The most important test for US President Barack Obama in his efforts to reach peace in the Middle East will not be the test of intentions, resolve and belief in the ability to achieve the two-state solution, i.e. to establish the state of Palestine alongside a secure Israel. The test will lie in the steps the US President will take in seeking peace between the Arabs and Israel, and in whether these steps will be subjected to what is merely practical or "feasible," instead of abiding by the clear and fundamental framework for such a peace, one which enjoys international consensus as well as sufficient authority and legitimacy.

Indeed, if he fails to assert what must be done and settles for what is possible, the US President would be jeopardizing the principles necessary for the solution and a just peace, as he would be exposing the negotiation process itself to threats that are dangerous and costly for the whole region. The Obama administration is right to wait until the completion of important visits by the leaderships of Palestine, Israel and Egypt next month before putting forth its comprehensive view of the necessary steps towards peace.

However, the real test for the administration will come before it has reached a final conclusion and a comprehensive plan, and it will lie in how it deals with the duality of what is necessary and what is feasible. Indeed, the framework of negotiations is not balanced, and the tools of compromise are abundant for Israel and meager for the Palestinians. This makes the manipulation of what is "feasible" a useful policy for an Israeli government that does not want the two-state solution and a Palestinian state, like that of Benjamin Netanyahu, who has thrust Iran into Palestine in a novelty that aims at paralyzing the US President and his commitment to the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Indeed, stopping Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons and restraining its rising regional influence is a stance the Prime Minister of Israel is entitled to put forth and insist upon if he so wishes. However, making such a goal a precondition for engaging in real peaceful negotiations to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict calls for stances from the United States, Russia, Europe and China on parallel yet separate lines: that of thwarting Iran's nuclear ambitions and regional hegemony, and that of exerting serious pressure on Israel so that it would stop maneuvering in the peace process.

Jordanian Monarch King Abdullah II carried this week a message from the Arabs to the US President signifying that a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the gateway to resolving all of the region's issues. In other words, Palestine is the gateway to resolving unsettled matters with Iran. Indeed, Tehran uses the Palestinian issue to mobilize support for its ambitions of regional hegemony, in addition to providing practical support to Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon, rejecting a peaceful solution on the basis of negotiations and rejecting the Arab peace initiative, which is based on accepting Israel and normalizing relations with it in exchange for its withdrawal to the borders of the 1967 defeat and the establishment of a Palestinian state in place of the occupation. If the issue of Palestine remains unresolved, it only benefits the mullahs and revolutionaries in Tehran as well as the forces of extremism, along with the rising forces of anger, which may abandon their dreams of peace due to the clarity of Israel's constant evasion of a peaceful solution.

Barack Obama is convinced that Palestine is a main key to resolving the different issues of the region and will not agree with Benjamin Netanyahu, who aims at freezing peace talks over Palestine until the US efforts to thwart Iran's nuclear and regional ambitions come to fruition. These are spurious stances that could have made this novelty a joke had not the topic been so serious.

Nevertheless, the US President may not be able to overlook the link between Iran and Palestine, even if he refuses - as he should refuse - to link the fate of Palestine to the success of efforts with Iran. Indeed, Tehran imposes itself on the Palestinian issue and exploits it to its own ends.

Hence the willingness to talk, negotiate and reach an understanding with Iran expressed by the US President requires at this juncture clarifying the details at the start of negotiations, not in the middle of them, based on a comprehensive approach to all of the issues and disagreements, not on addressing one issue or disagreement at a time.

Palestine must be a clear issue in US-Iranian talks, yet from a specific angle and certainly not as an issue that can be subjected to give-and-take. Indeed, Palestine is not an Iranian or Persian concern; it is first and foremost an Arab concern. Keeping Palestine separate from the Iranian-Israeli dispute over the nuclear issue should be among the US's priorities. Indeed, Palestine is not an item to be bought and sold, nor is it one of the tools of compromise or confrontation within the framework of the possession of nuclear capabilities.

Indeed, if the US President sends his negotiators, or even if he himself takes part in talks with Iran's leadership, this will necessarily lead to the grand deal. The elements of such a deal may include Iraq and the future of sharing interests and influence there, with the utmost respect for Iraq's sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. It may also include an understanding over US military presence in the region and the issues in which interests meet, such as preventing the Taliban from returning to power in Afghanistan. Another issue is Washington's insistence on the sovereignty of Lebanon and of its army, and the possibility of integrating Hezbollah's fighters into the army, in light of a US-Iranian understanding over the necessity of turning Hezbollah into a strictly political party that would take its natural place in the Lebanese political process. The deal would also include the United States recognizing the ruling regime in Iran, providing guarantees that it will not work to topple it, and dealing with it like it does with the regimes of China or Russia, i.e. without holding it accountable for internal governance measures. This may include some form of US guarantees to the Islamic Republic in Iran that it will not hound its knowledge, scientists and nuclear capabilities in exchange for Tehran freezing its efforts to possess nuclear weapons and increasing its efforts to develop peaceful nuclear capabilities.

