Editor's Note: This op-ed was originally published at RealClearPolitics.com.
Whether or not the Gaza war is still raging when Barack Obama takes office, he should act promptly to restore America's credibility as an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
This means reversing his predecessor's decision to stand aloof from the conflict. It is hard to argue now that presidential disengagement has enhanced Israel's security or advanced America's security goals in the region.
The same can be said for President Bush's post 9-11 habit of offering nearly unqualified support for Israeli policy. Empathy for a fellow victim of terrorism is understandable.
But by giving Israel a pass on making tough choices necessary for lasting peace, President Bush has undermined America's reputation for even-handedness in the region and handed our jihadist enemies a propaganda windfall.
Here's how President Obama can reposition the United States as an effective and credible mediator of Arab-Israeli disputes. He should start where any U.S. President should: by affirming Israel's right-indeed, its duty-to defend its citizens against terrorist attacks from any quarter. On this vital point the United States must stand firmly with Israel against those who claim that Hamas' campaign of indiscriminate missile and mortar attacks against civilians is somehow justified by "the occupation."
But the question of how Israel responds to such provocations is more complicated. By some estimates, 20-25 percent of the nearly 900 Palestinians killed have been civilians. Meanwhile, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) appears to be contemplating deeper incursions into densely populated Gaza City in a bid to smash Hamas as an armed force. It might succeed, but the civilian toll would be ghastly.
There is no military solution to the nearly century-old political contest between Jews and Arabs. A political resolution presupposes that Palestinian moderates eventually will prevail in their struggle against Hamas and other rejectionists. Yet intensifying war and hardship are more likely to radicalize Palestinian society than drive it away from Hamas.
That's why Obama should press Israel to stick to its proclaimed goal in invading Gaza: weakening Hamas's ability to launch rockets and mortars over the border. That limited goal demands limited incursions and extraordinarily precise air strikes to avoid civilian casualties at all costs. That Hamas is using innocent Gazans as human shields is tragically true, but it doesn't mean that Israelis can afford to take a cavalier attitude toward civilian deaths. This, after all, is what separates them from Hamas.
When U.S. leaders insist that Israel adopt military means proportionate to its political ends, it is the opposite of moral equivalence. Over time, we will help Israel more by restoring America as a trusted intermediary in peace negotiations than by blindly defending its policies and military tactics.
As the Gaza drama unfolds, here are three specific steps President Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton could take to restore America's honest broker role:
First, if the fighting is still going on when they take office, they should publicly call on Israel to declare an immediate, unilateral ceasefire. Should Hamas accept Egyptian proposals to stop rocket attacks on Israel, the IDF would withdraw from Gaza completely. If not, the onus for continued violence would fall squarely on Hamas and Israeli forces would be justified in resuming their offensive-though, again, taking utmost care to avoid civilian casualties.
Second, the U.S. should embrace European proposals for an international peacekeeping force under United Nations auspices in Gaza. The Obama administration should work to overcome Egyptian objections to allowing such a force to actually control, not simply monitor, the Rafa crossing, to prevent weapons smuggling while ensuring that food, medical supplies and workers can cross safely.
Third, Team Obama needs to infuse new energy into the search for a political resolution of the crisis. This inevitably means pressing Israel to make the painful but essential concession of removing illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Whereas President Bush extracted this promise from Israel in the 2002 Road Map, he quickly backtracked to accept existing settlements in an April 2004 letter to then-Israeli Prime Minister Sharon. U.S. reticence on settlements undercuts America's reputation for impartiality, and in the long run does Israel no favors either.
These steps won't necessarily defeat Hamas, which can be counted on to declare "victory" if it manages to survive Israel's onslaught. They won't stimulate dramatic breakthroughs in the moribund peace process anytime soon. But they could reduce the violence in Gaza and create the kind of uneasy truce that has existed between Israel and Lebanon since the 2006 war with Hezbollah. Most important, they would signal America's return to engagement in the difficult but indispensable search for just and lasting peace between Israel and its neighbors.