by Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn

April 30, 2009

It is axiomatic in politics that, at the end of the day, decision-making is all about choices.

In office for a few months longer than Benjamin Netanyahu and only having to deal with a Democratic Congress, President Barack Obama’s team seems already to have staked out its positions regarding Israel, the Palestinians, and the other parties to the conflict.

The Israeli government, by contrast, has past agreements, party coalition agreements, and its own strategic evaluation of the situation to respond to, plus the signals and trial balloons that the Obama administration has already sent up.

Unlike his predecessor, President Obama has opted to engage actively in the peace process, urging a viable two-state solution. After three trips to the Middle East, special envoy George Mitchell appears to have recommended, at least informally, that the administration use the 2007 Arab Peace Initiative (originally known as the 2002 Saudi Peace Initiative) as a starting point for discussion between the Israelis and the Palestinians. (The Arabs say it is a take-it-or-leave-it proposal, although Western decision-makers assume it’s negotiable.) There also seems to be a clear consensus in Washington to re-engage Syria and address Iran first with the carrot of diplomacy and the stick of sanctions.

The Palestinians seem unable to find a way to bring Hamas into the dialogue within terms acceptable to Israel and the West. The Palestinian Authority supports a two-state solution and the Arab Peace Initiative. Palestinian police forces appear effective in maintaining local law and order in the West Bank (despite a significant Hamas presence there). The Mahmoud Abbas government continues to be weak, and corruption remains a problem — although not as serious a problem as it was under Yasser Arafat.

As it prepares for its first high-level meeting in Washington in May, the new Israeli government must prepare constructive responses to all these issues, plus arrange matters involving its continued need for sophisticated defensive weapons systems and its desire for a more assertive position on Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

At this point, the Netanyahu government does not have sufficient support to publicly back a two-state solution and freeze settlements. Curiously, given much of the Arab world’s historical antipathy toward Iran and consequently the Arabs’ fear of a nuclear Iran, Israel could actually gain some silent allies for a stronger approach by the West toward Iran.

It is unlikely that the Israelis will receive much flexibility or support from the Obama administration in dealing with Iran, if they do present a credible peace overture vis-a-vis the Palestinians. Nor are there, within the Democratic Congress, as many allies as they might think who are willing and prepared to fight the administration and defend an Israeli hard-line strategy. The reliable, even hawkishly pro-Israel religious Right, meanwhile, has little political sway in this administration.

Ironically, were he able to decide matters himself and bring his government along, Netanyahu might have a number of choices that would not at all endanger Israel’s security entering a negotiating period. Netanyahu could recall the experience of his predecessors during the Reagan administration and at the end of Bill Clinton’s term in office. He could offer to freeze settlement activity, present a positive response to the Arab Peace Initiative, and indicate that he accepts the two-state solution. Such a response would bolster the United States’ interests and force the Palestinians and their surrogates to address Israel’s “good-faith” response.

If the Palestinians do respond, then there indeed may be a possibility to begin serious negotiations. But if they fail to respond, Israel will be seen as having supported the Obama administration’s effort and having gone the extra mile despite the internal political dangers, thereby gaining support for an even stronger Western response to Iran.

Next week, 5,000 or so delegates arrive in Washington for the annual AIPAC public policy conference. Almost all are wondering what shape and direction the relationship between Obama and Netanyahu will take. Perhaps by the time Netanyahu finishes his planned visit to Washington in May, and Obama concludes his scheduled trip to Israel in June, the picture will be clearer.

Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn is a professor of political science at Kean University in Union.

Comment: comments@njjewishnews.com

--TOP--