Netanyahu's Political Attack on Obama

I firmly believe the Obama administration cannot react strongly enough to right-wing Israelis' recent "insult" against American leadership in the Middle East. I am referring, of course, to Israel's settlements announcement during Biden's visit last week. This is not the first time Netanyahu has pulled something like this:

Right-wing governments in Israel have regularly embarrassed high-level U.S. officials by making announcements about new settlement activity during or just after their visits. But it usually happens to secretaries of state. It infuriated James Baker, confounded Condoleezza Rice, and appalled Madeleine Albright. When I [Martin Indyk, former Ambassador to Israel] served as Albright's ambassador in Israel, during Bibi Netanyahu's first term as Prime Minister, he announced a major extension to an existing West Bank settlement as she departed Israel after one of her efforts to move the peace process forward. When she heard the news, she called me on an open line and shouted: "You tell Bibi that he needs to stop worrying about his right wing and start worrying about the United States."

But this time is more significant than when Albright was Secretary of State during the Clinton years. This announcement directly attacks Obama's basic foreign policy -- that engaging diplomatically is more fruitful than the unilateralism of the Bush years. By undercutting Obama's pending diplomatic achievements and fueling domestic criticism of Obama as a weak leader, Netanyahu's actions are much more damaging to Obama today than they were to Clinton in the 1990s.

Click to Read More >>

Obama's Commitment to Palestine and the Stark Realities of Geopolitics

US rhetoric on Israeli settlements has shifted dramatically since President Obama's inauguration. In the first few months after January 20, Obama courted the world, successfully promoting an image of a cooperative, benevolent US. A key part of this was a sterner approach to Israel. Obama demonstrated this by unexpectedly demanding a halt to settlements during his first meeting with Netanyahu. Indeed, Obama mentioned multiple times during his campaign that he advocated a more balanced approach to Israel-Palestine. Six months after inauguration, Obama's Palestine strategy has converged with Bush's.

Click to Read More >>

The Israeli-Arab Stalemate

It seems anti-American sentiment in the Middle East has been gradually diminishing since Barack Obama was inaugurated. Syria has taken steps to weaken its ties with Iran in favor of more cooperation with Saudi Arabia and the US. Hezbollah suffered a surprising defeat in the recent Lebanese elections. Even Iran has exposed its less radical side. Consider the following data from a Gallup poll:

In face of these developments, it seems strange that Israel would move in the opposite direction, antagonizing its Arab neighbors by authorizing a further expansion of settlements. The settlement issue is of crucial importance to Arab leaders because it represents the Arab's greatest concern regarding Israel. Perhaps the greatest spark for Israeli-Palestine tension is Israeli demographic trends. Arabs generally don't have a problem with Jews in the Levant. They have a problem with a rapidly increasing Jewish population. In fact, great demographic expansion correlate to more violence between Jews and Arabs. Saudi Arabia, the most important Arab voice on this issue, has stated if there is a settlement freeze, "we will be ready to talk to the Americans about taking this forward."

Obama finds himself in a difficult position. The US has stated Israel must halt expansion of settlements, yet expansions continue. At the same time, Arabs will not negotiate until these expansions halt. This stalemate is likely to continue until an external shock changes the geopolitical balance between these nations. A change in the position of the US is unlikely, as that is completely unacceptable to Arab states and because US public opinion is not as pro-Israel as it used to be.

The stalemate is likely to continue for the following reasons. Israel cannot discontinue settlements for domestic political reasons. Israel has a strong conservative movement that will not allow compromise, unless they get something substantial in return, such as state recognition or a peace plan. On the other hand, the Arabs will not compromise until they get a significant concession first. The Arabs were badly burned during the last peace process, and are more skeptical this time around, the reason why they are insisting on a freeze to settlements before negotiating. As the FT points out here, Israel reaped a large peace dividend during the last major peace process without actually concluding a peace. During this time, from 1992 to 1996, diplomatic recognition of Israel went from 85 countries to 161 and the number of settlers increased by 50%. Also during this time, almost a million Jews from the former Soviet Union emigrated to Israel. Saudi Arabia was also burned in 2002, when it painstakingly had its Arab-Israeli peace plan endorsed by the Arab League (which cost Saudi Arabia a lot of soft power on the Arab street), only to have Israel reject it.

In conclusion, while Obama's soft power efforts in the Middle East have made a difference, there is little chance any progress will be made towards Arab-Israeli peace. The stalemate between Israel and Saudi Arabia will most likely be broken by an exogenous shock. One possibility is another attack from Hezbollah. Hezbollah has been steadily increasing its military position along the Lebanon-Israeli border. Israel could opt to attack Hezbollah to get to Iran, Hezbollah's backer, as Israel's options to stop an Iranian bomb are diminishing.