Looking forward to July 6

Posted By Matthew Duss, David Halperin Friday, July 2, 2010 - 1:41 PM Share

On a recent trip to the Middle East organized by Israel Policy Forum, we had an opportunity to speak with a number of Palestinian and Israel officials and analysts, all of whom acknowledged the significance of the scheduled July 6 meeting between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. While considerable disagreements exist between Israelis and Palestinians on a number of key questions, in our meetings we found rare unanimity among them on one thing: both Israelis and Palestinians are deeply confused as to President Obama's strategy for reaching a final agreement.

Both Obama and Netanyahu have a powerful interest in the meeting's success, and in its being seen as such by their respective publics. With growing tensions perceived in the US-Israel relationship, and the pressing need to strengthen the partnership and reach a consensus for moving forward, there is a great deal riding on this meeting. But it should not be considered successful unless it offers clarity on a number of core issues.

In describing the current situation, one Israeli analyst put it this way: "Obama has a vision but no strategy, while Netanyahu has a strategy but no vision." The president knows where he wants to end up, but not how to get there, while the prime minister seems concerned primarily with protecting his political flanks and avoiding hard decisions. A successful meeting, therefore, requires the elucidation of a clear strategy from Obama -- what are the steps that he intends to take from proximity talks to direct talks, and from there to the end goal of two states for two peoples?

Netanyahu must also clarify his own vision of that goal. His Bar-Ilan University speech in May 2009 represented significant change for a leader who had previously refused to recognize the Palestinians' national rights, but it was still heavily caveated, raising as many questions as it answered in regard to the actual steps he would be willing to take for an end-of-conflict agreement. As Gen. David Petraeus told Congress in March, the continuing conflict is a key driver of instability and anti-Americanism in the region. It is therefore in the U.S. national security interest that the conflict be resolved. Netanyahu should acknowledge this.

President Obama should address Israel's security concerns, such as the discomfort over the recent Non-Proliferation Treaty review, which many Israelis feel inappropriately targeted Israel's nuclear program while giving Iran a pass. Notwithstanding the incessant neoconservative drumbeat that Obama is "selling Israel out," there was consensus among the Israeli officials with whom we spoke that military cooperation and intelligence sharing between the US and Israel is robust. However, a number of Israeli analysts voiced concern over the lack of a deep strategic dialogue between the two countries. President Obama should commit to strengthening and deepening this dialogue in order to address any significant gaps between the US's and Israel's views of the emerging threats to regional security. It is not necessary for the US to adopt wholesale Israel's strategic perspective, but it is imperative for the peace process that Israelis know the adminstration takes their perspective very seriously.

Likewise, Netanyahu must recognize that American credibility suffers when Israel refuses to adhere to its past commitments. Under the 2002 "Roadmap" promulgated by the Bush administration, Israel agreed to halt settlement growth. Yet Netanyahu refused to honor this when pressed by Obama, ultimately agreeing only to a limited ten-month settlement moratorium in the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem. The settlement problem is, of course, not the greatest threat in the region, but it is one that resonates deeply among Arab and Muslim publics. As such, it is an American national interest that settlement activity be halted beyond the agreed upon time frame. Israel, indeed the region, suffers when America looks weak. And yet, Netanyahu's rebuff of the president's request for a full freeze contributed to that very sense of American weakness. If Israel's settlement moratorium is not extended by the end of September, the US, and the peace process, will suffer another setback.

Finally, there should be an acknowledgment of the achievements in Palestinian security occurring under the current Palestinian Authority leadership, and that the Israelis have in President Mahmoud Abbas a true Palestinian partner for peace. Indeed, the Israelis have already implicitly recognized this through the depth and extent of Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation in the West Bank, which would simply not exist if Israelis did not feel they had such a partner. It is time now for Netanyahu to make that recognition explicit.

There are other issues -- the situation in Gaza, Palestinian political disunity, the continuing problem of incitement by both sides -- that will need to be addressed in due course, but the foregoing represent the most pressing. The Israelis and Palestinians with whom we met recognize the period between now and September -- when the settlement moratorium ends, and the Arab League reviews its endorsement of the proximity talks -- as a window of opportunity to jumpstart the peace process and provide both the horizon and strategy needed to enable the parties to move forward. The July 6 meeting offers Obama and Netanyahu a chance to re-forge their relationship and seize that opportunity.

Matthew Duss is a National Security Researcher at the Center for American Progress. David Halperin is the Assistant Director of Israel Policy Forum.

AFP/Getty images

EXPLORE:MIDDLE EAST, MIDDLE EAST

(5)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

FRANKIER

5:33 PM ET

July 2, 2010

How many other past meetings

How many other past meetings between a US president and an Israel PM have been acknowledged as "significant" ? How many treaties, secret agreements, joint and mediated statements, etc. etc. have been labeled "unprecedented"? ... and so on ....

And here we are .... decades after the so-called "peace process" started with little or no material positive change for the Palestinian whereas Israel has continued to settle and fence in land, thus creating those "facts on the ground" that will most likely be an impediment to any meaningful progress.

