Analysis: Obama Naive on Israel Policy?
Watching the new administration try to get a grip on a century of ill will in the Middle East reminds me of a disconcerting feeling I had on the campaign trail listening to then-candidate Barack Obama say the following to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) back in June of 2008:
"Any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized, defensible borders. And Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and must remain undivided."The line was greeted with rapturous applause from the audience, made up of the most ardent supporters of Israel in the country. And it was delivered by a man trying to overcome their suspicion of him. But it was a line sure to trouble many others outside the hall, Jews and Arabs alike, who believe territorial compromise is the only way to an enduring peace in the Middle East.
The Palestinians regard the heavily Arab portion of Jerusalem as their capital-in-waiting. But more important, decades of American foreign policy have regarded that part of the city, as well as the West Bank and Golan Heights as territory illegally occupied by Israel; territory that will be part of any final agreement; territory that – as long as it remains occupied – presents an obstacle to peace.
What Mr. Obama said that day more than a year ago was disconcerting because he did not seem to realize how inflammatory his words were. Indeed, within days he backtracked away from the statement, offending everybody and satisfying no one. But he should have known better. That he did not told me he was not well-versed in the nuances of Middle East policy and that, most probably, someone working for him who was on one side of the dispute had inserted the language in the belief Mr. Obama would not see it for what it was.
Fast forward to Mr. Obama in the Oval Office. His team of foreign policy experts made it clear to the Israeli government, headed by rightist politician Benjamin Netanyahu, that construction of Jewish settlements must cease. All construction. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton put it: "He [Obama] wants to see a stop to settlements, not outposts, not 'natural growth' exceptions."
The idea was that this would be a confidence building step to precede the resumption of peace talks. The Arabs, for their part, would make friendly gestures toward Israel, re-opening trade offices, and stop incitement against Jews, to say nothing of ceasing missile strikes.
The construction of the settlements is on land the Palestinians want for their state. The Israelis argue the land was purchased legally or had no owners in the first place and that there was no government in charge after the territories were conquered in 1967, so they were essentially up for grabs. Two U.N. resolutions disagreed.
"Natural growth" is a term of art in Israel. The government says it means settlement building will continue apace with the growth of families in those settlements. Opponents of settlements say "natural growth" is a shell game that allows the Israelis to expand their grip on the disputed land without directly confronting Washington.
Whatever the case, Netanyahu informed the president that Israel had no intention of freezing settlement construction, that natural growth would continue, and that new settlement blocs were to be built in the Jerusalem area whether Washington and the rest of the world liked it or not. To show that they were not being unreasonably defiant, the Netanyahu regime did halt new settlement construction outside of the Jerusalem area –
for the time being.
Fast forward again to yesterday in New York where the president met with Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The Obama administration now indicates it will not press for a settlement freeze, but will press for a resumption of the peace talks without one. The New York Times, quoting administration officials, says that by doing this, the Obama administration is "trying to box in Netanyahu by using his unwillingness to agree to resolve the interim issue – in this case, a settlement freeze – to force him to a place he has indicated he really does not want to go yet: the final status talks."
But that is a misunderstanding of the Israeli point of view. Settlement construction is the key weapon in the Israeli arsenal. Creating "facts on the ground" is a time-honored strategy that was embraced before the creation of the state in 1948. Thinking they are "boxing in" the Israelis by going to final status talks is frankly naïve or – worse – dumb. Netanyahu learned foreign policy at the knee of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, Israel's longest serving leader. After he left office in 1992, Mr. Shamir acknowledged his idea all along had been to have Israel talk about peace and to seem to negotiate for at least a decade, during which time half a million Jews would be moved onto the settlements and, thus, foreclose forever the possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state.
By dropping the demand for a settlement freeze, Mr. Obama has now given Netanyahu the same opportunity that Mr. Shamir seized. It would be no surprise if he follows the Shamir game plan. But, then, maybe it would be a surprise – to the Obama White House.