There are of course many other elements to this grand bargain which must not take long for practical reasons, most prominently the countdown to Tehran possessing the nuclear bomb.

What the US President should remember and apply to Iran, as he begins to open up to partnerships and sweeping solutions, is the following: first, that Iran is the US's smaller partner if it proves to be sincere in working together on sweeping and comprehensive solutions; second, that Iran's economic situation renders it much more constrained than it had been previously, and that the resources it can dedicate to its goals and ambitions have thus been reduced; third, that the international partnership which includes Russia, China and Europe with the United States in the nuclear issue has reached a consensus over the necessity of dealing with the Palestinian issue urgently and without Iranian hindrances, and of thwarting the Iranian regime's ambitions of regional hegemony.

Such an international consensus - especially among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council - can be used by the US President within the international partnership towards each of Iran and Israel to inform both of them of the limits of compromises. Responsibility to inform of these limits does not fall on the United States alone, but also on Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany and the other European countries.

Indeed, the danger that Iran would represent for the Middle East by possessing nuclear weapons may not lie in it using these weapons against Israel or anyone else, but rather in it using its possession of such weapons for the purpose of regional hegemony, and in what allowing Iran to possess nuclear weapons will result in, in terms of a nuclear arms race throughout the Middle East.

As for the danger Israel represents, it is not restricted to its possessing unlawful nuclear weapons with the world remaining silent, not daring to hold it accountable or even to discuss the matter. Rather, the danger is in Israel constantly evading peace and working diligently to get rid of the Palestinians and wipe Palestine off the map of reality.

These two dangers represent a test not just for the US President, but also for the new regional and world orders which are taking shape locally, regionally and internationally. Opportunities are ripe for new kinds of methods and policies to resolve such challenges, and Barack Obama seems determined to make a fresh start.

The impression left by President Obama and his team with King Abdullah II and his delegation is that the Obama administration is serious, intelligent and sincere, that it will deal with matters with transparency, and that it is enthusiastic and active in forging international partnerships to share the responsibility of driving understanding and coexistence forward.

The message which the Jordanian delegation made sure to convey to the US President is that the Arabs perfectly understand the language of responsibility in partnership and that they are ready to play their roles in many places within the standards of shared interests and ramified partnership. Indeed, Arab leaderships will not isolate themselves while awaiting a magical solution from Washington to the Palestinian or Iranian issue. They understand the meaning of international partnership as the US President conceives it and understand its magnitude in many partnerships spread from the Near East to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia. What they fear is the element of time which eats away at the goal of establishing a Palestinian state, with the persistence of Israeli settlements, the Judaization of Jerusalem and the novelty cooked up by Netanyahu, which relies on "Iran first" or on reviving the tune of "where is the Palestinian partner in negotiations?" in the absence of Palestinian unity.

The Barack Obama administration will not commit to any plan or any pledge before the completion of the visits of each of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Washington next month. Special Envoy George Mitchell continues to search for a framework, and he has heard from Arab leaderships that there is no need for a new framework that would expend time and effort and end in procrastination. Indeed, the reference exists and what is required is an American leadership for serious negotiations to achieve the two-state solution, and not changing the conditions of the reference.

It is important for President Obama to feel that he is able to achieve what he believes in, and not just willing and determined. Indeed, there is no doubt about his abilities or his intentions.

What frightens the Arab parties concerned, particularly among the Palestinians, is that the main principles will shrink before the requirements of what is practical, especially when faced with one de facto situation after another imposed by Israel in a systematic policy to restrict the movement of the US administration and implement the policy of imposing the "half a loaf" thinking, in the words of a seasoned Palestinian official.

Submitting to such a tactic would leave Obama to witness yet another round of injustice and hopelessness in the choice of peaceful negotiations, and perhaps faced with new wars aimed at "cleansing" Israel of Palestinians. He has another option, which is to make clear his rejection of new references to buy time and eat away at the integrity of the negotiation process. He can insist on the principle of "Yes, we can" and refuse to reduce principles to the mere "feasible" as he proceeds to discern the constituents of the last deal.

