No. 8 September 2010 Noref Report US Hamas policy blocks Middle East peace Henry Siegman Introduction Failed bilateral talks over these past 16 years have same time must make it clear these assurances are not shown that a Middle East peace accord can never be available if Israel insists on denying Palestinians a reached by the parties themselves. Israeli governments viable and sovereign state in the West Bank and Gaza. believe they can defy international condemnation of their illegal colonial project in the West Bank because This paper focuses on the other major obstacle to they can count on the US to oppose international a permanent status agreement: the absence of an sanctions. effective Palestinian interlocutor. Addressing Hamas’ legitimate grievances – and as noted in a recent Bilateral talks that are not framed by US-formulated CENTCOM report, Hamas has legitimate grievances parameters (based on Security Council resolutions, – could lead to its return to a Palestinian coalition the Oslo accords, the Arab Peace Initiative, the government that would provide Israel with a credible “road map” and other previous Israeli-Palestinian peace partner. If that outreach fails because of Hamas’ agreements) cannot succeed. rejectionism, the organization’s ability to prevent a reasonable accord negotiated by other Palestinian Israel’s government believes that the US Congress political parties will have been significantly impeded. will not permit an American president to issue such parameters and demand their acceptance. What If the Obama administration will not lead an hope there is for the bilateral talks that resume in international initiative to define the parameters of an Washington DC on September 2 depends entirely on Israeli-Palestinian agreement and actively promote President Obama proving that belief to be wrong, and Palestinian political reconciliation, Europe must on whether the “bridging proposals” he has promised, do so, and hope America will follow. Unfortunately, should the talks reach an impasse, are a euphemism there is no silver bullet that can guarantee the goal of for the submission of American parameters. Such a “two states living side by side in peace and security.” US initiative must offer Israel iron-clad assurances But President Obama’s present course absolutely for its security within its pre-1967 borders, but at the precludes it. Henry Siegman is president of the US/Middle East Project (USMEP), an independent policy institute. He is also a research professor at the Sir Joseph Hotung Middle East Programme of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. Mr. Siegman has published extensively on the Middle East peace process and has been consulted by governments, international agencies, and non-governmental organizations. Major studies directed by Mr. Siegman for the Council on Foreign Relations include Harnessing trade for development and growth in the Middle East (2002), and Strengthening Palestinian public institutions (1999), conducted on behalf of the European Commission and the government of Norway. In 2002, he directed a study commissioned by the US Department of State and the US National Intelligence Council on the implications of “viability” for Palestinian statehood. September 2010 1 Henry Siegman: US Hamas policy blocks Middle East peace Road to nowhere Such a reconsideration must begin with a rejection of the notion that a Middle East peace accord can ever Peace talks at an impasse be reached by the parties themselves, with the US role The Obama administration has reversed the limited to “facilitation.” Failed bilateral talks over trajectory of previous administrations’ engagement these past 16 years have shown that left to their own with the Middle East peace process. Presidents Bill devices, negotiations between Israeli governments Clinton and George W. Bush avoided dealing with – that believe resorting to overwhelming military the issue in the early stages of their presidency. power is the solution to every political and President Clinton pursued a peace agreement far security challenge – and a powerless Palestinian more seriously than did President Bush, but not until adversary can only result in the enlargement and the closing days of his second term. By contrast, completion of Israel’s colonial project in the West President Obama addressed the issue aggressively Bank, notwithstanding American “facilitation,” or virtually the day after he took his oath of office. “bridging proposals,” as this administration prefers He appointed Senator Mitchell his personal Middle to call it. Bilateral talks that are not framed by US- East peace envoy, delivered a historic speech to the formulated parameters (based on Security Council Arab and Muslim world in Cairo, and presented resolutions, the Oslo accords, the Arab Peace Netanyahu’s government the toughest demand for a Initiative, the “road map” and other previous Israeli- freeze on all further Israeli settlement enlargement in Palestinian agreements) cannot succeed. the West Bank and in East Jerusalem ever made by any US administration – and all within the first year A two-state solution will remain beyond everyone’s of the first term of his presidency. reach because even the most hardline Israeli governments are convinced that the US Congress But it has been all downhill since. The settlement will not permit an American president to issue freeze Prime Minister Netanyahu agreed to turned such parameters and demand their acceptance by out to be a sham, the proximity talks a monumental Israel. Israeli governments believe they can defy waste of time. President Obama’s most recent international condemnations of their colonial project encounter with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the West Bank because they can count on the US at the White House on July 6, at which he felt to oppose international measures that would sanction constrained to express admiration for the seriousness their illegal behaviour. of the commitment to a two-state solution of a man who has shown nothing but disdain for the idea, If it is to succeed, a US effort to rescue the two- has triggered despair throughout the region deeper state option must be prepared to offer Israel iron- than was experienced during the disengaged Bush clad assurances for its security within its pre-1967 administration. borders, but at the same time make it clear that such assurances are not available if Israel insists on denying Palestinians a viable and sovereign state in Bilateral talks cannot succeed the West Bank and Gaza. The US administration has announced the launching of direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) and that the parties have agreed to Credible Palestinian partner lacking place a one-year limit on these talks. But nothing Which brings us to the other major obstacle to a much beyond spin to sustain the illusion of permanent status agreement – the absence of an continued American “engagement” can be expected effective Palestinian interlocutor, due to the bitter from this administration until at least after the internecine divisions between Fatah and Hamas, November congressional elections, if then. That divisions that have been fostered and deepened by interregnum provides time for a reconsideration of US and European support for Israel’s determination this administration’s Middle East peace strategies to exclude Hamas from Palestinian political life and that have been undone with humiliating ease by Netanyahu at every turn. September 2010 2 Henry Siegman: US Hamas policy blocks Middle East peace to bring about its demise. It should be clear by now formal Israeli-Palestinian agreement (the Agreement that this policy has only strengthened Hamas, and on Movement and Access) in 2005 for the free that it has retained the ability to torpedo any Israeli- movement of people and goods between these two Palestinian peace agreement it is not party to. areas, brokered by James Wolfensohn, then secretary of state Condoleezza Rice’s special envoy for Gaza This view, shared by virtually every Middle disengagement, an obligation Israel violated even Eastern political and security expert, was expressed before the ink on the document dried.2 concisely as the conclusion of a recent essay on the subject in Foreign Affairs: “Hamas is here to Hamas was denied its electoral mandate and excluded stay. Refusing to deal with it will only make the from the West Bank because Fatah conspired with situation worse: Palestinian moderates will become Israel’s government and the Bush administration to weaker, and Hamas will grow stronger. If the Obama carry out a putsch by Mohammed Dahlan’s militia administration is to move its plans for peace forward, forces in Gaza to overthrow Hamas. The attempted the challenge of Hamas has to be met first.”1 putsch was pre-empted by Hamas in a bloody manner.3 But the way Dahlan’s forces had previously As argued in this paper, a more balanced approach to dealt with Hamas’ members that it had imprisoned Hamas, addressing legitimate grievances, could lead (or the way Abbas’ Fatah has dealt with them in the to its return to a Palestinian coalition government that West Bank since) should not leave anyone with false would provide Israel with a credible peace partner. If illusions about the treatment that awaited Hamas had that outreach fails because of Hamas’ rejectionism, Dahlan’s putsch succeeded. its ability to prevent a reasonable accord negotiated by other Palestinian political parties will have been seriously undermined. Hamas’ obsolete charter