1 December 2009The Guardian
To most people the word "immediate" means right away, instantly or without delay. But like a second grade English class dunce, the Bush administration continues to struggle with the definition. Zalmay Khalilzad, US ambassador to the UN, told a new year's eve security council session that Washington was working hard for an "immediate ceasefire" in Gaza. Then he blocked a ceasefire resolution, calling it "unbalanced".
White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe seems similarly conflicted. He said George Bush supported British, EU, UN and Arab League calls for an immediate cessation of violence.
But when asked whether that had been made plain to Israel, he replied: "I don't recall any specific announcements or requests that we've made on that front, except to say that we want to see a ceasefire that is durable, that is lasting, and that in particular is respected by Hamas."
In other words, Johndroe indicated, "immediate" is not now. It's when we say so. And it has to be "sustainable".
Students of Middle East politics know this is more than mere semantics. The US refusal, supported by Tony Blair, to back international calls for an immediate ceasefire after Israel attacked Hizbullah in Lebanon in 2006 significantly prolonged that conflict and increased civilian casualties. Much the same is happening in Gaza today.
Bush calculates now, as then, that Israel must have time to "finish the job". That means more than halting Hamas rocket fire into southern Israel, the ostensible casus belli. It means destroying the group's weapons stores, degrading its infrastructure and supply network (particularly cross-border tunnels from Egypt), killing or disabling key leaders, and undercutting its popular support.
As one Israeli official put it, Operation Cast Lead will continue until "they (Hamas) either lose their will or lose their weapons".
White House wordsmith Johndroe hit more terminological trouble when asked whether the US was worried that Israel was about to undertake a ground offensive to attain these objectives. "A ground offensive is a very - it's a large - it's a term that encompasses a lot of things. It probably means different things to different people," he said.
Translated, his comments were interpreted to mean the US expects Israeli ground operations in the near future and will not object as long as they are limited in scope and time.
Bush's policy of tacit, hands-off encouragement of Israel – he spoke to prime minister Ehud Olmert for the first time on Wednesday, five days after the Gaza strikes began – has been assisted by the familiar inability of Arab countries to speak with one voice, by European governments' dislike of Hamas, and by the usual divisions at the UN.
Even Human Rights Watch, while criticising Israeli actions, also condemned Hamas this week. "Deliberately firing indiscriminate weapons into civilian-populated areas, as a matter of policy, constitutes a war crime," it said.
All the same, concern is growing – not least in Rice's state department and among president-elect Barack Obama's advisers – that Israel's aims are too ambitious and that the White House's laissez-faire attitude is storing up trouble.
These worries include the possibility that, as in Lebanon, Israel will fail to secure a clear-cut victory; that it may escalate militarily, particularly on the ground, while lacking a clear timetable or exit strategy; that the number of civilian casualties and the accompanying humanitarian crisis will soon become insupportable; and that, in the bigger picture, the fighting is actually boosting Hamas and the rejectionist cause of its regional allies, Iran and Syria.
For these reasons the US is now beginning to explore, directly and indirectly, the terms of a ceasefire deal in parallel with European and Turkish mediators.
Any deal may, for example, include an international monitoring force to oversee implementation, as requested by both sides. If Rice understands the current causes of Palestinian ire at all, she will also press Israel to end the economic blockade of Gaza. Until that happens, Hamas vows the kassams and katyushas will not stop.
For the curiously silent Obama, only 19 days away from the Oval Office frontline, Gaza is a political and security nightmare he cannot ultimately dodge, even if a ceasefire is pieced together before he takes the oath. His options are limited, as is his opportunity to make a difference and signal a fresh start. He may only get one chance. If he fluffs the pass, he will be written off in the Muslim world as more of the same.
Immediate action is required. But perhaps Obama has a problem with immediate, too.