Keeping the Palestinian Solution Separate from the Nuclear Dispute with Iran

Raghida Dergham Al-Hayat - 24/04/09//

New York --- The most important test for US President Barack Obama in his efforts to reach peace in the Middle East will not be the test of intentions, resolve and belief in the ability to achieve the two-state solution, i.e. to establish the state of Palestine alongside a secure Israel. The test will lie in the steps the US President will take in seeking peace between the Arabs and Israel, and in whether these steps will be subjected to what is merely practical or "feasible," instead of abiding by the clear and fundamental framework for such a peace, one which enjoys international consensus as well as sufficient authority and legitimacy.

Indeed, if he fails to assert what must be done and settles for what is possible, the US President would be jeopardizing the principles necessary for the solution and a just peace, as he would be exposing the negotiation process itself to threats that are dangerous and costly for the whole region. The Obama administration is right to wait until the completion of important visits by the leaderships of Palestine, Israel and Egypt next month before putting forth its comprehensive view of the necessary steps towards peace.

However, the real test for the administration will come before it has reached a final conclusion and a comprehensive plan, and it will lie in how it deals with the duality of what is necessary and what is feasible. Indeed, the framework of negotiations is not balanced, and the tools of compromise are abundant for Israel and meager for the Palestinians. This makes the manipulation of what is "feasible" a useful policy for an Israeli government that does not want the two-state solution and a Palestinian state, like that of Benjamin Netanyahu, who has thrust Iran into Palestine in a novelty that aims at paralyzing the US President and his commitment to the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Indeed, stopping Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons and restraining its rising regional influence is a stance the Prime Minister of Israel is entitled to put forth and insist upon if he so wishes. However, making such a goal a precondition for engaging in real peaceful negotiations to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict calls for stances from the United States, Russia, Europe and China on parallel yet separate lines: that of thwarting Iran's nuclear ambitions and regional hegemony, and that of exerting serious pressure on Israel so that it would stop maneuvering in the peace process.

Jordanian Monarch King Abdullah II carried this week a message from the Arabs to the US President signifying that a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the gateway to resolving all of the region's issues. In other words, Palestine is the gateway to resolving unsettled matters with Iran. Indeed, Tehran uses the Palestinian issue to mobilize support for its ambitions of regional hegemony, in addition to providing practical support to Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon, rejecting a peaceful solution on the basis of negotiations and rejecting the Arab peace initiative, which is based on accepting Israel and normalizing relations with it in exchange for its withdrawal to the borders of the 1967 defeat and the establishment of a Palestinian state in place of the occupation. If the issue of Palestine remains unresolved, it only benefits the mullahs and revolutionaries in Tehran as well as the forces of extremism, along with the rising forces of anger, which may abandon their dreams of peace due to the clarity of Israel's constant evasion of a peaceful solution.

Barack Obama is convinced that Palestine is a main key to resolving the different issues of the region and will not agree with Benjamin Netanyahu, who aims at freezing peace talks over Palestine until the US efforts to thwart Iran's nuclear and regional ambitions come to fruition. These are spurious stances that could have made this novelty a joke had not the topic been so serious.

Nevertheless, the US President may not be able to overlook the link between Iran and Palestine, even if he refuses - as he should refuse - to link the fate of Palestine to the success of efforts with Iran. Indeed, Tehran imposes itself on the Palestinian issue and exploits it to its own ends.

Hence the willingness to talk, negotiate and reach an understanding with Iran expressed by the US President requires at this juncture clarifying the details at the start of negotiations, not in the middle of them, based on a comprehensive approach to all of the issues and disagreements, not on addressing one issue or disagreement at a time.

Palestine must be a clear issue in US-Iranian talks, yet from a specific angle and certainly not as an issue that can be subjected to give-and-take. Indeed, Palestine is not an Iranian or Persian concern; it is first and foremost an Arab concern. Keeping Palestine separate from the Iranian-Israeli dispute over the nuclear issue should be among the US's priorities. Indeed, Palestine is not an item to be bought and sold, nor is it one of the tools of compromise or confrontation within the framework of the possession of nuclear capabilities.

Indeed, if the US President sends his negotiators, or even if he himself takes part in talks with Iran's leadership, this will necessarily lead to the grand deal. The elements of such a deal may include Iraq and the future of sharing interests and influence there, with the utmost respect for Iraq's sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. It may also include an understanding over US military presence in the region and the issues in which interests meet, such as preventing the Taliban from returning to power in Afghanistan. Another issue is Washington's insistence on the sovereignty of Lebanon and of its army, and the possibility of integrating Hezbollah's fighters into the army, in light of a US-Iranian understanding over the necessity of turning Hezbollah into a strictly political party that would take its natural place in the Lebanese political process. The deal would also include the United States recognizing the ruling regime in Iran, providing guarantees that it will not work to topple it, and dealing with it like it does with the regimes of China or Russia, i.e. without holding it accountable for internal governance measures. This may include some form of US guarantees to the Islamic Republic in Iran that it will not hound its knowledge, scientists and nuclear capabilities in exchange for Tehran freezing its efforts to possess nuclear weapons and increasing its efforts to develop peaceful nuclear capabilities.

