Will President Obama Have Time
For Israel and the Palestinians?
(Updated November 2008)
President Obama will face a series of domestic
and international challenges the day he enters
the Oval Office. Some people argue he will
not have time to devote to the Arab-Israeli
conflict because he will have to concentrate
on resolving the economic crisis and decide
what to do about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Others believe he cannot ignore Israel and
the Palestinians because the absence of diplomatic
activity by the United States creates a vacuum
usually filled by violence.
Obama is likely to listen to those advisers
who favor active engagement on the Arab-Israeli
conflict. The general Democratic Party view
is that the Bush
Administration neglected
the issues for too long and that the United
States must engage the parties to prevent
them from taking unilateral actions that
complicate negotiations – for example,
Israeli settlement construction and Palestinian
terrorism.
Obama will also find himself under pressure
from the international community to focus
on the “Palestinian issue.” On
the eve of the election, the European Union
foreign ministers drafted a letter outlining
steps for the next American president which
included a call for the United States to
re-engage in the peace
process. Obama can
expect to be hectored by many European leaders
to take an active role in negotiations and
their prescriptions are likely to emphasize
pressuring Israel to make concessions. Given
Obama’s desire to improve U.S. relations
with our allies, he also will be pushed to
give them a larger role in negotiations.
America’s Arab allies will also be
looking for an early sign of Obama’s
disposition. They viewed George W. Bush as
too sympathetic to Israel and are hoping
Obama will exert pressure on the Israelis
to capitulate to Palestinian demands. During
the campaign Obama said he would urge the
Arab states to normalize relations with Israel,
an idea they will resist so long as the Palestinian
issue is unresolved.
In addition, State Department Arabists see
a chance to be unchained after eight years
of Middle East policy being directed more
by the President, the National Security Adviser
and the Secretary of Defense than by the “experts” in
Foggy Bottom. These Arabists, along with
several of Obama’s advisers who are
expected to hold key positions, believe they
know how to make peace and are chomping at
the bit to resume their diplomatic efforts,
which are likely to focus largely on pressuring
Israel to make concessions. Most are vehement
opponents of Israeli settlement policy and
will try to convince President Obama to pressure
Israel to first stop construction and ultimately
dismantle them. They also will push for Israel
to divide Jerusalem and allow the Palestinians
to establish a capital there. The “Clinton
Parameters” will likely be the starting
point for them. The only issues on which
they are likely to strongly back Israel are
on ending terror and incitement, and finding
a formula for compensating the Palestinian
refugees that finesses the “right of
return.”
According to exit polls,
it appears Obama exceeded the historical
average (72 percent) of the Jewish
vote, winning 78 percent. Those
Jews active in the campaign who assured their
co-religionists of Obama’s support
for Israel, will also exert pressure on the
president to fulfill his campaign
commitment to Israel’s
security. They will support efforts to promote
a two-state solution, which is also favored
by Israel’s leaders, but most will
oppose any effort to impose a settlement
on Israel.
Congress will also play
a key role in shaping Obama’s policy.
On one hand, since the Democrats have majorities
in both chambers, they will want to support
their president, particularly on issues cast
in terms of national security. On the other
hand, the members are nearly unanimous in
their support for Israel and may place constraints
on Obama’s
options, and limit his ability to put undue
pressure on Israel should he decide to go
in that direction.
Regardless of how Obama decides to proceed,
he will face a number of objective difficulties
at the outset as well as longstanding obstacles
to resolving the conflict. First, there will
necessarily be a long period of inactivity.
Though Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice is planning another trip to the region and
hopes to nail down some agreement between
Israel and the Palestinians, neither side
is likely to make commitments to an outgoing
administration. They want to see what Obama
plans to do. The new president will also
need weeks or months to get his team in place
and will need to get acquainted with all
the major players inside and outside the
Middle East. Most of his supporters are going
to be expecting him to deliver on promises
on the domestic side before he gets too involved
in new foreign policy initiatives.
In addition, the Palestinians
and Israelis have their own leadership crises.
The Palestinians may or may not have elections
as President Mahmoud
Abbas’ term ends in January. Fatah and Hamas are
still fighting over who will run the Palestinian
Authority. It’s
not clear if or when that will be resolved.
Even if Abbas manages to stay in office,
he’s not going to have any more power
to make or implement an agreement than he
has today. He is so impotent he can’t
leave Ramallah let alone make the necessary
compromises to reach an agreement with Israel.
Meanwhile, Israeli policy
is paralyzed until a new prime minister is
chosen in February. Whoever is elected will
need some time to organize a government,
though far less than Obama because all the
candidates already have experience and should
have their teams in place quickly. If Tzipi
Livni is elected,
Obama will have someone to work with who
is already deeply involved in negotiations
with the existing Palestinian leadership.
If, however, Benjamin
Netanyahu wins, as
most people now predict, Obama will be working
with someone who is just as committed to
peace as his rival, but more skeptical of
the Palestinians’ sincerity, and more
resistant to prescriptions favored by the
State Department.
Personal chemistry will also be an issue.
The strong relationship, for example, between
George W. Bush and Ariel
Sharon helped strengthen
ties between the countries. How Obama relates
to the leaders in the region will play a
very important role in the quality of the
relationship between the United States and
Middle East nations.
Other actors in the region will also influence
Obama’s options. For example, what
if Hamas bombards Israel with missiles or
launches a wave of suicide
attacks that provokes
an Israeli military operation in Gaza? What
if Hezbollah resumes attacks on Israel from
the north or overthrows the current Lebanese
government? Obama may be forced to develop
policies on the fly and his agenda may be
driven by events rather than his objectives
and timetable.
Obama will also have to devise a policy
toward Syria in the context of its negotiations
with Israel and its failure to secure its
border with Iraq. Israel has offered Syria
most, if not all of the Golan
Heights in
exchange for peace. Will Obama be willing
to exert pressure on Syrian President Bashar
Assad to sign an agreement? Past presidents
invested a lot of energy on this track before
concluding the Syrians had no real interest
in peace.
Iran is the most urgent
issue. In the two months before Obama takes
office, and whatever additional time he requires
to put his team in place, Iran will
be that much closer to building a nuclear
bomb. During the campaign Obama talked about
engaging with the leaders in Tehran. Will
he do so early in his administration? Is
there any reason to believe he will be any
more successful in convincing them to give
up their nuclear ambitions than the Europeans
have been over the last four years? Will
he impose stricter sanctions or will he conclude
a military option should be pursued? If Obama
waits too long, or is viewed as unwilling
to stop Iran, will Israel act preemptively?
What will be the consequences of an Israeli
strike; is Obama prepared for them?
The issues Obama faces in the region – and
we have not even mentioned the challenges
of Iraq and Afghanistan or the broader war
on terror – will require careful study
and thoughtful action. Every president who
has tried to force peace on the Israelis
and Palestinians has failed. The parties
already know what is required for an agreement.
Once both sides have resolved their leadership
crises, and resume talks, it may be possible
for Obama to mediate and bridge some of the
differences.
|