Rightfully, and smartly so, Abbas is asking that there is an agreement on the borders before starting direct negotiations. He knows that the Israeli will slow down the process to a halt (i.e., until the next US president) by negotiating a meter here, a kilometer there, a olive orchard, a holy site over that hill, etc. Abbas wants the negotiation to focus on water access, a Palestinian defense force, and, I would add, economic compensation for damages inflicted to the Palestinian people over the years.

This meeting will most likely be a sand bagging expedition possibly triggering some other misunderstanding from announcement of additional settlements in E.J..

If we want the process to progress, the US needs to disengage from Israel, cut the financial handouts, and show the world that the US is really a honest broker. Maybe then, Israel will realize that it is in its best interest to cut a just deal with the Palestinians.

However, that is a very unlikely outcome since Israel owns the US Congress and/or most US presidents, and there will be no meaningful change in the modus operandi of Israel. ... and why should they change? It has worked well for them so far. They will continue to erode the Palestinian rights and story ideally to the point where the Palestinian identity will be so diluted that no one will fight for it anymore. Ten / Twenty years from now, we will still be here talking about some resolution to the Palestinian issue possibly stemming from a meeting between some US President and Israel PM.

I am tempted to agree with A.D. Miller ....
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/19/the_false_religion_of_mideast_peace

DEPETRIS@WORDPRESS.COM

7:18 PM ET

July 2, 2010

Predictions predictions predictions

Nothing substantial can happen in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict unless the United States and Israel get on the same page on the most basic requirements for peace. Both nations fully understand what these requirements entail; Israeli willingness to cease illegal settlement building in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), a complete review of Israel's Gaza policy, and an end to Palestinian incitement (whatever that might entail). But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will probably try to avoid these steps, for fear that his political coalition will fracture and eventually crumble. And we have to recognize that Mahmoud Abbas- although the most willing to negotiate a deal- is not the whole Palestinian Government. There are still a number of old technocrats in the P.A. right now (and in the Fatah Party) that possess a rejectionist mindset.

So I will be surprised if the Obama-Netanyahu meeting have a lasting effect. This seems to be designed as a P.R. move by both sides...showing enemies and allies alike that the U.S.-Israel relationship is still relatively strong despite a few bumps in the road. The two men have viewed one another with suspicion during their entire time in office. Something tells me that the upcoming meeting's primary focus will be to get rid of that mistrust, not to forge some common front to end the conflict. If anything, that wouldn't be a smart move from Obama's standpoint, because he needs to be viewed by the Palestinians as an impartial power-broker...not an Israeli stooge like previous administrations (the elder George Bush excluded).

My prediction: 1) the meeting will go well, both men will hold a joint press conference reiterating their friendship and their desire to end the conflict, and neoconservatives will end up blasting President Obama for not supporting the Israelis unconditionally. 2) Israel's settlement policy will stay the same, but Netanyahu will end of scrapping really big projects in East Jerusalem and the West Bank to show Obama he's trying to act like a responsible partner. And 3) the Arab League will re-endorse the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative.

http://www.depetris.wordpress.com

FRANKIER

8:17 PM ET

July 2, 2010

... as I said above ... in

... as I said above ... in 10-20 yrs we will still be commenting about this ...

FRANKIER

3:37 PM ET

July 3, 2010

Trash talk by realitycheck12

Trash talk by realitycheck12 won't change the reality out there. BTW, it was Sharon who bragged about owning US politicians. As far as owning presidents, that's pretty easy to see out there. Lobbies are a sad reality in the US and a sham for the excercise of a constitutional right and should be eliminated. Who says that the message of rich interest groups is worthier than the message of not so rich groups? Lobbying on behalf of a foreign country should be banned with a higher priority since by definition they are pushing a foreign country interest to the detriment of the US.

And to Litz, Jaybird, Buddah, I am not anti-Israel. I would be happy if the US had a relationship with Israel like it has with all other democracies in the world (assuming Israel is democracy). I just cannot see any reason why the US taxpayers have to support Israel at the tune of $2.5B or $13B each year. What is the US gaining from that? Please don't answer with the usual "friendship" spin and only democracy in the M.E. There are so many more lone democracies in the world with which the US has a more balanced relationship.

Finally, my arguments are common among other people advocating the US having a more balanced relationship with Israel. They are shared because they are believed to be true .... just like your arguments defending Israel right to take Palestinian and Syrian land just because it says so in your sacred scriptures.

Again, I am spending too much unpaid time answering to you.

QPZMGR

2:07 AM ET

July 12, 2010

There are two

There are two reasons they might. First, Jews have a long history of deception of non-Jews.
MacDonald was being polite when he titled a chapter on the history of Jewish deception “Rationalization and Apologia.”
Less charitable people might call it something else. In any case, we might suspect that Perle is simply engaging in a tried and true tactic of his tribe.
The second reason Perle et al. might succeed in deceiving the masses is that the bulk of American media is in the hands of Jews, most of whom, as Petras and others have shown, are highly sympathetic to the Zionist cause. Israel Shamir provides a reason why the transgressions of Perle and his fellow neocons may well go unpunished:
“The rich Jews buy media so it will cover up their (and their brethren’s) misdeeds.” And for people who are not deceived by all this, there is little doubt that organizations like replica omega the ADL will step in to label as anti-Semites anyone who publicly states that neoconservatism is a Jewish caba