Alvaro de Vasconcelos

Another war in the Middle East, another Israeli military invasion of the Gaza Strip, this time with the implicit support of Egypt’s new authoritarian regime. More civilians killed and more suffering and humiliation for the Palestinians. But also more fear in Israel. However, in the end nothing is likely to change: Israel and Egypt will continue their blockade of Gaza, where Hamas will remain as the hegemonic force. 

Hamas, meanwhile, isolated and radicalized by the war and the blockade, is likely to continue its strategy of firing rockets at Israeli cities, creating terror among the civilian population. Yet the strategy will be as ineffective as it was during the Second Intifada, damaging only the Israeli peace camp and reinforcing extreme right-wing nationalist groups in Israel. 

There could be another alternative, however, one that would contribute to ending the deadlock and encourage progress toward a genuine two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conundrum. Yet, for it to succeed, President Barack Obama would have to change U.S. policy toward Hamas – and, if he did so, the European Union would certainly follow suit. We have already had hints of what might be possible in Obama’s pronouncements on the issue in the past.

 

In his famous 2009 Cairo speech entitled “A New Beginning,” the American president declared that America would not turn its back “on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity.” In short, for the first time ever, an American president had recognized that there was a Palestinian question to which the United States could have an answer. In his speech, Obama, after noting “America’s strong bonds with Israel” went on to recognize that the Palestinians “endure the daily humiliations large and small that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable.” The president also declared that “America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.” 

It is a tragedy to have to report that, five years after this historic speech, there is little evidence that today Obama would not turn his back on the Palestinians, especially after his initiatives for peace were so brutally dismissed earlier this year. Yet, if his Cairo speech was more than mere rhetoric, it is now time for the president to show that he really cares about Palestinian suffering. Can Obama do it? Yes he can! What, then, would he need to do?

 

After ensuring that the violence in Gaza is ended, he should change his strategy for resolving the Palestinian question, achieving a two-state solution and ending the occupation of the West Bank. It is a strategy which, so far, has been solely based on negotiations with a weak Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and the Palestine Liberation Organization within the Palestinian Authority, yet it has brought few tangible results. Instead, Obama should also recognize Hamas as a legitimate interlocutor, alongside the Palestinian Authority, and stop opposing Palestinian unity.

 

Hamas, in turn, should stop firing rockets at Israel and join with peaceful Palestinian movements in seeking a way forward; learning, as the president suggested all those years ago in Cairo, from the success of peaceful African-American and South African civil movements. With a unity government bringing together the PLO and Hamas which would now be recognized by the international community, the Palestinian leadership itself would be in a much stronger position to negotiate with Israel and to accept the compromises necessary for a secure and lasting peace. 

Yet, for that to come about, the U.S. and the EU will need to reject Israel’s discourse that Hamas is no more than a terrorist organization. In fact, radical jihadists have so far had no influence in Palestine, primarily because Hamas opted over a decade ago to become a political movement, compete in elections and abandon terrorism.

 

By comparing the situation in other countries in a region struggling with violent extremism, it is clear how important this decision within Hamas actually was. Ironically, the Israeli government knows this, which is why, despite its own rhetoric, it does not want Hamas to be destroyed. Hamas, in turn, may be persuaded to accept a solution that would guarantee the security of Israel and allow for the creation of an independent and democratic Palestine, if it felt that the appropriate guarantees for its survival and its participation in a viable political process were forthcoming. 

In addition, recognition of Hamas by the U.S. and the EU, and participation of the movement in peace negotiations, is likely to isolate its own radicals, as well as other radical groups in Gaza and the West Bank which oppose an effective peace agreement. 

An end to the blockade of Gaza by Israel and the Egyptian military regime – a key demand made by Hamas for a truce to come into effect – would also contribute to a more open and pluralistic society in which Hamas’ hegemony could be more easily and democratically challenged. Yet for this to succeed, the Egyptian regime would have to abandon its antagonism toward Hamas, an antagonism that, over recent months, has made the isolation of the Gaza Strip far worse.

 

There is little time to lose for we are approaching the moment when the two-state solution will no longer be possible. No doubt this is what those on the Israeli right want, with its dream of a greater Israel based on continued settlement building, confiscation of Palestinian land and the expulsion of Palestinians from East Jerusalem. From its point of view, the war against Gaza is a way of opposing both a Palestinian unity government and the two-state solution. Yet, for Israel, the alternative would also be a nightmare. Continuing the war in Gaza and killing hundreds of civilians will only radicalize Palestinian opinion, persuading Palestinians that the two-state solution is no longer possible. 

This would persuade Palestinians to no longer seek national independence, but to demand civil rights within a single Israeli-dominated state in which they would join forces with the Israeli Arabs, thus becoming a majority of the population. And that would bring forth the day when discrimination against Palestinians would not be tolerable, even to Israeli Jews, so that, eventually, a multicultural and multireligious state would emerge. That would be precisely the opposite of what those in power in Israel, who defend a Jewish state, wish to see.

 

So, if Obama still believes that the two-state solution would be the best option for guaranteeing Israeli security while ending the suffering and humiliation of the Palestinians, he must move now. We must hope that waiting for Obama will not be similar to waiting for Godot, even though we might fear that such a hope might be in vain.