Washington — President Obama will seek to revive the moribund Middle East peace process in his first official meeting with Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu, offering a new regional initiative that aims to bridge increasing differences between the new governments in Washington and Jerusalem.
The new approach takes the 2002 Arab peace initiative another step forward by making clear that normal ties between Israel and the wider Arab world need not await the end of negotiations on the Palestinian issue.
But at their May 18 meeting, President Obama is expected to insist on explicit Israeli recognition of the two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a prerequisite for moving forward — a step Netanyahu has so far resisted. He will sweeten the demand with a promise of broadening the negotiation circle to include all Arab and Muslim states.
Netanyahu, on the other hand, will try to focus on Iran and on the need to prioritize forging a regional understanding with moderate Arab countries against the threat from Tehran.
Obama’s regional approach, which is expected to also include a joint effort to counter Iran and move forward on the Israeli-Syrian peace track, will be discussed with leaders at the White House this month and could be rolled out as part of President Obama’s speech to the Muslim world scheduled to be delivered during his June 4 visit to Egypt.
But the plan hinges on Israel’s agreement to accept the two-state solution, an issue which is expected to loom over the Netanyahu – Obama meeting.
“Neither the U.S. nor Israel are looking to pick fights with each other, but this is not enough. Success will be judged on whether the leaders built a relationship of trust and converging interest,” said David Makovsky, co-author of forthcoming book “Myths, Illusions and Peace: Finding a New Direction in the Middle East.” “It is not enough for each to say what they cannot do, but
where are the areas that each can say, yes, I can?”
The Obama administration views the meeting within the context of a round of talks with regional leaders that began with Jordan’s King Abdullah and will continue later this month with Egypt’s president, Hosni Mubarak, and later with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. In a May 12 statement, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that Obama intends to discuss with the leaders “steps all parties should take to help achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians and between Israel and the Arab states.”
The new idea floated by the Obama administration is stressing the regional element of the peace process and assuring Israel that moving forward with the Palestinians will go hand in hand with improving its relations with both the Arab and the Muslim world. This approach takes the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative forward by making clear that normalization with Arab states needs not wait until the end of negotiations. Returning from his visit to Washington, Abdullah said the regional approach is now the plan to pursue.
“It’s the work that needs to be done over the next couple of months that has a regional answer to this. That is not a two-state solution, it is a 57-state solution,” Abdullah said in an interview with the London Times.
According to Israeli press reports and early statements made by Netanyahu’s close advisers, the Israeli prime minister will offer a variety of steps meant to improve living conditions for the Palestinians, but will stop short of endorsing a two-state solution. Netanyahu is expected to explain that since the future Palestinian entity will lack certain attributes of sovereignty (such as military force and control over its air space), there is no reason to use the term “state.”
So far, this approach has gained no support within the administration.
“How many times do senior administration officials have to say it before Israelis take them at face value? The U.S. is talking about an independent Palestinian state. Their goal is a two-state solution,” said Tamara Cofman Wittes of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. She added that given the wide degree of world consensus over the idea of a two-state solution, it would be unrealistic to try any other formulation.
Netanyahu, according to Israeli diplomatic sources, will make clear in his discussions in Washington that the coalition he heads has only limited room to maneuver on the Palestinian issue and that given the widespread disappointment in the Israeli mainstream with Palestinian leadership, focusing on Palestinian self-determination would be a mistake at this time.
Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen, a scholar at the Israel Policy Forum, argued that Netanyahu’s claim of political limitations would not go very far with the Obama administration. The White House is aware of the fact that Netanyahu could form an alternative coalition if the current one collapses. “All he needs to do is to turn to Tzipi Livni,” Cohen said, referring to the Israeli opposition leader who was willing to join his government if Netanyahu changed course on the Palestinian issue. Cohen added that the administration is also aware of what he sees as Netanyahu’s weak point. “Bibi is susceptible to pressure if it is applied directly,” he said, pointing to an instance in Netanyahu’s first term as prime minister, when he gave in to American pressure to accept the Wye River interim peace agreement.
George Mitchell, America’s special envoy to the region, has been meeting in recent weeks with American Jewish groups and making clear the administration’s commitment to pushing forward the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. These talks, an official with one of the Jewish groups speculated, are aimed at preparing the ground for a possible conflict of views between Israel and the Obama administration over the Palestinian issue, and at mitigating Jewish reaction to this.
