Will Obama Pursue Israeli-Palestinian Peace?

by John Sides on November 9, 2012 · 4 comments

in Foreign Policy

This is a guest post by University of Connecticut political scientist Jeremy Pressman.

*****

Just hours after Barack Obama was re-elected, Tony Blair, the Quartet’s Middle East envoy, was already calling for a renewal of the Arab-Israeli peace process: “I think President Obama’s re-election gives us the chance to go back into it with a renewed sense of momentum and a plan to move it forward. I think, expect, hope that this is what will happen.” Daniel Shapiro, U.S. Ambassador to Israel, left the door open on the Palestinian question: “It always finds its way back onto the agenda. You can’t expect this to go away or remain on the back-burner.” In the Post, David Ignatius listed “a deal to create a Palestinian state so that Israel has secure borders” as one of four foreign policy deals a bold President Obama should pursue. Bernard Avishai called for Obama to appoint Bill Clinton as his new special envoy. (h/t @lrozen)

Will President Obama try to tackle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in his second term? If the limited history at our disposal is any guide, he will at some point make the effort. Since 1967, three U.S. presidents have served two terms and all three of them made a concerted effort in their second term to address the Arab-Israeli conflict.

From the beginning, the Reagan administration (1981-1989) paid attention episodically to the conflict. President Ronald Reagan’s second term included two major efforts, working through King Hussein’s Jordan in 1985-1986 and the Shultz Initiative in 1988.  Under President Bill Clinton (1993-2001), the United States tried for a final resolution on the Israeli-Syrian track with failures at the highest levels coming at Shepherdstown, West Virginia (January 2000) and then a meeting between Bill Clinton and Syrian President Hafez Asad at Geneva (March 2000). Later that same year, in July, Clinton held a summit at Camp David with PA President Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. It failed, as did Clinton’s Israeli-Palestinian proposal in December 2000, the Clinton Plan.

Most recently, George W. Bush (2001-2009), who largely refrained from an all-out push for Israeli-Palestinian peace in his first six plus years, launched the Annapolis process in November 2007. That process ran through most of 2008 involving Secretary of State Condi Rice, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. It too came up short.

One could add a fourth president, Richard Nixon. Though he served only a partial second term, his administration did focus on Arab-Israeli diplomacy and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger maintained that focus as President Gerald Ford finished out the rest of Nixon’s second term.

Sooner or later, then, history suggests Obama officials will do the same and jump back into the peace process fray.

But thus far I have assumed that other things are about the same as under past two-term presidents. Yet one could also argue that Obama faces a very different environment than some or all of his predecessors.

  1. Obama experienced a major, public failure on the Israeli-Palestinian negotiating front in his first term whereas Presidents GW Bush and Bill Clinton did not. The failed effort to re-start talks in 2009-10 was very public and much commented upon. George Mitchell, Obama’s special envoy, came in with high hopes and departed with much criticism. Maybe this first-term failure left a scar that will serve as a disincentive to second-term diplomacy. Reagan stumbled twice during his first term (1982 Reagan Plan; 1983-1984 Israel-Lebanon pact) yet came back to the issue in his second term, though unlike Obama, he had not come into office having highlighted his desire to resolve the Arab-Israeli dispute.

  2. If we accept the conventional wisdom that second-term presidents turn to foreign policy to burnish their legacy, it is not as if Israeli-Palestinian matters are Obama’s only choice. He has a range of foreign questions which he could address including, in the very same region, Iran, the Arab spring writ large, or the Syrian civil war. Plus, foreign policy debate agenda to the contrary, President Obama could address issues in the rest of the world. The President has plenty of other foreign policy issues on which to try to cement his legacy.

  3. Obama may not have Israeli leaders who are interested in a diplomatic process that is meant to lead to two states and the division of Jerusalem. Israeli elections on January 22 will set the stage. On the Palestinians side, the leadership remains split between President Abbas and Fatah, on the on hand, and Hamas, on the other hand. Such fragmented leadership may not be strong enough to negotiate and implement a deal. (See Quandt on the importance of Arab and Israeli political strength.)

