EUROPE´S STAND ON MIDDLE EAST PEACE / THE FINANCIAL TIMES COMEMNTARY & ANALYSIS ( HIGHLY RECOMMENDED READING )

Europe’s stand on Middle East peace

By Philip Stephens

Published: March 17 2011 19:38

No one said the Middle East’s march to democracy was going to be smooth or straight. We are already seeing how bumpy – and twisting – the road may turn out to be.

Saudi troops have marched into Bahrain at the behest of the small Gulf state’s monarchy, sharpening the divide between the region’s Shia and Sunni communities and stirring deep-seated tensions between Arabs and Persians. The Saudis have told Washington they have their own way of dealing with democracy protests: harsher repression. The world’s most important oil producer will take no lessons from the west. As far as Bahrain is concerned, Riyadh has two red lines: the Sunni al-Khalifa dynasty must survive and the Shia Iranians must be kept out.


On the other side of the Gulf, the Iranian leaders who so brutally crushed their country’s Green Revolution have had the breathtaking cynicism to demand that their Shia cousins in Bahrain are allowed the freedom to protest.


The US change of heart on a no-fly zone may well have come too late to stop Muammer Gaddafi. Behind closed doors in western capitals, talk about support for the uprising has been making way for strategic planning about how to contain a reinstated Gaddafi regime.


The west is left in disarray. Once familiar positions on the merits or otherwise of intervention have been upended. Barack Obama has considered the legacy of Iraq and insisted that nothing could be done without the sanction of the UN Security Council. France’s Nicolas Sarkozy has argued for shooting first and checking the legal fine print later. Britain has leaned more towards Paris than Washington.


Divisions within the European Union have been mirrored by temporising in Washington. Just about everywhere, collisions between the realism that prizes short-term stability and the enlightened self-interest that supports Arab democracy have been excruciatingly painful. Has the west got it right? Probably not. Were there any easy choices? Certainly not.


Amid this fog, there has been one uncomfortable constant. A Middle East peace looks as distant as ever. Everything else has changed, but the enmity between Israelis and Palestinians remains frozen in time.


Benjamin Netanyahu’s government gives every impression of believing this is as it should be. Only the other day it announced more illegal settlement-building in the West Bank. Mr Netanyahu has never shown serious intent about a peace accord; now he says that the upheavals in the region give further cause to hold back. The advance of democracy, the argument runs, has robbed Israel of “reliable” partners in the Arab world.


Israel’s friends are taking a different view. Last month, Britain, France and Germany broke with Washington by backing a Security Council resolution condemning settlements in Jerusalem and the West Bank. The resolution drew the support of 14 of the 15 members – and a veto from a justly embarrassed Mr Obama.


Now, the three European governments want the international community to set out clearly the essential terms for a peace agreement. The initiative is being pressed hard by William Hague, Britain’s foreign secretary. It would see the so-called Quartet of the US, Russia, the EU and the UN publish the parameters of a deal.


Mr Hague’s view – shared openly by his European colleagues and, quietly, by many in the US – directly challenges Mr Netanyahu’s analysis. Far from offering an excuse for more delays, the Arab uprisings have given urgency to the quest for an accord. The absence of any prospect of a Palestinian state lends support to those who see an opportunity in the present turmoil to foment extremism.


Mr Hague is a strong friend of Israel, a long-time advocate for its interests in the House of Commons. He has been dismayed by the curt rebuffs he has received from Mr Netanyahu’s administration.


Predictably, the European proposal has been badly received by the Israeli prime minister. It has also presented Mr Obama with a choice between unconditional backing for Mr Netanyahu and the even-handed approach he once promised to bring to Middle-East peacemaking.


There is scarcely anything revolutionary in the European formulation. Its terms are simply stated. An agreement must be based on 1967 borders, modified by mutually acceptable land swaps; Jerusalem should serve as the capital of both states; the security of Israelis and Palestinians should be assured; and a just arrangement is needed on refugees. These principles have underpinned past negotiations.


Formal international endorsement by the Quartet (and then perhaps by the Security Council), however, would put Mr Netanyahu on the spot. It would test his intent. It would also change the political dynamics of peace negotiations. The US and Israel would lose exclusive control over the process.


That is as it should be. The Israeli government’s refusal to engage with the Palestinians has been underlined by the continued colonisation of the West Bank. Ironically, this stance has allowed the Palestinians to avoid confronting the compromises that peace would demand of their side.


Mr Obama initially played tough with Mr Netanyahu but then backed down. The consequent frustration has provided the impetus for the European initiative. Angela Merkel, who as German chancellor is Israel’s staunchest European ally, has lost faith in Mr Netanyahu.


Settlement expansion puts out of reach an agreement on borders. Some Europeans now believe this is Mr Netanyahu’s aim. They note his latest proposal – an accord based on “temporary” borders – would allow Israel to grab more territory.


The US veto at the UN badly damaged Mr Obama’s credibility. The resolution, after all, reflected the White House’s own stated position. Outlining the parameters of a final status agreement would be similarly consistent with American policy.


The important thing now is for Britain, France and Germany to maintain their resolve. Mr Obama must choose between prevarication and the chance to sustain US influence in the world’s most troubled and strategically vital region. One thing is sure. The Middle East badly needs peace.
.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011.