US and Middle East

S P SETH

Since his re-election, the Obama administration has sought to reactivate its Middle East diplomacy to help create some measure of stability and progress in this highly volatile region. And the focus is on three aspects. The first is to create momentum for an Israeli-Palestinian dialogue that might eventually lead to a two-state solution. The second US initiative is intended to restore Turkish-Israeli amity, so badly sundered with the killing in 2010 of nine Turkish peace activists in an Israeli commando raid on a Turkish vessel, carrying relief supplies for the beleaguered Gaza strip under Israeli blockade. And the third, the most important and crucial at the present time, is the worsening Syrian crisis.

Regarding the first, President Obama’s recent Israeli visit, his first official trip to that country, was intended more to sooth relations with the Netanyahu government. The personal chemistry between Obama and Netanyahu didn’t work at all through the former’s first term, and Obama was keen to rekindle the traditional coziness between the two countries. During his visit, he re-emphasized US commitment to Israel’s security, and the two leaders were shown to be pretty much at ease with each other.  Since then, John Kerry, Obama’s new Secretary of State, has been engaged in shuttle diplomacy to push talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA).

It is important to note that this new push incorporates Israeli demand for talks without preconditions. Which means that Israel wouldn’t be required to halt settlement activities in the occupied territory, that has been and still is Palestinian Authority’s demand for resumption of peace talks with Israel. The US has also prevailed on Arab States to modify an earlier initiative requiring Israel to commit to the pre-1967 borders between Israel and Palestine in return for its recognition by all Arab League states. Under the reported new modified formula, the Arab League might agree to mutual land swaps between Israel and Palestine to facilitate an eventual two-state solution. It would mean that Israel might get to retain much of its settlements, with token transfer of some land to Palestine. It would be hard to imagine the PA falling for this, considering the likely popular backlash from its people.

In the case of Turkey, ever since Recep Tayyip Erdogan became Prime Minister, the government has become supportive of the Palestinian cause. This is particularly noted in its opposition of the inhumane Israeli policy of blockading Gaza and reducing the territory’s about 1.7 million people to a bare existence. Which has created some criticism of Israeli policy internationally, leading in 2009 to the dispatch of a peace flotilla headed towards Gaza carrying supplies for its beleaguered residents. This also included a Turkish vessel. Israel regarded this as a provocative act designed to break its blockade of Gaza, leading its commandos to raid the Turkish vessel killing 9 Turkish peace activists.

Turkey demanded an apology, which Israel refused. During his recent visit to Israel, President Obama persuaded Netanyahu to apologize, which he did in a phone call to the Turkish Prime Minister, Erdogan. Though this has broken the ice between the two countries, the sticky issue of compensation for the 9 Turks killed, as well as the question of Israeli blockade of Gaza, remains to be sorted out. The US is keen on resolving the strained Turkish-Israeli relations, both being its close allies. Turkey is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and Israel reckons itself as US’ advanced guard in the Middle East. And both are currently involved directly or indirectly in the Syrian crisis, with Turkey helping the Syrian rebels to overthrow the Bashar regime.

That brings us to Syria, where the situation is getting ever more complicated and dangerous by the day. The Lebanese Shia group has openly joined the battle on behalf of the Assad regime.  According its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, “ It is our battle and we are up to it.”  With the Hezbollah fighting for Bashar’s cause, the Syrian regime has been able to evict the rebels from the strategically important town of Quasayr on the Syrian-Lebanese border. That brings the Syrian conflict right into Lebanon. Its northern city of Tripoli was already experiencing sectarian Sunni-Shia tit-for-tat, which now is further heightened.  A few rockets have also hit the Hezbollah-dominated areas in Lebanon.

In the meantime, the US-Russian initiative to convene an international conference in Geneva this month to find a diplomatic solution to the Syrian crisis is in trouble. The conference might be postponed for next month, if it were to eventuate at all in the near future. The European Union’s lifting of the arms embargo on weapons supplies to the rebels created another complication, drawing criticism from Russia. At the same time, Russia’s decision to fulfill, what it calls, contractual obligations to continue supplying arms to the Assad regime, has been condemned by the US and its allies, particularly the supply of sophisticated anti-aircraft missile systems. And has brought a strong response from Israel, threatening to target any such weapon systems. Which, in turn, has drawn a strong counter-response from Bashar al-Assad in an interview with Hezbollah TV, threatening to take the battle into Israel. In other words, the situation in Syria is taking a much more sinister form of a regional conflagration.

Lately, the regime has gained an upper hand on the battlefield, with the help of the Hezbollah, having evicted the rebels from Qusayr, where they had been entrenched for nearly one year. Which has raised its morale, raising hopes of regaining more territory, under rebel control, and re-establishing the Assad regime’s writ all over the country.

Things might change, though, if the US were to step in directly on the rebels’ behalf, as President Obama is under great pressure internally and externally. This will, of course, further widen the Syrian crisis with international ramifications. So far, President Obama has resisted, being reluctant to enter another Middle Eastern war when its interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been so disastrous. He told a press conference last year, “The notion that the way to solve every one of these problems is to deploy our military--- that hasn’t been true in the past, and it won’t be true now.”

And he revealed his political and moral dilemma in an interview this year with The New Republic when he said, “How do I weigh tens of thousands who‘ve been killed in Syria versus the tens of thousands who are currently being killed in the Congo.” At a more practical level, though, there is such a thing as limits on US power that is already overstretched. In any case, we will soon find out if Obama is able to resolve his dilemma.

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au