Bin Laden Killing Gives Obama Clout in Middle East Peace Deal

May 6, 2011 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (5)

With the deletion of the world’s most wanted terrorist, the deleter in chief should invest his newfound diplomatic and political capital in the Levantine Middle East, where the whirlwind of political unrest is sowing opportunities for a peace deal.

This week, Palestinian factions Fatah and Hamas reconciled after four years of estrangement. As part of a unity government, Hamas will honor the Palestinian Authority’s peace agreements with Israel and Fatah officials will lead the new government in negotiations with the Jewish state for an independent Palestine. This is a position Hamas would never have assumed two decades ago, when  Yasser Arafat negotiated an historic peace deal with Israel, nor is it the first time it has made such a concession. [See photos of reactions to Osama bin Laden's death.]

In February 2007, Fatah and Hamas agreed to govern in tandem as a way to staunch intramural violence that was threatening to erupt into civil war. The deal was brokered in Mecca by Saudi King Abdullah, who persuaded Hamas to respect existing accords with Israel and to allow Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas to negotiate with its leaders. When the so-called Mecca Accord was announced, it was widely interpreted as de facto recognition by Hamas of a country it once referred to only as “the Zionist entity.” Not only did Washington ignore the agreement, however, it secretly supplied arms to Fatah militias in Gaza, hoping they would dispatch Hamas once and for all. The Mecca agreement quickly broke down and by late spring, after a short but bloody war, the Palestinian territories were split between a Hamas-controlled Gaza and a Fatah-administered West Bank.

Four years later, Israel once again has a unified partner with which to deal. Rather than at least test Hamas’ intentions, it has refused to recognize any Palestinian government in which the militant group is a part. What was once said about Arafat--that he never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity--may now be said about the Israelis. The Arab world is in play. Far from an impediment to peace, the uncertainty convulsing the region augers well for a deal.

Hamas may already be planning for a world without one of its key benefactors, the beleaguered regime in Syria. According to the New York Times, Syrian President Bashar Al Assad is demanding Hamas’ public support for his bloody crackdown on the popular uprising against his rule. Hamas has so far refused, and tensions between the two sides is fueling rumors that the group may relocate its headquarters from Damascus to Qatar. Hamas is also under pressure in Gaza, both externally from the Israelis, who control much of what goes in and out of the sea-side enclave, and internally from radical indigenous groups like Palestinian Islamic Jihad and armed secular clans, as well as Salafi-Jihadi outsiders with vague ties to Al Qaeda. As reported by Al Majalla, a London-based online magazine, Hamas has done little to prohibit these groups from lobbing rockets into southern Israel because it has no incentive to do so.

After four years in power, Hamas is no longer the spoiler it was in the early 1990s when it virulently opposed Arafat’s peace overtures to Israel. In 2009, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal told the Times in a landmark, five-hour interview that the group was prepared to settle for a Palestinian state contoured roughly along the borders that prevailed before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. He declared Hamas’ charter, which calls for the dissolution of the Jewish state, to be obsolete. Speaking this week from Cairo, where the reconciliation government was announced, he challenged Israel to resume negotiations with Abbas.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his supporters say they will never negotiate with a man like Meshaal, who has no small amount of Jewish blood on his hands. That would be a defensible position were it not for the fact that political violence is as liquid a currency in the modern Middle East as the shekel and the dinar. For years now, Hamas has been speaking the language of a militant group that has embraced terrorism as a means to the end of an independent state--a strategy employed with great success in the 1940s by militant Zionist groups, which engaged in assassination and terrorist bombings in their campaign to oust British forces from Palestine.

[See a slide show of six potential terrorist targets.]

President Barack Obama now has the leverage he needs to impose the framework of a Levantine peace deal, and it should include recognition of Hamas as a legitimate constituency within the Palestinian electorate. He can do this covertly, through neutral third parties, or as part of a very public multilateral round that involves countries like Egypt and Turkey. Either way, it should be done for the most simple and profound of reasons: it is in America’s interests.

Tags:
Hamas,
Osama bin Laden,
Middle East,
Israel,
Palestine

Reader Comments Read all comments (5)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

The main Zionist claim is that they have a supreme right to some of Palestinian territory because they lived there thousands of years ago. Let’s examine the core and real nature of this claim.

