Russia, France, Britain and the remaining European countries can do much more than they are doing now to compel the Palestinians and Israelis to implement their commitments according to the Road Map to the two-state solution, which these countries supported in Security Council resolutions and within the framework of the Quartet for peace in the Middle East. Indeed, it is not enough to express support for the efforts of US President Barack Obama and to wait for an initiative from him when he addresses the UN General Assembly next month. What would truly represent support for the US President’s efforts would be for Russia, France, Britain, the European Union and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to engage in public pressure diplomacy, in parallel with US diplomacy, both public and behind the scenes.

Turkey, which is skilled at the diplomacy of secret negotiations between Syria and Israel, is required today to place the Palestinian issue at the forefront of peace-making, as it remains the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Thus Turkey must put its membership at the Security Council to use to work towards issuing a resolution that would be binding for both Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and that would threaten with sanctions by virtue of Chapter VII of the UN Charter if either of them continues to violate international law and to reject the two-state solution on the basis of ending the occupation and accepting the other as a neighbor within safe borders. The Secretary-General must stop excessively using gentle diplomatic language with those who commit war crimes and disregard international law – whether they are Palestinian or Israeli – and condemn any violation that takes place, as that is his moral responsibility as the Secretary-General of the United Nations. As for the Obama Administration, it is in danger of having the Israeli government, with the help of the US Congress, pull the rug from under its determination to implement its pledges to drive towards resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, thus losing its weight and credibility on the international scene. This is where the responsibility of US public opinion comes in. Indeed, this public opinion had remained hesitant in confronting the neoconservatives when they took President George W. Bush hostage and led the United States to the Iraq war, which US public opinion today awakens to oppose in regret and anger. Today, US public opinion is taking the risk of committing a graver mistake if it refuses to rally around their president, who has made it clear that resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict is in the national interest of the US. The majority of Israeli public opinion has rallied around their Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and has supported him in confronting, challenging and rejecting the US President’s demand to stop what is to begin with illegal settlement-building that is contrary to international law, and it is time for US public opinion to wake up and learn from the lessons of the past, and to stop being afraid to talk about Israel even if its violations are striking US national security at its core.

The gradual method adopted by the US Administration to stir the parties of the Arab-Israeli conflict into action towards peace has suffered a fundamental setback as a result of fragmentation and segmentation. The first event that showed the frailty of the gradual approach was the Israeli government’s refusal to freeze settlement-building activity, followed by Netanyahu putting forth yet another novelty, that of agreeing to stop calling for bids to expand West Bank settlements. Thus Netanyahu has fragmented the gradual approach, and turned this method into one of segmentation.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is right in saying that it is wrong to delay difficult negotiations until a later time in the course of the negotiation process, and that these difficult matters should be confronted from the start. The difficult matters are Jerusalem, the borders, the refugees and security arrangements.

In other words, Israeli cunning and Netanyahu’s skill at defiance and at eluding challenges with one novelty after another poses a threat to the arguments for peace that have been adopted by the United States and have met with international consensus. The US Congress being driven by the AIPAC lobby has made even the Majority Leader in Congress, Steny Hoyer, a Democrat from Maryland and Obama’s ally, visit Israel as a guest of AIPAC and say that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas should engage in talks and negotiations without preconditions with Israel, regardless of whether or not it agrees to the demand of freezing settlement-building put forth by Barack Obama. More than this, in fact, as Hoyer spoke of an “undivided” Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, despite the fact that his ally President Obama is concerned about the continued building of illegal Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem, Judaizing Jerusalem and settling in advance its fate in negotiations over the final situation.

Israeli security forces have forcefully expelled Palestinian families from their homes in Jerusalem and handed these over to settlement organizations, and all that this was met with was the expression of concern. The President of the UN Security Council for the current month, British Ambassador John Sawer, avoided at a press conference even criticizing these procedures, despite the fact that they are contrary to international law and international humanitarian law. The UN Assistant Secretary-General, in a briefing to the Security Council, presented these violations, expressing “grave concern”, without condemning them or making serious demands to stop such violations.

The hesitation of the likes of the President of the Security Council and the Secretary-General of the United Nations to use strict, clear and strong language against Israeli infringements and violations of international law – by settlement-building, the separation wall, eating away at Palestinian lands, imposing siege on Gaza, forceful expulsions and waging campaigns against any humanitarian organization that dares to criticize the fact that it commits war crimes – is the kind of hesitation that is helping to protect Israel from being held accountable. Of course, any Palestinian or Arab party that commits similar acts must also be condemned, be held accountable and be subject to sanctions. Indeed, the time has come to apply the principle of non-impunity to everyone without exception. Israel is not above the law, even if some imagine that it is able to elude being held accountable.