There are of course many other elements to this grand bargain which must not take long for practical reasons, most prominently the countdown to Tehran possessing the nuclear bomb.

What the US President should remember and apply to Iran, as he begins to open up to partnerships and sweeping solutions, is the following: first, that Iran is the US's smaller partner if it proves to be sincere in working together on sweeping and comprehensive solutions; second, that Iran's economic situation renders it much more constrained than it had been previously, and that the resources it can dedicate to its goals and ambitions have thus been reduced; third, that the international partnership which includes Russia, China and Europe with the United States in the nuclear issue has reached a consensus over the necessity of dealing with the Palestinian issue urgently and without Iranian hindrances, and of thwarting the Iranian regime's ambitions of regional hegemony.

Such an international consensus - especially among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council - can be used by the US President within the international partnership towards each of Iran and Israel to inform both of them of the limits of compromises. Responsibility to inform of these limits does not fall on the United States alone, but also on Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany and the other European countries.

Indeed, the danger that Iran would represent for the Middle East by possessing nuclear weapons may not lie in it using these weapons against Israel or anyone else, but rather in it using its possession of such weapons for the purpose of regional hegemony, and in what allowing Iran to possess nuclear weapons will result in, in terms of a nuclear arms race throughout the Middle East.

As for the danger Israel represents, it is not restricted to its possessing unlawful nuclear weapons with the world remaining silent, not daring to hold it accountable or even to discuss the matter. Rather, the danger is in Israel constantly evading peace and working diligently to get rid of the Palestinians and wipe Palestine off the map of reality.

These two dangers represent a test not just for the US President, but also for the new regional and world orders which are taking shape locally, regionally and internationally. Opportunities are ripe for new kinds of methods and policies to resolve such challenges, and Barack Obama seems determined to make a fresh start.

The impression left by President Obama and his team with King Abdullah II and his delegation is that the Obama administration is serious, intelligent and sincere, that it will deal with matters with transparency, and that it is enthusiastic and active in forging international partnerships to share the responsibility of driving understanding and coexistence forward.

The message which the Jordanian delegation made sure to convey to the US President is that the Arabs perfectly understand the language of responsibility in partnership and that they are ready to play their roles in many places within the standards of shared interests and ramified partnership. Indeed, Arab leaderships will not isolate themselves while awaiting a magical solution from Washington to the Palestinian or Iranian issue. They understand the meaning of international partnership as the US President conceives it and understand its magnitude in many partnerships spread from the Near East to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia. What they fear is the element of time which eats away at the goal of establishing a Palestinian state, with the persistence of Israeli settlements, the Judaization of Jerusalem and the novelty cooked up by Netanyahu, which relies on "Iran first" or on reviving the tune of "where is the Palestinian partner in negotiations?" in the absence of Palestinian unity.

The Barack Obama administration will not commit to any plan or any pledge before the completion of the visits of each of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Washington next month. Special Envoy George Mitchell continues to search for a framework, and he has heard from Arab leaderships that there is no need for a new framework that would expend time and effort and end in procrastination. Indeed, the reference exists and what is required is an American leadership for serious negotiations to achieve the two-state solution, and not changing the conditions of the reference.

It is important for President Obama to feel that he is able to achieve what he believes in, and not just willing and determined. Indeed, there is no doubt about his abilities or his intentions.

What frightens the Arab parties concerned, particularly among the Palestinians, is that the main principles will shrink before the requirements of what is practical, especially when faced with one de facto situation after another imposed by Israel in a systematic policy to restrict the movement of the US administration and implement the policy of imposing the "half a loaf" thinking, in the words of a seasoned Palestinian official.

Submitting to such a tactic would leave Obama to witness yet another round of injustice and hopelessness in the choice of peaceful negotiations, and perhaps faced with new wars aimed at "cleansing" Israel of Palestinians. He has another option, which is to make clear his rejection of new references to buy time and eat away at the integrity of the negotiation process. He can insist on the principle of "Yes, we can" and refuse to reduce principles to the mere "feasible" as he proceeds to discern the constituents of the last deal.