The Black Man Should Get Tough With Israel

I realise that most of the things I write here are pretty much about myself. My daily routine, the occasional joy and disappointments I let out - most of them are attributed to my own little bubble I'm living in. I find them easier to share with. But mind you, I am not ignorant. I do care about what happens around the world as we speak. Besides the the panic and constant apprehension experienced by the European nations and the US over the recent economic downturn which has become the main topic of discussions almost everywhere on the internet these past few months, another important issue which demands the world's attention and action is of course the Palestinian crisis. A 60 year old crisis which is yet to meet with a satisfying conclusion for both conflicting parties.

And now, as the Jews in the region are flexing their muscles through an extravagant showcase of missiles and tanks, at least 800 Palestinian lives had already been sacrificed. People say Jews worry for a living - their tragic history comples them to do so. The potential for a nuclear Iran, combined with the growing accuracy and lethality of Hamas and Hizbullah rockets, will create tremendous concern. But they still cannot justify why the innocent children of Gaza had to pay the price. Collateral damage, they claim. You call putting bullets into a helpless three year old kid collateral damage? Oh come on. Don't insult my intelligence. Are you going to use the same excuse for the other 300 kids who shared the same fate too? Please.

Illustrating just how insecure the Jews have been feeling for the past 60 years.

One thing we know for sure - Palestine is being victimised by parties who seek to benefit the most from this bloody political powerplay. Be it Livni, the Jews back home, the Saud King, or even Hamas - to me, nothing is as it seems. There are always hidden agendas.

What can we do to help them? Pray to God for the Palestinians' well being, run donation drives to raise funds, send medical supplies to the collapsing hospitals, increase public awareness by running campaigns. But for now, forget boycotting American products. Admit it, we're just too dependent on them. And I bet not many will answer the call for boycotting anyway. Hence it will not work as effective as we think it will be. Since the rest of the Muslim community can only protest in street demonstrations in front of embassies while most of the leaders just shy away, in my opinion, the most realistic solution to the crisis so far lies in the hand of the the most powerful man in the world - The President of the United States. No, not Bush. Barrack Obama, when he steps into the Oval Office this Jan 20. This view is expressed by Aaron David Miller in his article in the latest Newsweek issue.

If Obama is serious about peacemaking he'll have to adjust that balance in two ways. First, whatever the transgressions of the Palestinians (and there are many, including terror, violence and incitement), he'll also have to deal with Israel's behavior on the ground. The Gaza crisis is a case in point. Israel has every reason to defend itself against Hamas. But does it make sense for America to support its policy of punishing Hamas by making life unbearable for 1.5 million Gazans by denying aid and economic development? The answer is no.

Then there's the settlements issue. In 25 years of working on this issue for six secretaries of state, I can't recall one meeting where we had a serious discussion with an Israeli prime minister about the damage that settlement activity—including land confiscation, bypass roads and housing demolitions—does to the peacemaking process. There is a need to impose some accountability. And this can only come from the president. But Obama should make it clear that America will not lend its auspices to a peacemaking process in which the actions of either side willfully undermine the chances of an agreement America is trying to broker. No process at all would be better than a dishonest one that hurts America's credibility.

Second, Obama will have to maintain his independence and tactical flexibility to play the mediator's role. This means not road testing everything with Israel first before previewing it to the other side, a practice we followed scrupulously during the Clinton and Bush 43 years. America must also not agree to every idea proposed by an Israeli prime minister. Our willingness to go along with Ehud Barak's make-or-break strategy at the Camp David summit proved very costly where more disciplined critical thinking on our part might have helped preempt the catastrophe that followed. Coordinating with Israel on matters relating to its security is one thing. Giving Israel a veto over American negotiating tactics and positions, particularly when it comes to bridging gaps between the two sides, is quite another.

If the new president adjusts his thinking when it comes to Israel, and is prepared to be tough with the Arabs as well, the next several years could be fascinating and productive ones. I hope so, because the national interest demands it. The process of American mediation will be excruciatingly painful for Arabs, Israelis and Americans. But if done right, with toughness and fairness, it could produce the first real opportunity for a peace deal in many years.

Miller, an adviser for Democratic and Republican administrations and author of “The Much Too Promised Land,” is at the Woodrow Wilson Center.