There's great activity in Washington these days, with the State Department's Middle East team, special envoy George Mitchell's group and key players from the National Security Council all focusing on the interlinked issues of Iran, Syria and the Palestinians. The Obama administration is trying desperately to reposition itself after its ill-fated attempt to halt Israeli settlement construction in the occupied West Bank, a failed case of U.S. overreach.
Trying now to reform and regroup, the administration is uncertain of the path forward. The morale of those working the file is low, and officials seem exhausted. But Barack Obama appears determined to persist. The questions are how and to what effect.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is satisfied that he has ridden out the American attack on the settlements. “Stop the building or else” has been dropped from the American lexicon, and Mr. Netanyahu has ably exploited the leeway granted by Mr. Obama's abandoning the field. The Prime Minister, with carefully calibrated minimalist concessions, agreed to limit the West Bank housing freeze to 10 months, exempt infrastructure construction from such restrictions, and preserve a free hand in increasing Israel's presence in east Jerusalem.
That Mr. Netanyahu wanted to derail American intent should come as no surprise. If he had agreed to Mr. Obama's all-or-nothing terms, his coalition would have collapsed. This seems obvious when one thinks about the balance of power in the Knesset and public opinion in the country. It does suggest a lack of appreciation by Mr. Obama of hard Mideast realities. Although his advisers have much Mideast expertise, no major American involved in the “peace process” team has served in the region. As individuals, they have never coped with the daily gritty reality.
The Palestinians are dejected, after hoping that Mr. Obama's settlement initiative would herald an active negotiating process. Indeed, they put themselves in a bind by refusing to negotiate with Israel until settlement activity ceased. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's statement last week that the U.S. could not force the parties to make peace against their will depressed them even more. This is taken by some cognoscenti in Washington as evidence of impending U.S. disengagement. Whether intentional or not, Ms. Clinton's remarks shocked an officialdom tasked with finding new ways to overcome the Mideast logjam.
In any case, the administration continues to argue that Mr. Obama remains committed to an activist position. He is being encouraged by, among others, the pro-Israeli Washington Institute for Near East Policy to work on defining borders. The rationale is that, were borders to be agreed on, with the trading of land between one state and the other, the West Bank Palestinian areas to be ceded to Israel could then be made open to Israeli colonization without threatening the future of negotiations. The Palestinians are certain to decline this initiative, particularly if there is no reciprocity. Israel would hardly permit movement by Palestinians to buy and build into areas they might plan to cede at some future date.
What else may be open to discussion within the administration is, for the moment, opaque. Ms. Clinton, at seeming variance with her comments on the limits of U.S. involvement, characterized Israeli settlement activity as “illegitimate,” a word very close to “illegal” and not in use since the Jimmy Carter era.
Frustrated policy wonks are suggesting that the U.S. continue to be tough on Israel without threatening the demise of the Netanyahu government. They recommend downgrading the bilateral relationship. Loans to Israel are currently provided by the U.S. Treasury to Israel's central bank at the beginning of each fiscal year regardless of the timing of Israeli disbursement, thereby enabling the bank to collect interest on positive balances of hundreds of millions annually. These wonks think that cutting early transfers would avoid the sensitivities of the settlement issue but send a message there's a cost unless Israel recalibrates its tactics.
There are rumours that Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Obama's peacemaking guru, may soon be replaced by Dennis Ross, Bill Clinton's chief negotiator at the failed Camp David talks in 2000. The Americans are also exploring “proximity talks” – the two sides would not have to sit together and the Americans would shuttle back and forth. Another old chestnut, having been invariably tried and having invariably failed.
Michael Bell is former Canadian ambassador to Israel, the Palestinian territories, Egypt and Jordan. He is a senior scholar on international diplomacy at the University of Windsor.
