We all knew that President Barack Obama’s big project was going to be the domestic push for health care reform and the public option. Affordable health care is important, but President Obama is missing out on the international political opportunity of a lifetime.
His position and prestige enable him to make a substantial impact on the Middle East peace process, and while it is certainly true that Obama has shown some interest in the world’s most contentious region, it is also painfully obvious that his initiatives and platforms have missed the mark completely.
The President’s most visible mistake is how he handles the issue of the settlements that Jewish Israelis have been building in the disputed West Bank ever since Israel regained control of the area in the Six Day War in 1967. He has made it obvious in the recent weeks that he cannot decide where he stands, and this approach will not contribute to conflict resolution and peace negotiations.
This summer Obama demanded that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu halt all Jewish settlement construction in the Palestinian territories.
In an interview with The Jerusalem Post in July he stated that “aggressive settlement construction would seem to violate the spirit at least, if not the letter, of agreements that have been made previously.”
Netanyahu rejected Obama’s demand, and it is unnerving that Obama thought his words could pressure the thick-skinned former Minister of Finance and two-time Prime Minister. In order for Obama to really get to Netanyahu he will have to quickly develop the ability to successfully parlay with Israel, as well as gain the trust of Abbas and of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who is just as important to the equation.
Right now, Mubarak is working on forging a deal between Hamas and Fatah to form a joint Palestinian government. And yet, Obama is nowhere to be found on this issue. These are examples of the types of tact and strategic vision needed to wheel and deal in the Middle East, skills that are not so easily cultivated.
Obama also got ahead of himself by demanding a complete building freeze. Israel’s ruling political coalition, which includes the center-right Likud and the ultra-right Yisrael Beiteinu, opposes this.
His position and focus on settlements also alienated Israelis according to Aluf Ben, the editor of the left-leaning Israeli daily Ha’aretz, because “mainstream Israelis rarely have anything to do with the settlements; many have no idea where they are, even when they’re a half-hour’s drive from Tel Aviv.”
Decisions about building in the territories must be approved by a majority of Knesset representatives, who are directly elected by the people. Obama was never going to win over either group with his platform, and it would be technically impossible for Israel’s government to institute a building freeze because of the current Knesset’s political orientation.
The blanket call to halt settlement construction only made Obama appear naïve, and it reinforced his status as a rookie on the international stage.
Fast forward to the end of September. Netanyahu and Palestinian National Authority president Mahmoud Abbas are in New York City for a tripartite meeting with Obama. On the morning of Sept. 23 Obama addresses the United Nations: “We continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”
Later that afternoon President Obama convenes the trilateral meeting at the Waldorf Astoria, but the signals are mixed. Middle East envoy George Mitchell says in his official statement that an “Israeli settlement freeze is not essential for peace talks with Palestinians to resume ... We do not believe in preconditions.”
Netanyahu says all parties agreed that “the peace process has to be resumed as soon as possible with no preconditions.” Abbas, however, is obviously not jumping on this bandwagon: He refuses to relaunch peace talks until Israel halts all settlement activity.
Obama, however, tells a different story. His official statement, according to CNN, is that “Israel has had meaningful discussions about ‘restraining settlement activity.’” Nowhere in any of his speeches or statements that day does he mention a settlement freeze.
The first issue here is that President Obama thought an emergency trilateral meeting with Netanyahu and Abbas, convened after a week of failed shuttle diplomacy, would actually yield something.
When Abbas and Netanyahu shook hands on live television that day, it was easy to tell they were both cringing on the inside.
If Obama wants to have a meaningful summit, it must be carefully planned and orchestrated. Like President Jimmy Carter’s Camp David summit in 1978, which led to the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace treaty, it should be in a secluded location and all parties should be notified at least several weeks in advance so they actually have time to prepare. One-day meetings cannot possibly move the peace process forward, much less make Israel back down on the settlement issue.
The toned-down rhetoric is also an issue. Even though he declared the settlements illegitimate, he never said the words “settlement freeze.” Obama was satisfied with a mere “restraint” on building. These are signs of hesitation and weakness, and he has stepped into Netanyahu’s shadow. This is the worst sort of impression that the American president, a partner for peace in the Middle East since 1967 who has always had a rapport with the Israeli Prime Minister, can give to the international community.
The clock is ticking on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and President Obama must find a position he can stick to before it is too late for him to make a difference.
—Allison Good ’11 is a political science major spending her junior year studying abroad in Jerusalem. Last year, Good served as Managing Editor for The Miscellany News.
Be the first to comment on this article!