It is important for international organizations to behave on the basis of rules of isolation and engagement with countries that violate and trample laws. Thus it is a surprising matter for Assistant Secretary-General and Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women Rachel Mayanja to call, in partnership with Director of the Golda Meir Mount Carmel International Training Center Mazal Renford, for a conference in Haifa next November, “recognizing the urgent need to review the impact of the financial crisis on women”.

Perhaps Ms. Rachel Mayanja is unaware of the impact of Israel’s policy of blockade and siege on the women of Gaza, and perhaps she does not understand the impact of holding such a conference in Israel on the Israeli government that deprives women and children of shelter and opens fire on women bearing white flags, as asserted by the Human Rights Watch report because of which Israel waged a fierce campaign against the organization. This African lady has forgotten how African women protested and rejected holding conferences in South Africa when it practiced apartheid and racial discrimination. Perhaps she has not even read one report by Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator John Holmes to recognize the impact of the occupation, invasion and siege on Palestinian women.

Ban Ki-moon knows, and thus it would be more useful for him to instruct his Adviser on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women on the meaning and the impact of her signing such a joint invitation, his Special Representative for Children in Armed Conflict who speaks more boldly of the situation of Palestinian children under occupation, and his Personal Representative to condemn in strong terms violations of international law and war crimes when they are committed by Israel. It would be more useful for him to become angry once again, as he did last May in his speech at the Security Council, and to challenge Israel to make peace seriously and stop assuming that exemption from being held accountable is a UN policy.

At this Security Council session, which had been called for by Russia, held at the ministerial level and headed by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, a fundamental change took place in the way the Security Council deals with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. A presidential statement was issued at the ministerial session, asserting the “commitment” of the Security Council to reach the goal of establishing the two states – Palestine alongside Israel. US Ambassador of ministerial rank Susan Rice has addressed Israel in the language of demands and insistence on the right of the UN to intervene in order to implement the pledge of a two-state solution, and she has addressed Security Council members directly, saying: “We ask you all to stand with us. Together, let’s stand for lasting peace”, and asserting that the United States is ready for an international partnership and favorable to an active international role.

What came out of this session was a message of consensus by the international community over directly intervening for the success of the two-state solution on the basis of international consensus. Thus the responsibility of obtaining definite commitment from Israel that it intends to freeze settlement-building completely, including in Jerusalem, is not only that of Barack Obama, but also that of Russia and Europe. This in any case is not sufficient.

What Russia, the European Union, the United Nations, the United States and the members of the Quartet must do is properly prepare for what President Obama is expected to put forth as a peace plan relying on Palestinian negotiations. This requires placing strict bases for the gradual method by making the distinction between preliminary measures concerned with settlement-building and between launching a peace plan with a specified timeframe for steps that are being precisely defined, to be implemented under monitoring and accountability.

Certainly US guarantees are required first and foremost and at the end of the day. However, this does not mean that Russia and Europe should relax until the end of the “confrontation” between the US and Israel. It is the duty of Russia and Europe to do exactly the opposite, as they are party to the Quartet and must support US guarantees by working towards issuing a resolution at the Security Council that stipulates ending the occupation and establishing the two states – a resolution that would be binding for Israel, Palestine and all Arab countries. This way Europe can pave the way for the necessary US step with the required boldness which Europe has refrained from practicing, hiding behind pretexts and excuses. This is also what Russia must do, as it has always claimed to play a special role in the Palestinian issue and in the Arab region. The Moscow Conference is not sufficient, as it is scheduled later and at a date that is yet to be determined.

The expected US plan requires a bold international initiative at the Security Council and from the United Nations Secretariat. As for Arab normalization with Israel, its procedures are ready and it is certainly coming, as soon as Israel ceases to believe that it can have “peaceful relations and normalization with the Arabs without resolving the Palestinian issue”.

What Arab countries should be thinking of within such a framework is how to encourage US and international efforts, and to avoid stances that would make them the object of blame being prepared for them by the Israeli lobby through the obedient US Congress. The Arabs must think of putting forth the specifics of the normalization procedures they are willing to implement on the condition that they be linked to the gradual timeframe of Israel’s steps towards the final resolution, and on that of obtaining public US and international guarantees of ending the occupation and implementing fully and completely the Road Map to the establishment of a Palestinian state.