eager to report a bust-up, the opportunity to do so.
See here for BICOM’s full analysis of the meeting
I hope that Obama will use his new approach to Iran to give support to the forces of democracy in that country who are suffering from a renewed crackdown by the regime there. I am thinking in particular of the 4,000 Iranian refugees who live in Camp Ashraf, just north-east of Baghdad. During the US occupation, they were under direct American security but responsibility for their well-being has now been handed over to the Iraqi government. Quite right you may feel…except that the Iraqi government is under increasing pressure from the Iranian regime to hand over the 4,000 to their “justice” system. Since this will almost certainly mean their torture and execution ( more than 100,000 people have been executed by the mullahs) lots of people in this country have been trying to get the Iraqis to acknowledge their responsibility to protect them as refugees. Among the camp’s supporters have been Amnesty International and the European Parliament.
Worryingly, the Iraqi government, which contains pro-Islamic and pro-Iranian elements has now mounted an effective blockade of the camp, refusing to allow food and medical supplies, stopping doctors from entering and banning journalists, human rights organisations and humanitarian agencies from visiting the camp.
Now Iraqi government spokesmen are threatening to close the camp completely and hand over its residents to Iran. They are likely to do this before elections in June, when it is expected that pro-Iran groups will lose support to more secular and moderate forces.
Supporters of the camp are fighting a desperate legal rearguard action to stop this happening. But they need money, not just for campaigning but to ensure the camp’s residents get legal backing to fight any attempts to deport them.
We on the left are telling the US and UK government to engage with Iran rather than threatening it with war – but engagement means supporting the forces of democracy and opposition in that country. Camp Ashraf is a beacon of hope and active political support for the pro-democracy groups inside Iran. We should put our money where our mouths are and help them by sending donations to the Iraq Liberty Association, a UK based human rights group for Irnin dissidents.
As soon as Mr Netanyahu returned home from Washington, the Israeli government demolished a settlement outpost. Surely not a coincidence. Israel at last is being taken to task, and not only in the US. Netanyahu’s Foreign Minister, Mr Avigdor Lieberman, whose racist views are widely reported, had to arrive in secret in London and was received by Jewish protesters in Hampstead. BICOM, whose CEO is Lorna Fitzsimons, is trying to portray the Israeli government as a normal Western democratic government. But ordinary Labour voters know better.