Obama’s perilious visions - Ronald S. Lauder

16 July 2009

English Translation:

Financial Times Deutschland, Germany

With his Middle East policy the US president is raising expectations around the world. But words alone cannot create peace. Instead they often create illusions. It is now time for a reality check.

By Ronald S. Lauder

President Barack Obama has the admirable gift that to lay out his political vision in such a way that it resonates in the world. But, when it comes to the Middle East and Iran, is hope alone a reality? With his speech in Cairo in early June Obama not only impressed the Islamic world but also satisfied existing expectations in the West for more diplomacy and harmony in international matters.

No doubt Obama has good intentions. But are the measures proposed by him the right ones? Being a realist, I am skeptical. Israel has had mixed experiences with peace formulas such as Land for Peace. While it worked in the Sinai in the 1970s the withdrawals from Lebanon and the West Bank failed to be reciprocated by the other side.

Security and stability are crucial for Israel’s survival. To most Israelis so far, the safety and well-being of their state today depends on its own military strength. So far, there has been no reliable partner on the other side with whom to negotiate a just peace. Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah are even close to accept Israel as a permanent and unchallenged sovereign state.

After the IDF withdrew, Hezbollah fighters moved into southern Lebanon and attacked Israel. After the Israelis left Gaza, Hamas did likewise. In both instances large sections of the international community gave the Jewish state the cold shoulder when it was in need of support. This rejection is still very much present in the minds of Israelis.

If a terrorist group fired – day in, day out – missiles into American, English or German territory, would the respective governments there also be called upon to immediately start negotiations on the creation of a separate state for that group?

And as long as Hamas has the upper hand what would stop them from transferring their weapons and rockets to a yielded East Jerusalem? Can such people be part of a peace process?

Since 1993 the Palestinians have gained territories and enjoyed a fair modicum of domestic autonomy. However, the results have not been encouraging. Corruption, internal fighting, and constant economic debility despite financial support from the international community have been the hallmarks of the fragile Palestinian Autonomy.

After Israel’s withdrawal, the Gaza Strip became a kind of ‘Hamastan‘ where the population and moderate political opponents are being intimidated by hard-line Islamists. The strategy of the latter is: First the land, then still no peace." Their stated objective remains the expulsion of Jews from the Middle East. An eventual Palestinian homeland must provide a stable and secure environment for its citizens, and it must recognize the right of the other side to exist in security. Israel signed up to this, but only some of the Palestinian leaders did.

Sadly, there is not a lot of debate about how to prevent a Palestinian state becoming the prey of extremists. Many feel more comfortable in blaming the Israeli government for all the failures in the Palestinian territories. It is clear that currently the Palestinians are unable, in the case of the Palestinian Authority, and unwilling, in the case of Hamas, to guarantee Israel’s safety and integrity.

Peace and security in the Middle East also heavily depend on containing Iran. For a long time Tehran has bankrolled terrorists in their fight against Israel and Jews around the world. President Ahmadinejad is obsessed with seeing Israel wiped off the map, and to spread his mission, he uses every agent available to him. Iranian oil dollars, provided by many European companies seeking loopholes in current agreed sanctions, help him enormously.

Tehran is working hard to dominate the Middle East. For years now the regime has stonewalled the international community, and it is coming ever closer to building a nuclear bomb. This is not only Israel’s problem. It is also of serious concern to Egypt and Saudi Arabia, to the Gulf States, and Europe should take this threat more seriously, too, because Iran is continuously expanding the range and quality of its missiles.

Regrettably, some Western governments – but also China and Russia – have either deluded themselves that Tehran is a serious partner for negotiations or have knowingly gone along with this fiction in pursuit of their own parochial economic and political interests. A reality check and an honest evaluation of four years of intensive, but ineffective shuttle diplomacy are urgently required at this stage.

With his overtures to Tehran, President Obama is taking a high risk. What if the strategy of the regime is once again to stall for time? The window of opportunity to prevent a nuclear Iran is closing fast, and, so far, the results of the West’s policy of engagement with Iran are sobering.

Israel trusts past experiences much more than grand promises and visions. Doubts that the Palestinians are currently able to form a stable democratic state are wide-spread, as are doubts that the unilateral move of the United States toward the regime in Tehran will eventually generate positive results.

The US president emphasizes what unites people and not what separates them. This is honorable, and it satisfies many well-meaning people in the West. But words alone cannot create peace. Instead they often create illusions. The moment will come when people will ask if Obama’s idealism is matched by reality. Nobody could possibly want it to be the reality of an Iranian nuclear bomb.

Ronald S. Lauder is president of the World Jewish Congress.