US Policy toward Israel: From ineffective to absurd

“They’ll work out a deal.” That was the refrain from the so-called insiders on how the parties would get past the looming Sept. 26th settlement freeze deadline when direct negotiations started again in early September. Needless to say, they didn’t work out a deal and here we are at the most familiar of places. Negotiations are stalemated as Israel continues to expand its colonial enterprise in the West Bank.

It should be said that this is exactly where we were headed. For reasons unexplained, and perhaps unexplainable, the Obama administration thought that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu would simply respond to their request to extend a settlement freeze as stated in President Obama’s United Nations General Assembly speech. But such logic would only make sense in a world where the United States had credibility in the eyes of Israeli decision makers. Clearly, it does not.

And is anyone really surprised? Remember, this is the same Israeli Prime Minister that claimed on video that he single-handedly destroyed the Oslo process and that the United States was easy to manipulate. Could the United States have made him sound any more right? Remarkably, the answer is yes, if this recent bit of news is true. Thus far the White House has denied sending a letter to Netanyahu that would create preconditions that would certainly debilitate these talks as much as settlement construction.

It is also important to note that this information was disseminated by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s David Makovsky. WINEP is a creation of AIPAC and Dennis Ross, a key figure in Obama’s Middle East team, worked there and co-authored a book with Makovksy before joining the Obama White House. Alan Makovsky, David’s relative, used to work there too before leaving to join the staff of the House Foreign Affairs Committee where he plays an instrumental role in determining who briefs members of Congress at hearings. Since Alan left WINEP to go to the Hill and after Dems took control of Congress, Ross, Alan’s relative David and other members of the WINEP crew have been invited to more briefings before Congress on the Middle East/peace process than any other think tank/organization. Examples here , here , here , here , here , and here .

But let's assume for a moment that this isn't just AIPAC spin or a test balloon to gauge the fallout on the Israeli and Palestinian side of something they can't offer in official capacity. What if the White House actually did send this letter and make these promises to Netanyahu or is entertaining the thought?

If that is the case, it only underscores the fundamental inability of the United States to mediate the resolution of this conflict. The whole reason we are dealing with this settlement freeze expiration mess now is because settlements where never frozen 43 years ago when they started to be built in the West Bank. Nor were they frozen in 1978 when Herbert Hansell, a White House Special Counsel, clarified that the position of the United States was that settlements were illegal. Nor were they frozen in 1991 when the United States started to get tough on Shamir's government but never followed through. Nor were they frozen at the start of the Oslo accords or when the Oslo process fell apart. Nor where they frozen even when Israel accepted the Road Map which obligated them to freeze them in 2003.

Settlements never stopped because the United States, the only nation with realistic leverage over Israel, never took the steps necessary to stop them. The closest the United States got to stopping settlements was when George Bush senior conditioned aid to Israel. Since then, the U.S. has only offered Israel carrots. And when Israel fails to comply with its obligations, the U.S. offers carrots. And when Israel kicks the barrel out from under the U.S. and insults the U.S., the U.S. offers carrots. If Israel were a person, their skin would be orange from all the carrots they have been offered.

Obama needs to make clear that settlement activity should end BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL. Not because it is problematic for the peace process at this time, but all the time. If the United States wants to be taken seriously, it has to act seriously and can't mince words on settlements. They can't simultaneously oppose settlements in statements and support them tacitly and through tax dollars.

If Obama does as is suggested by the news of the letter to Netanyahu, he would be rewarding Israel's illegal activity and encouraging them to renege on obligations into the future.

But if instead Obama came out and said that all settlement construction must stop permanently and the United States is prepared to take decisive punitive economic and diplomatic actions to see this through, he will recapture the faith of Palestinians and, for the first time, garner the respect of Israeli politicians who think the United States is easy to manipulate.

Share |