Netanyahu, meanwhile, intends to focus on the importance of dealing with Iran’s nuclear threat in his meeting with Obama.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Israel would like the administration to put a strict time limit on the talks it is now planning with Tehran and to move ahead with tough sanctions if an agreement is not reached by that deadline.
United States officials have argued that this approach is counterproductive. “I think it’s not appropriate at this time to be trying to establish timetables for this, but rather to see how the engagement can move forward,” National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer said at an April 29 briefing for the foreign press.
“The administration is torn on this issue,” said Shai Feldman, director of Brandeis University’s Crown Center for Middle East Studies. He explained that while the United States understands Israel’s concerns, America also believes it cannot publicly accept Israeli preconditions. “That would be seen as if Israel is determining the parameters of engagement with Iran,” he said.
According to Elliott Abrams, who served as deputy security adviser in the Bush administration, reaching agreements regarding Iran will be the central issue at the meeting. “This portion of the meeting will be fateful,” Abrams wrote in a May 9 article in The Wall Street Journal. He argued that if Netanyahu senses Obama is not willing to use force in case engagement and sanctions fail to stop Iran, and if he feels “that Mr. Obama is plenty smart, but will never risk confronting Iran,” then, Abrams wrote, Netanyahu “may resolve that an Israeli strike on Iran is unavoidable.”
The Israeli prime minister will try to make the case that the Iranian crisis is an opportunity for realignment in the region, one that would unite moderate Arab regimes and lead them to join forces with the United States and Israel to stop Tehran’s quest for regional dominance. But for that to happen, the administration argues, Israel first needs to agree to move forward toward a two-state solution with the Palestinians.
Contact Nathan Guttman at guttman@forward.com.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
To post a comment, click to login:
Copyright © 2012, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Israel seems to be alone. It would appear that there is no value in not accepting the two state solution if Israel finds it nessasary to keep in good graces with the Obama Administration. My advice would be to go along with the Obama/dual state proposal since their seems to be no options at this junction. ISRAEL SHOULD KEEP A BIG STICK BEHIND ITS BACK JUST IN CASE IT DOES NOT WORK OUT.
To my way of thinking, Israel should truly embrace a two state solution. Obama in his wisdom, as well as past presidents of the United States have come to the same conclusion.
The present policy of razing Arab properties, can do nothing but antagonize the Arab populace as well as the rest of the world, With regard to Israel attacking Iran's nuclear facilities,it would be fool hardy without the support of the U.S.A. Our government is making subtle overtures to Iran that may or may not rectify past relationships,however it must be given a chance.
Israel will never enjoy peace without a legitimate settlement with the Arab Community!
It seems that Netanyahu's problem is his unwillingness to continue the Kadima hypocrisy of saying yes to the "two state solution" while doing everything possible on the ground and in the pointless negotiations to insure that never happens. Bibi could solve his problem by simply mouthing the magic words which would once again mollify the US and the rest of the international community and he could then go on with his own plan on the ground with full international support.
land robbers are always gungho for negotiation. Modern ones even want to negotiate, provided the occupied people gladhand/ensure a peaceful occupation; knowing that rarely one obtains it.
Obviously leaving occupied lands and then negotiate wld not do. After US allows pal'n state- a dissected region with some untouching districts- and even abbas rejects it, once again judeo-christian world; which controls all MSM, will blame the 'terrorists' for not negotating in good faith.
it appears extremely unlikely that Obama or any prez wld shame uncle sam by disobeying or breaking his longstanding foreign policy. in case of palestine, the policy had always been exactly the same: pals get parcels and 'jews' get the whole package.
and 'jews', i educe, have known this even when weizmann talked to churchill, who said to chaim ['22?], If u can take all of palestine, that wld be OK; if not, partition wld do. but it seems US will not give 'jews' what they really want: a much larger Israel! tnx
I am shocked and depressed at how many people in a "Jewish" paper are eager to force Israel to give in on the "Two-State Solution" even though any common sense and sixty years of history would tell one that it's all a lot of painful nonsense. There's no need here to recount all the opportunities over the last sixty years that have been rejected by the Arab side. If they had actually wanted a state of their own (What, another Arab state?), they could have had it a long time ago. What they really want is to wear Israel out and all of these "well-meaning and progressive" Jews are eager to let them do it. yea, they want to help them. Stop tormenting the only Jewish state in the world.
Mr.Bozh:Sorry to disillusion you,but the Jewish connection to Palestine was clearly established by the League of Nations and its successor,United Nations.Since the British mandatory authorities gave a major slice of the Syrian province to the new kingdom of Trans-Jordan(and then Jordan),the Jews were left with an area known as Palestine to be shared with the Arabs.The 1947 partition proposal by the UN was rejected by the Arabs of Palestine and the Moslem nations,but accepted by the Jewish community.Invasion by Egypt,Jordan,Lebanon,Syria,Iraq,the Saudis and the usual band of "volunteers" followed the announcement of the Jewish State on May 14,1948.The larger area obtained by Israel was justified by its attempted strangulation by its neighbors, and clearly supported by international law.Furthermore,the so-called occupied territories obtained by the Jewish State in 1967 was also obtained in a war of attempted extermination by Israel's neighbors.It seems like the Arab countries have a difficult time learning to accept peace with the Jewish State.
The two state concept is a delusion. There is no arab entity that truly want peace with the Jewish State. Arafat did not want peace and neither do his sucessors; they want to control all the territory from the Sea until the Jordan River. The Arabs philosophically do not want a Jewish entity in "their" Middle East. Hamas tells the truth..........Jews out, no negotiation! All we can hope for is a susession of hostilities. When Moshiach arrives there will be true peace amongst nations
To Rabbi Woolstone: Your view of the world,"When Moshiach arrives" is fine for a Rabbi, but for those of us who see the reaility of the world as it really is,it is hard to be patient.
I think Obama should worry about the USA first and get things Back here before he starts seeing what they want over there
moshe, few nations of the 'tainted' skin were members of the League of Nations but all christian lands and chirstian evil empires were.
how about trying to partition US or canada? Do you think US wld part with an inch of its land to accomodate any claimant?
people lived in palestine. The first european tsunami had via terrorism and warfare expelled the inhabitants of excanaan.
the people expelled were an admixture of hamitic-shemitic peoples; thus, may have had for millennia continuous existence in excanaan.
in view of this, why don't euros with the cult allow partition of borderless israel or even return of the 'legal' theft of land to its millennial owners.
in the end, the 'jewish' state will be 'legally' destroyed. From a moral point, this artificial, but as-yet-non-existent entity, had been utterly destroyed. tnx bozhidar balkas
Obama needs to give tough love to the Palestinians and their Arab state supporters about two-state solutions, not Israel. Encourageing Israel to seek a two-state solution is preaching to the choir.
In exchange for its longest pursuit of a two-state solution, the Oslo process, Israel was rewarded with Intifadah II. Palestinain suicide-bombers, supported by Saudis, Sadaam Hessein and others, murdered more than 400 Israeli men, women and children civilians - proportionally equivalent to more than six 911 attacks! except that 911 did not murder any children in the U.S. to my knowledge.
Israel exists because its founders accepted the U.N.'s 1947 two-state solution, although it disadvantaged the Jews vis a vis the Arab population. Israel has been at war with its neighbors for 61 years because the Palestinian and other Arab leaders rejected the U.N. partition plan, and Israel's offers of a two-state solution in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1999, and 2005. Even six years of President Clinton's charm could not convince the Palestinians to accept a two-state solution.
Meanwhile, Israel has willingly traded land for peace treaties with Egypt & Jordan. In addition Israel unilaterally withdrew from Lebanon and Gaza - and in response Hezbollah and Hamas bombed Israeli men, women and children civilians.
As to the structure and participants to Israel-Palestinian peace negotiations, anything more than the two prinipals and a mediator will be a sham - a waste of time and money - and most important a raiser of false expectations. Anwar Sedat knew as much when he avoided Jimmie Carter's comprehesive peace plans and made peace directly with Menacham Begin.
The last negotiated peace by many parties that I am aware of was the Versaille Treaty of 1919 - which effectively confirmed the truce on WWI and so degraded Germany that the Germans were easily motivated and given more time to pursue WWII.