  4. The debate has been raging over whether a two-state solution is dead (examples: here, here, here, here, here, here). In other words, whether due to the depth of the Israeli settlement project in the West Bank, the failure of the Oslo process (1993-2001), continued violence, Palestinian fragmentation, or other factors, maybe the time for a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian settlement has passed. No matter how badly Obama might want it to happen, pessimistic perceptions and facts on the ground are stubborn obstacles.

It is probably also good to inject further uncertainty. The status quo rarely lasts long in the Middle East, e.g. the Israeli invasion of Lebanon (1982), secret Oslo talks (1993), first and second intifada (1987, 2000). These types of events make demands on U.S. policymakers at unexpected moments.

So if the general story is one where we should expect a second-term U.S. push for talks, several particular details move in the opposite direction. I think the historical pattern established by Reagan, Clinton, and GW Bush will continue, in which case what Obama officials learned from their earlier failure will be very important.

 

 

 

{ 4 comments }

Keith Gaby November 9, 2012 at 1:27 pm

This relates to the “5 Things Almost Everyone Can Feel Good About from the Election”. President Obama got about the same percentage of the Jewish vote as he did four years ago. Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson spent tens of millions against Obama because he (wrongly) considered him bad for Israel. American Jews were flooded with robo-calls falsely accusing the President of being anti-Israel, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seemed to be almost openly rooting for Romney. And none of it worked. Even if Romney supporters would have liked their votes, I’ll bet many appreciated that this cynical, single-issue play didn’t work. (Read the other 4 at: http://www.thebiggerhammermovie.com/blog/2012/11/5-things-most-people-can-feel-good-about-election )

Chaz November 9, 2012 at 11:27 pm

He might push for it, but if so it will be a quick failure just like his first attempt. Netanyahu wants to keep all or most of the West Bank and has shown no interest in negotation. He openly denounced Obama and clearly (if not formally) endorsed Romney. If Netanyahu & Lieberman win the next election, as they are expected to, there is nothing Obama can do. He could try to push Netanyahu with withdrawal of aid, economic sanctions, an arms embargo, etc. but of course that is the exact opposite of what U.S. public opinion, the big donors, and Congress all demand. Bush/Rice had a much more cooperative Kadima gov’t and they really weren’t reasonable–their final proposal included massive West Bank annexations and cut Palestine into enclaves–which is why things went nowhere. Clinton was even luckier: he got to work with a Labor government–way more reasonable than Kadima or anyone likely to get elected soon–and even they weren’t willing to give up any major settlements.

If Labor somehow wins a majority and has a very brave leader, then there’s a chance for peace, and then only because Abbas is ready to bend over backwards. Likud is openly opposed to peace, and it’s time the American media (including niche bloggers) started being honest about that.

Marty November 10, 2012 at 10:55 am

John, would you consider doing a post on the state of the literature on voter turnout over the next few weeks? Having a lot of trouble finding decent cites, and I can’t find any to help me understand the 2012-20o8 turnout dropoff.

Andrea Cohen November 18, 2012 at 11:00 pm

Israel has always been a hot topic for most Presidents. The continued support of Israel is one of the things that policy makers in the United States could agree on. Yes, President Obama has not necessarily been Pro-Israel as heavily as Presidents before him, but that does not mean that he does not have support for Israel. With regards to the current situation in Israel and the large Jewish support behind Obama, it’s hard to imagine he would not get involved especially since Congress and Senate recently passed resolutions backing Israel’s actions in Gaza. With that being said, Benjamin Netanyahu is not exactly the biggest fan of President Obama and doesn’t seem to want to cooperate, however if there is a possible change in leadership in the future, there might be a change in policy. As of now, it may be best if the President expresses his desires to get involved in Israel but focus on other foreign policy issues such as Iran, and get involved in Israel later on in his term.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: