Former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross does a good job of trying to
school President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry on the new realities of the Middle East. But will they listen?
Turkey and Qatar share Hamas’ goal of having it gain—meaning that the
fighting ends, the siege of Gaza is lifted and no safeguards are
adopted on materials going into the Strip that would inhibit Hamas’
ability to reconstitute its military infrastructure of rockets and
tunnels. It is not just Israel that cannot accept that outcome. Neither
can the Egyptians, Saudis or their regional allies. And, truth be told,
it is still Egypt that matters. Egypt controls the crossing point at
Rafah, the southern entrance to Gaza, and it is closed. Today,
ironically, the only crossing points into Gaza that function at all are
the Israeli ones. So when this conflict ends, Egypt can have a huge
impact on what and who can move in and out of Gaza.
That gives Egypt leverage. Its relationship with Israel
matters, and Israeli confidence that Egypt shares its interest in not
allowing Hamas to reconstitute its military capabilities means that
Egypt can influence Israel’s position. Ultimately, Egypt can also
influence Hamas because, at a minimum, Hamas needs Rafah to be open at
the end of the conflict—even if Egypt, as is likely, will insist that
the Palestinian Authority is positioned in the Rafah crossing point. To
be sure, it is possible that to end the conflict, Egypt may also
acquiesce in allowing Qatar to pay the Hamas salaries and to allow that
money to pass through Rafah. But Egypt’s approach toward Hamas, which it
sees as contributing to the threats it faces in Sinai, is to keep it
contained and, the Egyptians will have that as a goal in any cease-fire
they broker.
The point is that the conflict is going to end. It
can end through a negotiated outcome in which we focus on Egypt and not
Turkey or Qatar. Or it will end when Israel has destroyed the tunnels
and Hamas sees that its arsenal of rockets is running too low and that
the price within Gaza has become too high. Kerry, to his credit,
envisioned the cease-fire he was trying to arrange as one in which
fighting would stop but Israel could finish destroying the tunnels. It
has not worked yet, but if the United States works exclusively through
the Egyptians, it may yet happen.
There is a larger point for the Obama administration to
consider, too. It needs to read the new strategic landscape in the
region and act accordingly. That landscape should shape our calculus as
we approach the larger questions of Israeli-Palestinian peace, Syria,
Iraq and Iran. In its remaining two and half years, the administration
needs to approach the Middle East with a broader goal and judge how its
day-to-day policies support or detract from that goal: How can it ensure
that U.S. friends in the region are stronger in January 2017, and their
adversaries (and ours) are weaker? Ultimately, President Obama and
Secretary Kerry would be wise to approach the current conflict, and its
end, with that objective in mind.
I saw Ross speak to an Aipac group in 2008 during election season. He was carrying the water hard for then Candidate Obama and vouching for the then unkown quantity Obama was viz Israel. But then again, Ross was clearly angling for a potential spot within the coming O administration. He did get an appointment, I believe to some Iranian affairs position. Eventually he left from being ignored or marginalized by Administration policy makers. Ross is no doubt a smart fellow and well versed in diplomatic know-how; but he's a multi-time loser at his many vain and credulous ventures into the Israeli-Arab morasses.
ReplyDelete