An agenda for Obama

Economic development projects, such as those led by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, are another example of the type of practical measures that should be enhanced.

As Blair has repeatedly pointed out, a functioning economy is integral to Palestinian statehood and lasting peace. The two biggest obstacles to such an economy are corruption and a lack of security. Newly effective security forces are helping address the latter. And there has been real progress made against corruption under Palestinian Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad, a former World Bank economist who was appointed by Abbas after Hamas’ 2007 coup in Gaza. Nevertheless, much work remains.

It is by holding the Palestinians accountable for these and other commitments where Obama can differentiate himself from his predecessors.

Those calling on Obama to show “tough love” and lean more heavily on Israel must recognise that Jerusalem has shown it is willing to make concessions, but will act much more readily if it believes the concessions are being reciprocated. Thus, for example, Israel will hesitate to implement further West Bank withdrawals (an Israeli Roadmap obligation) until Palestinian security forces are willing and - just as importantly - able to crack down on terrorism (a Palestinian Roadmap obligation).

Critically, a West Bank withdrawal would leave Tel Aviv and Jerusalem vulnerable to Palestinian rocket fire. And given Israel’s recent response to rocket fire from Gaza, it is in everyone’s interest - Obama’s, Israel’s and the Palestinians’ - that any Israeli withdrawal be matched by deployment of effective Palestinian forces.

Per capita, Palestinians are the largest recipients of foreign aid in the world. Demanding complete transparency in how this aid is used, which donors to date have largely failed to do, is a way to encourage accountability. Obama will need European co-operation in this effort.

The most important way that Obama can break from previous administrations is by no longer tolerating Palestinian incitement against Israel. Ending incitement has been an obligation in every Israel-Palestinian agreement. For example, each party had to implement peace education programs in their schools. Although there has been some improvement, Palestinian textbooks still regularly portray Israel as illegitimate and temporary. While no one expects Palestinians to love Israel, peace education lays the foundations for acceptance of each side’s right to exist. This is absolutely necessary for any peace agreement to be accepted by the populace.

Delegitimisation of Israel is also endemic in Palestinian media, including that controlled by the Palestinian Authority.

Yet despite widespread awareness that incitement persists and of its detrimental impact on the prospects for peace, foreign governments and NGOs continue to finance the Palestinian Authority without conditioning that aid on an end to incitement. Hillary Clinton’s strongly worded statements on the issue, made while a senator, show that she is well aware that the problem persists. As secretary of state, she will have the capability to finally address it.

Obama already faces outsized expectations for what he can accomplish in the Middle East. However, if he listens to those calling on him to ‘force’ Israel into further concessions, as if the Palestinians have met all their obligations, he will not advance peace. But, by supporting Palestinian moderates and isolating extremists; emphasising low-profile, practical measures; and making clear as soon as possible that he will insist on all-round accountability, he can generate real momentum toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.