The latest round of Israeli-Palestinian talks was launched with the dubious announcement that a comprehensive agreement would be reached in a year. After all, in 17 years of Israeli-Palestinian talks, no other deadline has been met, and already, the crisis over Israel’s settlement construction freeze throws the timeline into sharp relief. But while appearing unrealistic, the framework was established for good reason. The three principals have individual clocks ticking and together, they share the grave realization that a year from now the Middle East won’t be the same.
From day one in office, U.S. President Barack Obama has been seized with forging a new Mideast constellation that starts with Israeli-Palestinian peace – but now he’s only got a year before launching his re-election campaign. Domestic political realities will then make it more difficult for him to be perceived as pressuring Israel, while if successful, he’ll be able to campaign with a momentous foreign policy achievement.
For Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas, a deal is key to the survival of his already divided Fatah faction. Otherwise, Fatah will lose its primacy, making it easier for Hamas leaders to deride their rivals as hostages to Israeli and American dictates.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu knows that in a year, the deadline for Palestinian prime minister Salam Fayyad’s two-year plan (announced in August 2009) to create the physical, institutional and administrative infrastructure for a Palestinian state will expire. Mr. Fayyad, whose plan is vigorously backed by Western governments, will then seek international support at the UN or the European Union for the establishment of a state. For Mr. Netanyahu, it’s far better to have an agreement in place than to react to an external initiative.
All of these are reason enough to “get to yes,” but the compelling, joint imperative is the Iranian connection. If in the past, U.S. and Israeli intelligence assessments differed on the timing of Iran’s capability to assemble nuclear weapons, they now agree that the horizon is about 12 months. Starkly put, this means that in a year, the Middle East will change dramatically – either because of Iran’s capacity or the damaging aftermath of a pre-emptive attack.
Former American secretary of state Colin Powell recently noted that “the stars are not lining up for a U.S. or Israeli attack.” But diplomacy and sanctions may also not have the desired impact. The perilous option of living with a nuclear Iran is now on the table.
Mr. Obama rightly believes that by removing the irritant of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (and possibly brokering a deal with Syria) and triggering the Arab League’s peace initiative, he’ll neutralize the historic Arab-Israeli conflict, thereby bolstering a Sunni coalition as a regional shield against Iran’s power projection. It’s too early to tell if Iran can actually be deterred, but the President knows that in the alternative, Israel will require iron-clad guarantees not unlike NATO’s Article 5, which provides protection for any member state against an armed attack.
Although Mr. Netanyahu’s true intentions on the Palestinian portfolio remain unknown, he’s at the table because he buys the linkage. He came to office pledging to prevent Iran’s military nuclear capability and hoping to obtain a U.S. nod for what might be drastic military action. Recognizing this may not be in the cards is all the more reason not to alienate the American President.
Even Israel Harel, a veteran leader of the settler movement, now reluctantly acknowledges that if Mr. Netanyahu plays the Iran card and demonstrates American security guarantees to save Israeli lives in return for far-reaching concessions, he’ll undercut fervent ideological and religious opposition on the right.
Still, it’s easy to be skeptical. At his Global Initiative this week, Bill Clinton put the chances of an Israeli-Palestinian deal at no better than 50-50. In a sober assessment of Israel’s strategic challenges in 2011, analysts at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies doubt if direct talks can lead to a comprehensive agreement.
Mr. Obama’s got a different stick for each of the sides: For Israel, it’s the security protection he can offer against Iran; for the Palestinians, it’s assistance and legitimization for state-building efforts. And eventually, if the U.S. President won’t settle for half measures, it may take an American plan to meet the timeline.
