Thoughts from Walter Russell Mead:
As so often in the past, but catastrophically this time, he found the “sour spot”: the position that angers everyone and pleases none. He moved close enough to the Israelis to infuriate the Palestinians while keeping the Israelis at too great a distance to earn their trust. One can argue (correctly in my view) that US policy must at some level distance itself from the agendas of both parties to help bring peace. But that has to be done carefully, and to make it work one first needs to win their trust. Obama lost the trust of the Israelis early in the administration and never earned it back; he lost the Palestinians when he was unable to deliver Israeli concessions he led them to expect.
The President is now wandering across Europe seeking to mend fences with allies (Britain, France, Poland) he had earlier neglected and/or offended; at home, his authority and credibility have been holed below the waterline. Everyone who followed the events of the last week knows that the President has lost control of the American-Israeli relationship and that he has no near-term prospects of rescuing the peace process. The Israelis, the Palestinians and the US Congress have all rejected his leadership. Peace processes are generally good things even if they seldom bring peace; one hopes the President can find a way to relaunch American diplomacy on this issue but for now he seems to have reached a dead end — and to have allowed himself to be fatally tagged as too pro-Israel to win the affection of the Europeans and Arabs, and too pro-Palestinian to be trusted either by Israel or by many of the Americans who support it.
He was never up to the job. Of course, there was never any reason for a sane person to think he would be.
[Update a few minutes later]
The Camp David Accords of 1978 ended any Egyptian claim to the Gaza strip. But Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 still had to involve the Egyptians, because if the Egyptians did not help keep weapons out of Gaza, and instead encouraged terrorist resistance to Israel, Israeli security would be mortally threatened — and the two countries would start drifting back toward the logic of confrontation that existed between them in the 1950s and 1960s. Israel had originally insisted on controlling the Egypt-Gaza border after the unilateral withdrawal, but caved in to the Egyptians’ assurances that they would control it effectively.
The Obama administration should have been keenly sensitive to this, and should have conditioned all U.S. aid on Egypt’s upholding agreements and undertakings made with respect to Gaza in connection with the Israeli withdrawal.
But it wasn’t, and it didn’t. As Mead says, we may not be far from the next intifada, or even the next war.
[Update later morning]
Obama continues to make things worse in the Middle East:
Democrats are loath to admit the president doesn’t know what he is doing, so they are left trying to convince themselves and others that this is a fuss about nothing. The most honest defense I heard from a pro-Israel Democratic staffer was to acknowledge that Obama had made mincemeat out of the “peace process” but to remind me that talks aren’t going anywhere anyway. In essence, “no harm, no foul” and look at all the hardware and military support we’ve given Israel!
The problem with this formulation is three-fold. First, Obama has staked so much of his personal credibility on the peace process that failure (well, more failure) will cement the perception that the president has no influence in the region. Second, there is a very real dilemma: the pending action by the United Nations. It’s far from clear that taking away bargaining leverage from Israel is going to impress the parties, get the Palestinians (which ones? Mahmoud Abbas?) to the table, or persuade the Europeans, who seem bent on throwing Israel to the wolves. If anything, rifts between the United States and Israel tend to encourage Israel’s enemies. And finally, the president underestimated the degree to which fellow Democrats would rebuke him.
Plus, bonus commentary from Alan Dershowitz, who is also pretty appalled.
Considering Obama is the uber delegator, I wonder how much of this lands at Sec State Clinton’s door?
You can tell the first article contains a flawed analysis because there is no reference whatsoever to Israeli domestic politics. I’ve posted my take in other recent comment threads here on Israel, and I won’t keep repeating it, but think about it: if you don’t think Israeli politicians do things for political reasons, you don’t know much about Israel, and posturing against the US president is just about the safest thing thing they can do, since the US will (righty!) back Israel regardless. Read Israeli criticism of Netanyahu from all political parties (including his own) and you’ll see.
Strictly in terms of any friction between the US and Israel, think of Israel as the 51st state. A state governor can make a lot of noise about how wrongheaded the US president is, suffer no security consequences, and garner various political benefits.
Read Israeli criticism of Netanyahu
Bob, do you think that the “peace process” has been advanced or retarded by the president’s actions? Bonus question: is there anything that the president does that you won’t reflexively defend?
Here’s an article from the Jerusalem Post that’s critical of Netanyahu, but the criticism is clearly from the opposite side of Netanyahu from Obama. Based on the link in my previous post, it seems Netanyahu’s push back on Obama is Netanyahu listening to the criticism at home.
“…US policy must at some level distance itself from the agendas of both parties to help bring peace.”
HUH?
The first ‘party’ is a COUNTRY, with U.N. and worldwide acknowledgement AS a country. Hell even Hamas says the must eliminate the COUNTRY AND PEOPLE of Israel!!
