The defeat of U.S. President Barack Obama by Israel's Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu on the question of West Bank settlements has delivered a shock to the international system. Netanyahu was able to brush aside Obama's repeated requests to freeze settlement expansion largely because of the influence of Israel's friends inside the American political system – an influence which has now been enhanced by the gains of right-wing, pro-Israel Republicans at last month's US Congressional elections. In the world outside the United States, this has caused widespread amazement and alarm. The setback to America's Middle East diplomacy – and to Obama personally -- has led to a rethinking of what can realistically be expected from Washington in the coming year in resolving the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The tendency in the European Union and in Russia is now to challenge America's monopoly of the Arab-Israeli peace-process, which has proved ineffective, and to demand firm joint action. If the Arab-Israeli conflict is not resolved -- and if Israeli expansion at the expense of the Palestinians continues unchecked -- there is widespread fear that Islamic extremism will flourish, and with it terrorist assaults on Western cities. Twenty-six former European leaders have sent a letter to EU President Van Rompuy and Vice-President Catherine Ashton calling on the European Union to make comprehensive proposals for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including a clear time-frame and terms of reference. Russian impatience with America's failed Middle East diplomacy was expressed by leading Russian experts at a two day conference on the Arab-Israeli conflict held in Malta on December 9-10, and attended by a strong contingent of Russian Middle East experts. They included former Russian foreign minister and prime minister Evgeny Primakov; Mikhail Margelov, chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the Russian Federation's parliament; Vitaly Naumkin, director of the Institute of Oriental Studies in the Russian Academy of Sciences; and many other officials, ambassadors and journalists. It was striking how many of these Russians were fluent Arabic speakers. Several dozen participants from the Arab world, Israel, the United States and Europe also attended the conference, which was organised by the Valdai Discussion Club. Launched in 2004 by the Russian News Agency Novosti, together with the Russian Council for Foreign and Defence Policy and other Russian institutions, the mission of the Valdai Club is to sound out international opinion on subjects of concern for Russia. It appears to have high level support from the Russian government, and from Prime Minister Vladimir Putin himself. A key theme of the Malta conference was the need to revitalise, expand and give teeth to the Quartet (U.S. Russia, the European Union and the United Nations), too long overshadowed by the United States. As most of the participants agreed, America's monopoly of the peace process had yielded nothing. Joint action was now necessary. Arab and Palestinian speakers were dismayed at Obama's failure in dealing with Israel and expressed the fervent hope that Russia could rescue the peace process. But, while there was widespread recognition that the era of American dominance had ended, no one seemed ready to propose excluding the United States altogether. The view was simply that room had to be made for other actors. Among the ideas floated at the conference were the following: · Since the bilateral track between Israel and the Palestinians had been blocked, it was now time to re-launch multilateral negotiations, bringing in regional actors such as Turkey and Iran. · An international conference in Moscow could be the setting to re-launch multilateral negotiations. These could run parallel with the proximity talks which US envoy George Mitchell was now attempting to conduct between Israel and the Palestinians. · Another, less ambitious, idea was to summon an urgent meeting of the Quartet to draft specific proposals for a resolution of the conflict, together with a time-frame for implementation. · Also suggested was an expansion of the Quartet into a Sextet, by the inclusion of China and India. · A suggestion which was widely welcomed was to replace the ineffective Tony Blair, as representative of the Quartet, by another international figure, perhaps this time by a Russian. · Another urgent need was to develop practical ideas for the creation of a Middle East security system. The United States had focused on providing security for Israel alone, often at the expense of the security of its neighbours. It was time to think of building a regional system which would provide security for all. Leading Russian speakers gave credit to Obama for his early even-handed approach to the conflict – perhaps the first American President to do so. He had started well, but he had been defeated by the political environment in the United States. He was now weaker than ever. Nothing much more could be expected of him. The Quartet had been too passive. It had left everything to the United States. It should now take the lead in proposing concrete solutions to such key problems as Israel's final boundaries, the fate of Palestinian refugees, and the possibility of establishing the capital of a future Palestinian state in East Jerusalem. Russia wanted a greater say in Middle East peace-making, many of the Russians explained. It had several useful assets. It was a permanent member of the UN Security Council. It enjoyed good relations with Arab states and had greatly enhanced its relations with Israel. There were now 80 weekly flights between Moscow and Tel Aviv. Visas between the two countries had been abolished. But, as several Russian participants insisted, Russia was not all-powerful. It could not replace the United States as the sole mediator. It did not aspire to supplant the United States but rather to revitalise the Quartet, expand its mandate, give it greater powers, and so provide the United States with political cover to enable it to join international efforts to curb Israel's dangerous expansionism. Israel had to be persuaded that its long-term future could not be assured by its present policies. It had become used to a culture of impunity. But this was unsustainable. It had to be held accountable for its illegal behaviour. It should also be aware that its conflict with the Arabs had grown into a conflict with the entire Islamic world. An ‘Islamisation' of the Palestine question was taking place. But, if the conflict were allowed to be reframed in religious terms, it would be still more difficult to resolve. Speaker after speaker at the Malta conference insisted that time was running out. If nothing were done in the next twelve months, the two-state solution would be dead and the field would be open to extremists on both sides. Further instability and violence could be expected, perhaps even another regional war. The conference ended on a note of pessimism. No one could see a way out of a situation created by an enfeebled America, a divided Europe, a passive Arab world obsessed by an alleged threat from Iran, a Palestinian society divided geographically and ideologically, and an unrelenting Israeli government, perhaps dreaming of settling the entire territory between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River. end
