4

ED Note:  There are limits to wishful thinking.  I suppose analysts are running out of ideas. Here’s a striking example.

By Stephen M. Walt

Middle East talks….

I’ve been trying to figure what I think of the latest attempt to jump-start the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. For the most part I agree with FP colleague Marc Lynch — it’s hard to see how this is going to lead anywhere. Even if you get a 90-day extension of the partial freeze on settlement building, nobody thinks you can get a viable final-status agreement in that time period. The best you could hope for is some sort of agreement on borders, but even there I’d be pretty pessimistic.

But let me put aside my usual skepticism and ask a different question: What can the Obama team do to maximize the chances of tangible progress? They’ve already given Israel a lot of carrots up front: a promise of F-35 aircraft, a pledge to never, ever, ever raise the issue of a settlement freeze again, and a guarantee that we will keep defending Israel in the United Nations, and probably a bunch of other goodies too. Plus, we agreed to leave East Jerusalem out of the deal, even though this is a major irritant on the Palestinian side. All told, Netanyahu got a pretty big reward for being recalcitrant. At first glance, there’s not much to stop him for halting some (but not all) settlement building, digging in his heels for 90 days, and then going back to business-as-usual.

Here’s the rub: given the power of the Israel lobby, it’s unrealistic to think that the Obama administration would be able to put any overt pressure on Israel. Congress will make sure that Israel gets its annual aid package, and die-hard defenders like Representative Eric Cantor (R-Va) will make it impossible for Obama to use the leverage that is potentially at his disposal. And as noted above, those same forces will make sure that the United States continues veto any unfavorable resolutions in the U.N. Security Council and deflects international efforts to raise question about Israel’s nuclear program.

So what’s a president to do? Obama and his team have a huge incentive to make this latest gamble pay off. Obama has been backtracking ever since his Cairo speech (which can’t be pleasant), George Mitchell is probably worried his long career as a public servant will end in abject failure, and I’ll bet Middle East advisor Dennis Ross would like to prove that he’s not really “Israel’s lawyer” after all. And surely everybody on the team knows that another cave-in will completely derail any hope of improving U.S. relations in the Arab and Islamic world. But given that overt pressure is out, what cards do Mitchell, Ross, Clinton, and Obama have to play?

Here’s my suggestion: assuming direct talks do resume under U.S. auspices, tell the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority that the United States is going to keep a very careful record of who did and said what, and the United States will not hesitate to go public in the event that anybody starts making ridiculous demands, indulging in delaying tactics, or refusing to make reasonable concessions. Unlike Camp David 2000, where nothing was written down and no maps were exchanged (at Israel’s insistence), this time we are going to prevent anybody from doing a lot of spin-control after the fact. In other words, the United States tells everyone we are going to act like an honest broker for a change, and if either side refuses to play ball, we are going to expose their recalcitrance in the eyes of the international community. Most importantly, this declaration can’t be a bluff: if the talks bog down, the administration has to be prepared to go public.

And remember: The goal here is a viable Palestinian state, not a bunch of disarmed and disconnected Bantustans. Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama have all made it clear a viable state for the Palestinians is the only alternative that the United States can get behind. It is what the original U.N. partition plan in 1947 called for, and all the other alternatives (binational democracy, ethnic cleansing, or permanent apartheid) are either impractical or directly at odds with U.S. values.

This approach might actually work, because public discourse on this subject has begun to open up and it is increasingly difficult to spin a one-sided story. (See here for a recent example.) Moreover, many Israelis are growing worried about what they see as a growing international campaign to “delegitimize” their country. The best way to counter that alleged campaign is to end the occupation and establish internationally recognized borders. By contrast, if Israel is seen as the main obstacle to peace, international criticism is bound to increase. Given these concerns, a threat to make the negotiating process public might actually have some bite to it.

Source: – Foreign Policy

Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Affairs at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, where he served as Academic Dean from 2002 to 2006. He previously taught at Princeton University and the University of Chicago, where he was Master of the Social Science Collegiate Division and Deputy Dean of Social Sciences.

4 Comments

  1. Dawoodi Morkas on the 19. Nov, 2010 remarked #

    Peace is eluding the Palestinians. A day will come when they will get used to seeing their dear ones dying on a daily basis, just like the Afghanis. That is the day when the State of Israel will come to an end, as that is when life and purpose of life for the Palestinians and Arabs would be to eliminate Israel. It would be too late for Israel then.

  2. Rehmat on the 19. Nov, 2010 remarked #

    In June, I proposed a Third Option to resolve the western Middle East problem.

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/06/18/palestine-the-third-option/

  3. Earlaiman on the 19. Nov, 2010 remarked #

    Dawoodi is unfortunately right!

    As Churchill is credited with having said, ,i>”You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing… after they have reied and failed at all else.”

    They too will wake up some day and join those Palestinians in the resistance to Israel…. the problem is, when Americans set out to to “do de right t’ing,” it is usually too late and they adopt a policy of burning the barn, horses and all, just to get rid of the mice.

    It is an American strategy that the best way to sort out a China Shop is to send in a bull and a squad of Marines!

    After they get done sorting everything out, they can teardown the building, turn it into a parking lot, and charge ten dollars a day for parking.

    Earlaunab

  4. Damian Lataan on the 19. Nov, 2010 remarked #

    You can rest assured that at the end of the 90 days the Israelis will recommence building in the West Bank, there will be no borders defined, there will be no peace negotiated, there will be no right of return, there will be no removal of settlers, there will be no sovereign Palestinian state.

    Israel will look forward to being armed to the teeth with the most up to date aircraft around, have guaranteed protection from anything the UN throws up against Israel, a promise to not demand the Israelis stop building, and E. Jerusalem in their hands regardless.

    The American Military Industrial Complex will be rubbing their hands together at the prospect of 30 billion dollars coming their way and the already well-shafted American taxpayer, despite struggling against foreclosure, will be stuck with the bill.

    And what will the Palestinian people get?

    Absolutely nothing.

    Why bother?

Leave a Comment