ENGLISH DEYEA NEWS

The Times | Barack Obama refused yesterday to stake out his position on the Israeli airstrikes in Gaza but he and his team were in no doubt that the offensive had dealt a significant blow to his hopes of forging a Middle East peace deal early in his presidency.

Mr Obama held an eight-minute telephone conversation with Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, on Saturday and spent the weekend during his holiday in Hawaii talking with advisers about Gaza.

The growing violence presents Mr Obama and Hillary Clinton, his incoming secretary of state, with their first and unexpected foreign policy crisis at a time when their intray is already groaning with the urgent geopolitical challenges of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Russia.

How Mr Obama reacts to it, and in particular how forcefully he defends Israel, also risks straining relations with Britain and his other European allies. As he seeks to navigate the minefield of Middle Eastern politics, the President-elect — like his predecessors – will find his role complicated by the power of the pro-Israel lobby in America and a Europe more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.

Britain hardened its position towards Israel yesterday, calling for an “immediate halt to all violence” in Gaza. As airstrikes continued for a second day Gordon Brown telephoned Ehud Olmert, his Israeli counterpart, to urge Israel to respect its humanitarian obligations. On Saturday Mr Brown had issued a statement urging the Israelis to “show restraint”, but which pointedly did not call on Israel to stop the assault.

The Bush White House placed blame for the violence squarely on Hamas. A spokesman called the militant group “nothing but thugs” and defended Israel’s retaliation.

During a visit to Washington this month Tony Blair, the Special Envoy to the Middle East, was given a personal assurance by Mr Obama that securing peace between Israel and the Palestinians would be a top priority. This weekend’s violence has not only greatly complicated such hopes but threatens the President-elect’s foreign policy agenda in the wider Arab world, where any perceived pro-Israeli bias would quickly destroy what goodwill he currently enjoys.

Unlike President Bush, whose focus on the Middle East was fitful, and Bill Clinton, who tried to secure a deal in the waning days of his presidency, Mr Obama has been determined to exert serious and sustained effort as soon as he takes office, when his mandate is strongest. Now he has been given an abrupt reminder as to why the seemingly intractable Israel-Palestinian conflict stymied his predecessors.

During the presidential campaign, Mr Obama was unequivocal in his support for Israel. In July he visited the Israeli outpost of Sderot, the town that has been attacked frequently by rockets fired from Gaza. He said there that he did not “think any country would find it acceptable to have missiles raining down on the heads of their citizens”. Referring to Hamas, he said that it was “very hard to negotiate with a group that is not representative of a nation state, does not recognise your right to exist, has consistently used terror as a weapon and is deeply influenced by other countries”.

“Other countries” was a reference to Iran and Syria, Hamas’s chief sponsors. It is now going to be increasingly difficult politically for Mr Obama to launch a diplomatic effort with Tehran – a campaign pledge – while Hamas bombards Israel, a US ally.