Firstly, this claim is mistaken and selfish in its core concept because Zionists fail to recognize that history is a continuum and that there were other people living in majority in Palestine before the Jews and also after the Jews. Zionists simply cut history at a convenient point for them and claim ancestral ties to the land as of that convenient point.

Secondly, whatever the claim, it is beyond absurd to try to shape modern world based on thousands of years old maps. Imagine if the rest of the world would be reshaped by who was on the land thousands of years ago. It would cause horrific wars, countless refugees, and unimaginable human suffering, exactly what is happening in Palestine.

Thirdly and most disturbing, Zionist goal was to establish a Jewish state wherever possible. Palestine may have been a preference, but Palestine was not the only location that Zionists planned as their state in modern times. Another location was Argentina where Jews have been migrating for hundreds of years for the purpose of establishing a state. Also, locations in Europe were on the list and that’s why the Catholic Church was killing/expelling Jews since Roman times (read the history of the Holly Inquisition). Whatever the location, Zionist plan was to simply occupy the people living on the land even if that would mean imposing a regime worst than Nazi Germany’s from which they escaped. And Zionists would just use a different ideological coloring than the one used in Palestine in the attempt to rationalize the occupation.

In conclusion, the main claim on which the Zionist regime is built in Palestine is erroneous, selfish, and a lie. I am categorically against generalizing, and recognize that many Jews are against the crimes the Zionist regime is committing and that many Jews are leading the global resistance to it. They should be proud.

ValleyRy of NY 2:40PM May 17, 2011

5. Well attended speeches take place almost weekly at colleges and universities across the U.S. and the world condemning the Zionist regime, their remaining supporters, and companies that do any business there. These speeches are often lead by moral Jewish people, church leaders, business people, etc., in addition to traditional peace activists.

6. The West where most of the traditional supporters of the Zionist regime are located is loosing global influence. China, the Middle East, South East Asia, Russia, South America, etc. are emerging as new pockets of economic and political power where the Zionist regime has angered most of the population.

7. Not only that the West is declining, but Zionists are loosing political control in the declining West. Diversity is bringing minority groups into politics, groups that are actively opposing the Zionist regime.

In conclusion, the Zionist regime is negotiating now because its future is changing for much worse. It knows that it temporarily exists now only through the force of its arms and this will be short-lived. It knows that it is at its peak and a downturn has come. It is a mistake to negotiate with the Zionist regime at the present time. But, if you have to negotiate, do not accept anything less than a single region in question (single state) where all who live there are equal. Any other “solution” would just reward the Zionist regime at the time of its demise. If the Zionist regime wants true piece, let’s not make it dependent on Zionist political and land acquisition goals, but on democratic vote for all who live there and making everyone equal (something we Americans cherish so passionately).

Bulls42 of CA 2:23PM May 17, 2011

Why would Zionists want to discuss any peace agreement with the Palestinians when they have overwhelming military supremacy, seemingly ultimate power, and apparently bright future? Because the future is completely opposite and Zionists know it.

1. All military powers in history with no exception ultimately came crashing down. Someone stronger always comes, and it does not take a rocket scientist to see (just look around you) this coming and not ending well for the current military power in Palestine. Forward-seeing Jewish people under the Zionist regime already started packing up and leaving for Australia, South America, and the U.S. before this occurs.

2. It is obvious that the Zionist regime survives mainly because of its external allies who so far provided it with money, weapons, political support, access to markets, etc. After countless U.N. human rights violations, killing of its allies’ citizens (search on youtube for American “Rachel Corrie” video of Zionist bulldozer crushing her to death), forging of its allies’ passports in acts of murder, etc. its former allies are increasingly turning against the Zionist regime. Who would want to be remembered in history as an accomplice in international murders and especially of their own citizens.

3. Not only that the list of remaining supporters is growing thinner, but an international coalition is formed and growing larger of countries that are cutting all economic and diplomatic relations with the Zionist regime.

4. No country ever survived a complete isolation from its neighbors. No person of the area currently under Zionist occupation can obtain any type of visa from any of the surrounding countries for any reason – a complete land lock.

Bulls42 of CA 2:21PM May 17, 2011

Stephen Glain

Stephen Glain

Stephen Glain is a freelance writer with extensive experience as a foreign correspondent in Asia and the Middle East. His latest book, State vs. Defense: The Battle to Define America’s Empire, will be published in August by Crown. You can follow him on Twitter @sglain.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement