Can money make peace? Hillary Clinton seems to thinks so, writes Sherine Bahaa Give the Palestinians money to show support and solidarity. It's been the received wisdom seemingly forever, prevalent in Washington, in European capitals, but above all in the Gulf sheikhdoms. The Palestinians have been showered with cash. Peace, though, has never seemed so far away. This week Hillary Clinton arrived in Sharm El-Sheikh with $900 million, $300 million for Gaza, the remaining $600 earmarked for the Palestinian Authority to cover budget shortfalls, institutional reform and economic development. After the conference Clinton left for Israel and the West Bank to talk with Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Pledges at the donors conference far exceeded what Palestinian officials had hoped to raise for reconstruction efforts. The challenge now is putting the money to work to rebuild Gaza. Clinton made no bones about what Washington wanted. American aid was being pledged as part of overall US policy, which is to push aggressively for a peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians. Her address to the conference spoke eloquently about the need for a Palestinian state and American commitment to achieving Israeli-Palestinian peace. According to former Egyptian ambassador to Israel Mohamed Bassiouni "these are positive signals". Unfortunately, he added, "there is no mechanism in place yet" to turn words into reality. Bassiouni points out that while Clinton spoke about the two- state solution as the only viable solution she did not define the shape of the states. The devil, as always, is in the details. "During the [Sharm El-Sheikh] conference I emphasized President Obama's and my commitment to working to achieve a two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians," Clinton said on her first visit to the region in the capacity of secretary of state. But Israel will soon be led by the hawkish Benyamin Netanyahu who has never declared his support for an independent, sovereign Palestinian state. Netanyahu's latest wheeze has been to promote economic, rather than political, solutions to the Palestinian "problem". "Is this the kind of state Clinton is offering to the Palestinians? Does Netanyahu believe an economic package will make the Palestinians forget about political solutions?" asks Bassiouni. Clinton said the US would work with any government that "represents the democratic will of the people of Israel". "It is important that the US underscore its unshakeable, durable and fundamental support for the state of Israel." Financial aid may well boost the peace process but getting help to Gaza poses a series of interconnected political problems. For starters, there's no formal ceasefire to the conflict that brought about Gaza's devastation in the first place, and Israel continues to insist any truce be linked to the release of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Clinton ducked a question in her press conference in Sharm El-Sheikh on whether she would call on Israeli leaders to halt settlement building on Palestinian land. And even before she arrived she stated that money "will only be spent if we determine that our goals can be furthered rather than undermined or subverted". The goals she has in mind include strengthening Fatah and weakening Hamas, something the distribution of the $900 million package makes clear. Clinton also appeared to question the relevance of the Palestinian reconciliation talks being sponsored by Egypt. In an interview with radio station Voice of America she insisted that any government of national unity would be acceptable only if it met pre-existing Quartet conditions. "If there is some reconciliation and a move toward a unified authority, that it's very clear that Hamas knows the conditions that have been set forth by the Quartet, by the Arab summit. And they must renounce violence, recognise Israel, and abide by previous commitments, otherwise I don't think it will result in the kind of positive step forward either for the Palestinian people or as a vehicle for a reinvigorated effort to obtain peace that leads to a Palestinian state." Dictating conditions is a common part of US foreign policy when it comes to the Middle East, and Clinton did not forego the chance to wag an admonitory finger at Iran. During a private meeting she told the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates that it was "very doubtful" any US approach could persuade Iran to relent. Yet opening a dialogue with Tehran was a central promise of Obama's election campaign, which begs the question: to what end? Syria as well had anticipated balmier days with the Obama administration, with expectations running as high as the return of a US ambassador to Damascus. "We are going to be sending two officials to Syria. There are a number of issues that we have between Syria and the US, as well as the larger regional concerns that Syria obviously poses," Clinton said during her stay in Israel. This whole week Israelis, Arabs and Middle East observers have been trying to decipher Clinton's words to determine what kind of politics she will propagate. Will she opt to be the woman who stood by Soha Arafat during Arafat's days of illness, who called for an independent, functioning Palestinian state when she was a first lady, or will the pro-Jewish NY senator win the day?
