A tough talking Democratic president committed to Arab – Israeli peace is about to square off against a tough talking Israeli Prime Minister presiding over one of the most right-wing governments in Israel’s history. It’s only a matter of time; the argument goes, before personalities and policies clash in a storm of US – Israeli tension.
Not so fast. We’ve seen this movie at least twice before – once starring Jimmy Carter and Menachem Begin, and in a sequel featuring Bill Clinton and Benjamin Netanyahu.
And guess what? There were some serious bumps in the US – Israeli relationship, but there were also agreements: one Egyptian – Israeli peace treaty in 1979, and two West Bank withdrawals in 1997 and 1998 which Netanyahu vowed he’d never conclude with the PLO.
Today’s circumstances are quite different; but one crucial reality remains the same. If President Obama wants Arab – Israeli agreements, he’ll achieve them by cooperating with the new Israeli Prime Minister not just by confronting him.
Anyone who’s predicting an Israeli – American confrontation over the peace process ought to take a cleared eyed look at what’s happening in Washington and in the Middle East. At home, a new president presides over the worst economic and financial crisis in seventy years. He’s got trouble not only from the Republicans who’d like him to stumble, but from some within his own party who aren’t sure about all of his economic and political policies.
To deal with all of this, the President needs to focus his time, energy, and husband his political currency. He must be careful to avoid costly distractions or gratuitous fights, specifically with powerful domestic lobbies. The White House’s thunderous silence in reaction to the forced resignation of the proposed National Intelligence Council’s chairman suggests the administration gets this. Fighting with the Israelis or their supporters here makes sense if and when the administration stands to show something for it, like an Arab – Israeli agreement.
But are there any of those on the horizon? For now, Hamas sits in Gaza; Hezbollah sits in Lebanon; while Iran works to complete its nuclear fuel cycle on the road to weaponization. The Arab center looks weak, the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas even weaker, and with no peace breakthroughs imminent, what leverage does a new president have on an Israeli government that claims with credibility-- despite its own mistakes-- that it’s surrounded by implacable enemies?
At the same time, the Obama administration will need to confront another painful reality. The history of peace making in Israel is a history of the right and center-right. From Begin to Rabin to Sharon’s dismantling settlements, it’s doves talking the talk, but hawks walking the walk. The problem is not that Israel has a right wing government; the problem is that it has a divided right wing government. Netanyahu is likely to steer clear of any big decisions in negotiations with Palestinians, and if pressed, tack towards Syria as he did quietly during his first tenure as Prime Minister. In any case, Iran will be his focus. It’s likely that his government (perhaps any Israeli government) will not make any big decisions on peace making until the Iranian nuclear issue is clarified.
So what’s a new administration to do? Without an Arab partner willing to stand up, it’s hard to imagine President Obama pressing the Israelis to do so, certainly not in the face of a divided Palestinian movement part of which refuses to recognize Israel and an Iran searching for a bomb.
The administration can always go after the Netanyahu government on settlements. But what’s the end game: to bring it down, replace it with another? Pushing the Israelis makes sense if it’s purposeful or part of a broader strategy to reach an Arab – Israeli agreement. It makes no sense if it’s a result of America’s frustrations with Israel or just to make nice to the Arabs.
Instead of fighting a losing battle with Netanyahu over a Palestinian negotiation that isn’t going to produce an agreement; the administration should push him along in a direction that he may already be heading. And that’s Syria. It’s not low hanging fruit by any means. But two states, limited numbers of settlers on the Golan Heights, and the absence of deal- breaker issues such as Jerusalem, make it possible even for Netanyahu who could broaden his government later if negotiations were making real progress. An Israeli – Syrian agreement is in American interests as well. It could isolate Iran, check both Hamas and Hezbollah, and restore American credibility.
And in the end, you know what, if the administration’s efforts on Syria don’t succeed, the President, if he wants, will have plenty of time to fight with the Israelis later.
Aaron David Miller - a former US Middle East negotiator is Author of “The Much Too Promised Land”
