Ian McCartney MP

The following article was written for the 'Jewish Vanguard' - The Journal of the Jewish Labour Movement. 

On Tuesday 4 November 2008, the Jewish community in the United States delivered one of the largest historical endorsements of a Democrat nominee in a US presidential election since 1916.

This year’s election comes at a time when progressives in the United States, Europe and Israel wish to see a boost to the Middle East process before a further deterioration in both political and security issues adds to the deep rifts between Palestinian factions in both Gaza and the West Bank.

As the election for the next mayor in Jerusalem highlights, there also remains a capacity for further divisions in the Jewish community to surface – and with it a further push to the Right.

This would be a tragedy for such an outcome at a time of so much optimism with the election of Barack Obama.

When Mr Obama came to London on his whirlwind tour of Europe last July, he met with former Prime Minister and now Middle East envoy for the Quartet of the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations. I sincerely hope that this meeting was more than just a photo opportunity.

From my own perspective of the years spent working with Tony Blair, I always found him deeply sympathetic to the ongoing problems in the Middle East but optimistic that the peace process would in the end succeed. He understood more than most the importance of American engagement in that process.

Before, during and after the result of the American presidential election, Condoleezza Rice has been engaged with the Quartet’s key players and Tony Blair as their envoy. Following the result in the United States, Mr Blair urged Barack Obama to make the stalled peace talks a top priority and ensure that the follow-up summit takes place in Moscow within a short period of him taking office.

In politics, on occasion momentum can take over from substance. In some instances this can have a negative effect. In others, momentum can help to drive forward the potential for players to return to the table and in a meaningful way return to issues of substance. In turn this helps opposing sides to find a way to break through perceived barriers.

There are many examples of this throughout history. For me, the classic example must surely be Tony Blair’s strategies during the peace talks in Northern Ireland.

At the last summit of the Quartet, the influence of Tony Blair was evident in the language used in the post-summit statement. This patient but firm tone is crucial if we are to sustain a framework that the incoming President Obama and his new Secretary of State can give robust leadership to.

In the statement the Quartet reiterated its call to:

• Fully implement their obligations under phase one of the road map;
• Freeze settlement activity and the dismantlement of the infrastructure of terrorism;
• Continue negotiations to reach a final status agreement to end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

Following the summit, the Israeli foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, said that “until everything is agreed, nothing is agreed. The idea is to reach an understanding of all the issues and agreed the negotiations will be discreet.”

This is where Mr Obama’s record is so important. In a speech on US policy in the Middle East in March 2007, he said:

“That [peace] effort begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That will always be my starting point. And when we see all of the growing threats in the region: from Iran to Iraqto the resurgence of al-Qaeda to the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah, that loyalty and that friendship will guide me as we begin to lay the stones that will build the road that takes us from the current instability to lasting peace and security.”

Since this time, of course, Mr Obama has gone from Democratic hopeful to Democratic candidate and will now become the first black Democratic President of the United States. He has already achieved so much – yet there is so much still to do.

For Obama supporters and the supporters of a lasting peace settlement in the Middle East, the challenge lies in understanding the importance of momentum. How do we translate the euphoria of Barack Obama’s victory into a new euphoria for the peace process?

Clearly, Mr Obama now has the mandate to add new impetus to the peace process. In the past, he has consistently shown that he has an understanding of both his country’s and his own role in this process, which he outlined in his March 2007 speech:

“Our job is to never forget that the threat of violence is real. Our job is to renew the United States' efforts to help Israel achieve peace with its neighbors while remaining vigilant against those who do not share this vision. Our job is to do more than lay out another road map; our job is to rebuild the road to real peace and lasting security throughout the region.”

As a consequence I am sure that not only Tony Blair but Gordon Brown and David Miliband are working behind the scenes to make sure that on the day after Barack Obama’s inauguration as President of the United States of America on 20 January 2009, there will be a very clear process in place of how the new President and his team can engage with the Israelis, Palestinians, the Quartet and Tony Blair and reignite the peace process.

If Barack Obama can electrify the process as has done the presidential elections and indeed the world, then perhaps real peace in the Middle East is finally within our grasp.