Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Did Obama’s “Daylight” with Israel Bring Peace?

Did Obama’s “Daylight” with Israel Bring Peace?

It’s time to acknowledge that the Palestinians are the main obstacle to peace.

Early on in his first term, President Barack Obama suggested that in order to achieve peace between Israeli and the Palestinians, there needed to be more “daylight” between the United States and Israel.

Obama, according to a report on a meeting between the president and American Jewish leaders, said, referring to the Bush administration, “During those eight years, there was no space between us and Israel, and what did we get from that? When there is no daylight, Israel just sits on the sidelines, and that erodes our credibility with the Arab states.”

During Obama’s two terms in office, he made efforts to put daylight between his administration and Israel, and not just in terms of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: in 2010 the administration harangued Netanyahu over a plan to build apartments in Jerusalem, the administration pursued the nuclear deal with Iran over Israeli objections, senior administration officials, on and off the record, have disparaged Netanyahu, and Obama is said to be considering a move in the UN to support Palestinian statehood.

Despite all this a final peace agreement does not appear any closer than it did in 2009.

Presumably, ties between Israel and a Trump administration would be warmer.

But two experts tell us that that may not be a good thing for Israel, or at least Netanyahu.

In an essay published last week in Foreign Affairs Michael Koplow of the Israel Policy Forum and Natan Sachs of the Brookings Institution argued that Trump’s friendliness towards Israel be politically disadvantageous for Netanyahu.

Although Netanyahu certainly isn’t the two-state solution’s biggest promoter, neither is he interested in creating a blatant one-state reality; he prefers to continue the status quo in which Israel controls the West Bank but does not officially annex it, gradually increasing the Israeli presence there while maintaining a veneer of openness to a two-state solution for some later date. The Obama administration has thus been a blessing in disguise, as it allowed Netanyahu to carry out his preferred policy without suffering the full wrath of the Israeli right.

With Trump, Netanyahu will likely no longer be able to paint himself as a bold truth-teller who stands up fearlessly to the powerful and hostile leader of the free world. Indeed, Netanyahu’s posture has been, throughout his years in office, one of a goalkeeper: skillfully deflecting high-speed penalty shots from Washington. But if no one is trying to score against him, he will be forced to change his game. He may have to actually answer the existential question of what Israel’s desired borders are and what its future relationship with the Palestinians living in the West Bank should be.

But the Koplow-Sachs argument is as flawed as Obama’s daylight argument.

Both assume that Netanyahu is the primary reason there is no final peace deal. In fact the idea that the Palestinian Authority is even a player in deciding whether or not there can be peace is thoroughly ignored.

The Peace Problem is in Ramallah, not Jerusalem

In May 2009, in what may be the most important article about the Israeli-Palestinian peace process under Obama, Jackson Diehl of The Washington Post looked at Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s “Waiting Game,” in negotiations with Israel.

Diehl described Abbas as waiting for American pressure to force Netanyahu to agree to his peace terms. But Diehl then explained that Abbas’ attitude didn’t originate in a vacuum:

What’s interesting about Abbas’s hardline position, however, is what it says about the message that Obama’s first Middle East steps have sent to Palestinians and Arab governments. From its first days the Bush administration made it clear that the onus for change in the Middle East was on the Palestinians: Until they put an end to terrorism, established a democratic government and accepted the basic parameters for a settlement, the United States was not going to expect major concessions from Israel.

Obama, in contrast, has repeatedly and publicly stressed the need for a West Bank settlement freeze, with no exceptions. In so doing he has shifted the focus to Israel. He has revived a long-dormant Palestinian fantasy: that the United States will simply force Israel to make critical concessions, whether or not its democratic government agrees, while Arabs passively watch and applaud. “The Americans are the leaders of the world,” Abbas told me and Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt. “They can use their weight with anyone around the world. Two years ago they used their weight on us. Now they should tell the Israelis, ‘You have to comply with the conditions.’ “

Abbas screen grab

While not sympathetic to Netanyahu, Diehl observed that Abbas’ plan, fed by Obama’s shifted focus, was to “watch while U.S. pressure slowly squeezes the Israeli prime minister from office.” Diehl summed up the situation neatly, “In the Obama administration, so far, it’s easy being Palestinian.”

In 2009, Obama prevailed upon Netanyahu to impose a settlement freeze in order to enable talks with the Palestinians. Netanyahu agreed to this and imposed a 10 month freeze. During this time the Palestinians did not sit down to talk with Israel, until September, the month the freeze was set to expire. The negotiators met twice. But then Abbas demanded an extension of the freeze to continue talks. Israel refused and the talks ended.

A year later The New York Times reported on the strained ties between Obama and Abbas. The tone of the article was interesting. It was mainly reported from the perspective Abbas who felt betrayed by Obama for not bringing more pressure to bear on Israel.