Any American Policymaker, especially in this one filled with non-serving cowards and Islamofascist appeasers, who wishes or demands a 2nd State Solution despite Israeli concerns should be prepared to vacate their own homes here (after all, they're probably living on "occupied Native American soil") and move themselves and their entire family to either the Gaza Strip or even the P.A.-controlled entities of Judea-Samaria. Let's see how long a blowhard like Biden, a Prussian type like General Jimmy Jones, a feigele like Emanuel or a Red Diaper baby like Axelrod would last there.
Better yet, ask that Irish 'ho Power who wanted to use the USMC to drive Israeli troops out of their own country, or the Messiah Chimp who never uttered a bo-peep while sitting in that pew if they're willing to live under Sharia, under intimidation, and with instability. If they're not, then Bibi should tell all of them to go to the hell where they belong.
We in America were sold a bill of goods which our children and grandchildren will be paying for the next 100 years if we survive. The Israelis should not only say no, they should also say that if they have to go it alone against Iran, any talk of a 2nd State Solution will be dead forever, even if this completely anti-Israel administration likes it or not.
We should forget the 2 state solution and become a true democracy that allows everyone in the West Bank and Gaza the right to vote.
To Nathan Shuster: Please take heart and ignore the so called writers of "TwoState Solution" as you are reading this in a Left Liberal publication and it is tryinmg to give you the impression that American Jewery and most people in the United States demand this so called slogan, "Two State etc". When in fact, the descion of what takes place will not be ordered by Obama, as well as Netanyahue will not deliberately accept this soulution. This whole meeting will be shaded in inuendos and hoped for solutions. Obama has already been rolled on Guantanimo, flip flopping on when it will close and what to do with the prisoners, that he admits, cannot be adjudicated in either Military Tribunals or Federal Courts. If he can change his position on Guatanamo he can alter his posistion on a Two State solution.
Secondly, what is the leverage that the US will have on Israel if it refuses to accept this solution, as Israel has already stated. Cut the 2 1/2 billion in Military purchases ALMOST ALL SPENT IN THE US ON US HARDWARE. 2% of Israel"s now GDP. I don't think that is much leverage today. Not the same country as Bush 1 encountered. If they loose this leverage how will they ever force their will on the Israeles. Will they go to War with Israel, as if the Country would stand for that. Be realistic, Israel is the only real ally they have in the ME, and so there will be give and take and, the Baloon Floaters such as Biden and Jones, will be irrelevant when Obama makes up his mind. US protection of Israel in the UN is also a nonstarter as leverage. Israels people have moved to the Right. They will no longer stand for "land for peace" They know that this policy is acomplete failure. There needs to be a change in the ME as far as finding a real peace, but giving away parts of your country is not it.
BETTER BIBI NETANYAHU THAN THE FOLLOWING:
One, A little guy who sat in a pew for 20 years listening to a Nazi of Color screech his hate of America and of Jews, and incredibly applauded him. Even more incredible, this reverse racist sits in the White House voted in by 78 percent of Jewish Americans (who'd vote for Hitler had he been a Democrat).
Two, a pompous bigmouthed, gutless bogus Scrantonian who does nothing but get drunk, plagarize others, and more recently imitate his buddy Jim Baker - I'm talking about Biden.
Three, A Shrill Shrew who knew how to hug Suha Arafat when she accused Jews of poisoning Palestinian children, then lied to the pie-eyed Jews of New York about what a dear friend - read: fiend - she was and is.
Four, A little Feigele who sends the heads of dead fish to his political enemies, yet never had the balls to stand up either for the country of his father or for his own people.
And finally a traitor who dissed his own fellow servicemen yet had the nerve to claim he was "reporting for duty" when he's never done a good thing for America since betraying his fellow soldiers. A guy who's family weaseled out of their birthright, and who claims to be an Irish Catholic when we know better.
All of whom blasted Israel over Iran and also over Settlements in the land of Israel. Rich, considering that all of the above reside on ILLEGALLY occupied Native American territory, especially the last mentioned since he lives in the land of the murdered King Philip.Rich, also since none of these cowards would ever deign to live in Hamasistan.
Jewish land is NOT for sale. But these America-blamers and Israel haters sure are. You vote Democrat, you get scum.