The other ‘party’ is a loose agreement of terror groups, who have as a prime purpose the DESTRUCTION of the first ‘party’
In the late 1930’s the majority of ‘parties’ in Europe, decide that one ‘party’, the NAZI party who had taken over Germany, should be allowed, for their own good to eliminate a different ‘party’, that being Czechoslovakia. Here’s a question?
HOW well did THAT work?
Why does anyone think they, as an outside ‘party’, should be allowed to dissolve Israel, allow Hamas, et al, to take over that country, and who thibks they’ll be DONE taking over ‘parties’ once they’ve killed all the Jews?
What this aims at is appeasement. It didn’t work before and it won’t work now. Appeasement is the politics of Quislings and cowards. People in the U.S. should especially be willing to side with Israel. Given that the Hamas, Al Qaeda, Islamofascists and terrorist nut jobs have already VOWED that once Israel is done, WE are next!!!
You don’t have to be a Christian or a Jew or a Atheist or even a member of Heaven’s Gate to GET that Muslim Extremists want anyone who ISN’T a Muslim Extremist d-e-a-d!
What I don’t get is why anyone with TV, radio or an internet connection still thinks we can negotiate with that ‘party that ain’t Israel in the equation! Where’s the room for negotiating with someone who wants you dead?
Bob,
I’m begging you to answer Rand’s question.
It’s a simple Yes or No answer. No doubt, you’ll write 50 – 100 words and NEVER get there.
More’s the pity.
Leland, without even reading the article you linked to, I can bet it is consistent with my view: that Netanyahu has to shore up his support on the right after the speech he gave in the Knesset the Monday before Obama’s middle east speech.
I compared Israel to the 51st state, now I’ll point out the most important difference: Israel is a parliamentary democracy. If you want to understand why a PM in a coalition government is doing something, count the seats in Parliament. As John McCarthy says “he who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense”. Netnanyahu recently gained support from Ehud Barak, the former PM and Labor leader who broke away from Labor and formed his own party specifically to stay in Netanyahu government. (The family links between Barak and Netanyahu and Bibi’s late brother are the stuff movies are made from, by the way, and one was: Raid on Entebbe.) But Barak’s move wasn’t enough — Netanyahu still needs support on the far right. Netanyahu’s real challenge (aside from containing Iran) is to figure out how to look different from centrist Kadima while not actually being very different. Feigning outrage (and thus creating “ambiguity” the Israeli right complains about) and stalling, endless stalling, is almost all he’s got.
Rand: this isn’t really about Obama. Too bad you can only see this matter, which is ostensibly a foreign affairs matter, through the prism of US domestic politics and remain willfully blind to Israeli domestic politics.
Rand asked: Bob, do you think that the “peace process” has been advanced or retarded by the president’s actions? Bonus question: is there anything that the president does that you won’t reflexively defend?
I answered the bonus question above, that this actually has little to do with the President – he is just a foil for Netanyahu’s maneuvering. They are actually on the same page regarding what will be offered the Palestinians, they just disagree about timing. As to your first question: Bibi will always stall. He doesn’t care about the Palestinians – he cares about Iran. He isn’t even wrong about his priorities, Iran is more important, but Israel would be safer from Iran if it settled the Palestinian problem so that it could muster worldwide support for action against Iran.
An example is Lebanon: Israel doesn’t have peace with Hezbollah, but after the unilateral Israeli withdrawal, it was free to go to war against Hezbollah without friction from the US or the rest of the world.
And obviously, Gaza is another example: the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza absolutely helped the peace process. I do recognize the irony but: Operation Cast Lead is keeping the peace today. In the short term, withdrawal frees Israel for major military operations, and in the long term, it removes the rationale for the Palestinians to keep fighting instead of building a nation of their own.
this isn’t really about Obama. Too bad you can only see this matter, which is ostensibly a foreign affairs matter, through the prism of US domestic politics and remain willfully blind to Israeli domestic politics.
That Israeli domestic politics are involved and that Barack Obama is incompetent (at best, anti-Israel at worst) are not mutually exclusive propositions. Israeli domestic politics is much less my concern than is the quality of American governance.
Just don’t be fooled by Israeli domestic politics into thinking Obama did something horrible. Leland’s article was excellent, by the way, in bringing up the mirror situation on the Palestinian side: Abbas secretly agreed to just about everything the Israelis wanted, but felt the need to act like a hardliner when his secrets were revealed. So, to directly answer your question: No, Obama did not advance the peace process. But he didn’t hurt it either. He merely stated the truth, and Netanyahu, like Abbas, put on a show to shore up his support. Politicians wanting to delay making politically divisive decisions, and hiding this delay with theatrics — imagine that! Don’t get fooled.
