Discussion: (0 comments)
There are no comments available.
The Obama administration is increasingly fixed on resolving the “Arab-Israeli
dispute,” seeing it as the key to peace and stability in the Middle East. This
is bad news for Israel–and for America.
In its purest form, this theory holds that, once Israel and its neighbors
come to terms, all other regional conflicts can be duly resolved: Iran’s
nuclear-weapons program, fanatical anti-Western terrorism, Islam’s Sunni-Shiite
schism, Arab-Persian ethnic tensions.
Some advocates believe substantively that the overwhelming bulk of other
Middle Eastern grievances, wholly or partly, stem from Israel’s founding and
continued existence. Others see it in process terms–how to “sequence” dispute
resolutions, so that Arab-Israeli progress facilitates progress elsewhere.
Pursuing this talisman has long characterized many European leaders and their
soulmates on the American left. The Mideast “peace process” is thus the ultimate
self-licking ice cream cone–its mere existence being its basic
And now the Obama administration has made it US policy. This is evidenced by
two key developments: the appointment of former Sen. George Mitchell as special
envoy for the region, and Secretary of State Hillary’s Clinton’s recent
insistence on a “two-state solution” sooner rather than later.
Naming Mitchell as a high-level, single-issue envoy–rather than keeping the
portfolio under Secretary Clinton’s personal control–separates Israel from the
broader conduct of US diplomacy. Mitchell’s role underlines both the issue’s
priority in the president’s eyes and the implicit idea it can be solved in the
Obama and Mitchell have every incentive to strike a Middle East deal–both to
vindicate themselves and, in their minds, to create a basis for further
“progress.” But there are few visible incentives for any particular substantive
outcome–which is very troubling for Israel, since Mitchell’s mission
essentially replicates in high-profile form exactly the approach the State
Department has followed for decades.
When appointed, Mitchell said confidently: “Conflicts are created, conducted
and sustained by human beings. They can be ended by human beings.” This is true,
however, only if the conflict’s substantive resolution is less important than
the process point of “ending” it one way or another. Surrender, for example, is
a guaranteed way to end conflict.
Here, Clinton’s strident insistence on a “two-state solution” during her
recent Mideast trip becomes important. She essentially argued predestination:
the “inevitability” of moving toward two states is “inescapable,” and “there is
no time to waste.” The political consequence is clear: Since the outcome is
inevitable and time is short, there is no excuse for not making “progress.”
Delay is evidence of obstructionism and failure–something President Obama can’t
tolerate, for the sake of his policies and his political reputation.
In this very European view, failure on the Arab-Israeli front presages
failure elsewhere. Accordingly, the Obama adminstration has created a
negotiating dynamic that puts increasing pressure on Israel, Palestinians, Syria
Almost invariably, Israel is the loser–because Israel is the party most
dependent on the United States, most subject to US pressure and most susceptible
to the inevitable chorus of received wisdom from Western diplomats, media and
the intelligentsia demanding concessions. When pressure must be applied to make
compromises, it’s always easier to pressure the more reasonable side.
How will diplomatic pressure work to change Hamas or Hezbollah, where even
military force has so far failed? If anything, one can predict coming pressure
on Israel to acknowledge the legitimacy of these two terrorist groups, and to
negotiate with them as equals (albeit perhaps under some artful camouflage). The
pattern is so common that its reappearance in the Mitchell-led negotiations is
what is really “inevitable” and “inescapable.”
Why would America subject a close ally to this dynamic, playing with the
security of an unvarying supporter in world affairs? For America, Israel’s
intelligence-sharing, military cooperation and significant bilateral economic
ties, among many others, are important national-security assets that should not
lightly be put at risk.
The only understandable answer is that the Obama administration believes that
Israel is as much or more of a problem as it is an ally, at least until Israel’s
disagreements with its neighbors are resolved. Instead of seeing Israel as a
national-security asset, the administration likely sees a relationship
complicating its broader policy of diplomatic “outreach.”
No one will say so publicly, but this is the root cause of Obama’s
“Arab-Israeli issues first” approach to the region.
This approach is exactly backward. All the other regional problems would
still exist even if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad got his fondest wish and Israel
disappeared from the map: Iran’s nuclear-weapons program, its role as the
world’s central banker for terrorism, the Sunni-Shiite conflict within Islam,
Sunni terrorist groups like al Qaeda and other regional ethnic, national and
political animosities would continue as threats and risks for decades to come.
Instead, the US focus should be on Iran and the manifold threats it poses to
Israel, to Arab states friendly to Washington and to the United States
itself–but that is not to be.
President Obama argues that he will deal comprehensively with the entire
region. Rhetoric is certainly his specialty, but in the Middle East rhetoric
only lasts so long. Performance is the real measure–and the administration’s
performance to date points in only one direction: pressuring Israel while wooing
Others in the world–friend and foe alike–will draw their own
John R. Bolton is a senior fellow at AEI.
There are no comments available.
1150 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036
© 2014 American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research