Here’s how the Times described the incident:

“We hoped a lot that in his administration, there would be real progress,” said Nabil Shaath, who leads the foreign affairs department of Fatah, the main party of the Palestinian Authority. “But later on, disappointment set in,” Mr. Shaath said in a telephone interview from Ramallah on the West Bank. “He really could not deliver what he promised in terms of a cessation of settlement activity.”

When Mr. Netanyahu refused to extend a moratorium on construction, Mr. Abbas felt let down. And he blamed Mr. Obama for leading him on. In an interview with Newsweek in April, Mr. Abbas said: “It was Obama who suggested a full settlement freeze. I said O.K., I accept. We both went up the tree. After that, he came down with a ladder and he removed the ladder and said to me, jump.”

While the article acknowledges that Israel didn’t believe that there should be any preconditions for negotiations, elsewhere the Times observes:

Among Palestinians, the disappointment is all the more acute because their hopes for Mr. Obama were so high. Judging by Mr. Obama’s background, temperament and worldview, Palestinians expected him to bring a new focus to the peace process and a greater sympathy for the Palestinian cause. It did not go unnoticed that he is friends with a prominent Palestinian­American scholar, Rashid Khalidi.

In 2012, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged Netanyahu’s acceptance of a settlement freeze was “unprecedented,” but observed, “we couldn’t get the Palestinians into the conversation until the tenth month.”

Yet the False Narrative of Israeli Intransigence Persists

But reading the Times you get no sense that the Palestinians showed no urgency to negotiate, just that they felt betrayed because Obama didn’t pressure Israel more.

In 2013-14, the United States again tried to get the the two sides to negotiate. Over the course of nine months, Netanyahu released dozens of terrorists, many with blood on their hands, from jail in order to facilitate negotiations.

In the end the United States offered a framework agreement for a peace deal. Netanyahu reluctantly accepted it. Abbas refused to respond. As The Times of Israel reported at the time, refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, refused to abandon the so-called Palestinian “right of return” and refused to commit the Palestinians to an “end to conflict,” three elements that were considered core issues necessary for an agreement.

Two years ago, (nine months after Kerry’s effort came to naught,) former Israeli peace negotiator Tzipi Livni said that it was Abbas who refused the framework, signed 15 international agreements and then attempted to make a unity government with the terrorist organization Hamas who killed the diplomatic efforts.

Abbas’s role as spoiler for the administration’s peace efforts gets too little attention.

Getting the support of Obama, did not move Abbas to take any risks for peace. He simply took it as an excuse to do nothing an let the Americans pressure Israel. The daylight between the United States that Obama said was necessary to promote peace didn’t accomplish what he said it would.

Even with that experience behind him, Obama is thought to be considering supporting a measure in the United Nations Security Council to impose the terms of peace deal on both parties. This, of course, would reward Abbas’ obstructionism.

The name “Abbas” is missing from the Sachs/Koplow essay. They’re correct in how Netanyahu resisted some of Obama’s pressure but give Netanyahu no credit for making concrete concessions to bring Abbas to the negotiating table.

The same mistaken premise that underlies Obama’s “daylight” observation, also is that the core of the Sachs/Koplow argument: that it is primarily up to Israel to make peace with the Palestinians. Neither one takes into account that the Palestinians are independent players.

Livni’s criticism of Abbas highlights this point. It suggests that even if Israel had been led by her, or Isaac Herzog or Ehud Barak or any other mainstreams left of center Israeli politician foreign policy experts favor over Netanyahu there would not now be peace because of the intransigence of Abbas.

What’s to Come with President Trump?

Michael Mandelbaum, in the May issue of the Commentary Magazine addressed this problem. He wrote that the next administration, if it insists on pursuing Israeli-Palestinian peace must make two significant changes in its approach to the issue:

If, however, as history suggests is likely, it insists on following in the footsteps of the last seven administrations and pursuing a peace process, it should make two fundamental changes in how the United States conducts it. First, it should tell the truth about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict: namely, that the responsibility for creating and perpetuating it rests with the Palestinian side. Peace requires that the Palestinians accept international law: Israel is a legitimate, internationally recognized sovereign state. It requires that they accept international custom: Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people, and the nation-state is the standard form of political organization in the world. And peace requires that the Palestinians accept the norms of common decency and common sense: The Jews have the same right to sovereignty as any other people. Peace, that is, requires a fundamental change of attitude on the part of the Palestinians, nothing less.

Negotiations will be fruitless at best without such a transformation, which raises the question of how to know that it has taken place. This leads to the second change the next administration should make in the peace process if it insists on continuing it. The next president should make it a condition for resuming negotiations that the Palestinians renounce their so-called right of return.

Peace between Israel and the Palestinians will not come by Israel making more concessions, but by a Palestinian change of heart.

[Photo: The White House / WikiCommons ]

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Obama’s “daylight” theory was built on attitudes characteristic of postmodern babble found in any faculty lounge.