Rand, as I pointed out in a previous thread on this topic, Netanyahu himself agreed to the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps in a joint statement with Hillary Clinton in November, 2010.
Netanyahu’s “outrage” is an attempt to play both sides of the fence.
“In the short term, withdrawal frees Israel for major military operations, and in the long term, it removes the rationale for the Palestinians to keep fighting instead of building a nation of their own”
If you mean, frees Israel from I would say not even close because it would take rational leaders to initiate#2 and that is not going to happen in Gaza any time soon.
One more thing Bob, when was the last time a US President tried to embarrass an Israeli PM just before he came to the US TWICE in one term?
Bill, review US-Israeli relations. Just off the top of my head, Eisenhower, Nixon, Carter, and Bush-41 all threatened Israeli PMs with much worse. The PMs, knowing the system as well as any US state governor, turned to Congress. Generally, the Presidents who advanced the peace process threatened Israel in some manner (while being *true* friends of Israel). Read US peace negotiator (and Jewish Zionist) David Aaron Miller’s book “Too Much Promised Land”. No more time right now.
“Netanyahu himself agreed to the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps in a joint statement with Hillary Clinton in November, 2010.
Ugh, once again Chris you fail to read for comprehension. “The Prime Minister and the Secretary agreed on the importance of continuing direct negotiations to achieve our goals…” Netanyahu has said all along that he wants to come to a lasting peace solution and his desire to do so through direct negotiations. He has and continues to favor a two state solution as a part of that plan to attain a peace agreement with Palestine. But no where has he flatly said he or Israel has agreed to using the 1967 borders as a starting point to negotiations. In fact, if you read the friggin’ sentence, “The Secretary reiterated that ‘the United States believes that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps….” Note, that Hillary was fairly specific in her choice of words in that it is the UNITED STATES’ position that the negotiations start with the 1967 borders. But then to have the actual President of the U.S. follow-up with assertive and direct language aimed at Israel to adhere to the 67 borders and then to only use indirect generalized platitudes to plead to the Palestinians to jump aboard was probably just the last straw for the PM and the Israel people to stand up and flatly reject the notion of the 1967 borders once and for all. I’d swear you are purposely being myopic to push some ridiculous agenda but I’d rather not attribute malice to which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Josh – and the President of the United States reiterated that the United States believes that the border should be based on the 1967 lines with agreed swaps. All Obama did is restate what has been official policy since at least the early 1990s.
“All Obama did is restate what has been official policy since at least the early 1990s.
Which is a failed starting point from Israel’s position. If they’ve held back at all about it is because they want to leave the negotiating for the negotiating table. If the Palestinians were to want to start talks and then say “Okay we start from the 1967 lines”, Israel could say, “What? we never agreed to start with those lines, that was the U.S. saying that.” The directness at which Obama blundered through this situation has gotten the Israelis up and out of their chair voicing their opposing opinion loud and clear now it seems. Obama is basically telling them to put the 1967 ante into the pot to see if that will bring the Palestinians to the table. Why would the Israelis purposely start negotiations from a massive position of weakness. That’s a sure fire recipe for getting your asses served to you. Couple this with Obama basically ignoring the promises made by Bush regarding the Gaza strip and I’d imagine you will indeed have quite a few people getting a bit more than just irritated.
Whatever Netanyahu is doing, it isn’t leaving negotiating for the negotiating table.
Jerusalem? Can’t have any of it. Non-negotiable.
Right of return? Renounce it. Non-negotiable.
Your own military? Impossible. Non-negotiable.
Our soldiers on the banks of the Jordan? Essential and non-negotiable.
Leland, without even reading the article you linked to, I can bet it is consistent with my view: that Netanyahu has to shore up his support on the right after the speech he gave in the Knesset the Monday before Obama’s middle east speech.
Shorter Bob:
With fingers in ear lalala, I can’t hear you
Abbas secretly agreed to just about everything the Israelis wanted, but felt the need to act like a hardliner when his secrets were revealed. So, to directly answer your question: No, Obama did not advance the peace process.
Actually, what Obama did was give every incentive for Abbas to retract his deals and follow the hardliners in his party. In short, Obama destroyed deals made at the negotation table, and gave the mob in the streets a reason to rally.
“Whatever Netanyahu is doing, it isn’t leaving negotiating for the negotiating table
Why it’s almost like the Israelis want to be recognized as an actual country by the Arab nation before they start to relent on positions that compromise their safety and security; imagine that!
There was no deal to retract, only proposals made by both sides that weren’t accepted by the other. Netanyahu has already indicated that he has retracted offers made by Olmert.
“With fingers in ear lalala, I can’t hear you”
In what way did the article not say what I said it would?