The first, which has been with us a while, casts struggles in a binary, finds good and evil, and lends great romance to the “good.” The West has has been engaging in this nonsense ever since Lord Byron went to Greece to fight for their independence.

The second attitude is an academic assumption about competing power structures. In any contest, one party may be more powerful than its adversary; under this theory, only the more powerful can make concessions; thus, Israel must either concede or be deemed intransigent. That the West believes Israel is ruled by 1)., whites; 2)., Jews, and 3). Westerners, guarantees that anti-Zionists will find it easy to assemble coalitions to oppose the Jewish state.

I wonder why Michael Mandelbaum wrote that the Palestinians have to renounce their “right of return” instead of what they really need to do?

They need to repudiate the Hamas Covenant. That document, not some subsidiary poison pill, is the real problem. http://middleeast.about.com/od/palestinepalestinians/a/me080106b.htm

The Hamas Covenant is an agreement to commit genocide through eternal warfare, and it maintains that nobody and no entity has the power to make peace with the Jews.

As long as Hamas are in the area and the Hamas Covenant remains in force, there will be no peace.

I hope our President-elect settles down to read it.

    The Hamas Covenant is more a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. The problem is Jew hatred, sanctioned by Islam and practiced for the last 1400 years. If Israel did not exist, there would still be genocidal Jew hatred.

    If Hamas suddenly cancelled their Covenant it would change almost nothing, as the Covenant is just a written declaration of their thoughts and attitudes. I would prefer that this Covenant would remain as long as the ‘Falestinians’ retain these attitudes as it provides easy evidence of their views than I can show to people who believe that the Palestinians truly desire peaceful coexistence with Jews.

      Valerie in reply to B__2. | November 21, 2016 at 9:05 pm

      The Hamas Covenant also includes an agreement to engage in an advertising campaign to persuade Muslims that they have an individual, religious duty to kill every Jew on the face of the earth. This is an active campaign, as shown by the programming on Palestinian TV, even for children.

      Repudiation of the document is the first step.

    Milhouse in reply to Valerie. | November 22, 2016 at 2:45 am

    Why would you expect Abbas or Fatah to renounce a covenant they have no connection to? They are not Hamas, they are bitterly opposed to Hamas, and they, not Hamas, are the problem. By pinning the blame on Hamas you are falling into the trap of painting the mainstream “Palestinian” establishment, the PA and Fatah, as moderates, when in fact they are the same fanatical antisemites as their Hamas rivals.

    The PLO covenant used to have the same clause, and surely you remember that globally-televised bit of theater, in the presence of President Clinton, where they pretended to cancel it. Since then they have acted publicly as if it had been legally canceled, though in fact it hadn’t been; as Yasser Arafat said, it was caduc, no longer relevant. But officially canceled or not, there was no real change, and yet, having made such a big deal of demanding this change Israel had to reward them for it. Tomorrow Hamas could pull the same trick, amending its covenant and demanding a reward, when in fact nothing at all would have changed.

    They don’t want to kill the Jews because of a piece of paper, the paper says what it does because they want to kill the Jews, and if the paper were gone they’d still want it just as much. PA propaganda against Israel has not been reduced by even one tiny bit since they “canceled” their covenant, and the same would be true of Hamas.

    The “right of return”, on the other hand, is not a fringe Hamas issue, it’s a basic demand of the PA, and so long as they demand it peace is impossible. Unlike changing the Hamas covenant, dropping this demand and coming to negotiations without it would be a real change, something worth achieving.

      mailman in reply to Milhouse. | November 22, 2016 at 5:35 am

      We expect Abbas and Fatah to renounce violence and to live in peace with the Jews who live next door.

        Milhouse in reply to mailman. | November 22, 2016 at 12:51 pm

        You do. Apparently Valerie doesn’t, since she seems to think the main problem is the Hamas covenant, to which they have no connection at all. And that’s exactly the way they want us to think. Hamas is supposed to be the “bad cop”, by contrast with whom they are the “good cop”. We shouldn’t fall for it.

Words of wisdom from an ignorant weasel, wearing a diaper changed daily by the democrat media.

The conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians is kept alive by the fact that the Palestinian leadership has a huge vested interest in keeping it alive. Cut off the flow of funds and the Palestinian people will find reasons to make peace and live happily side by side with Israeli Jews.

Obamas “peace” plan failed because he was making demands of the wrong side.

As long as there are no consequences for not settling for peace, Palestinians will never settle for peace. Why would they?

This is where I hope Trump will be different. If he moves the US Embassy to Jerusalem then we know Palestinians will be forced to settle and live in peace with Jews.

Mailman

Koplow and Sachs are right that Netanyahu has only been able to pretend to be a right-winger by having USA pressure to play against. If that pressure disappears, and he continues to make concessions, release terrorists, expel Jews from their homes and prevent them from building new ones, as he has done throughout both of his stints as PM, he will be exposed as the leftist he is.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend