Another Blow to the Peace Process
Dennis Ross’ retirement symbolizes the diminishing importance of the peace process in the eyes of the American president, who is facing another election year. This change is detrimental to Israeli interests in Washington.
First of all: full disclosure. In the past, I worked with Dennis Ross. He was my professor at Georgetown University. I appreciate him and am fond of him both professionally and personally. There is no doubt that he is a first-class diplomat, which is only one reason why I regret his resignation from the post of senior adviser to U.S. President Barack Obama.
A second and more important reason is that Israel is losing a close friend and advocate who was intimate with the decision-making process in the administration in Washington. He understood Israeli politics better than all of Obama’s other advisors and knew how to combine Israeli interests and American political needs.
Ross’ resignation marks the decreasing significance of the peace process in the view of the American president, on the threshold of an election year, constituting a disservice to Israeli interests in Washington.
A Controversial Image
Ross’ departure joins other abdications from President Barack Obama’s Middle East peace process team and, in practice, disintegrates the team completely. Special Envoy George Mitchell left a few months ago and his deputy, David Hale, is currently filling his position.
However talented he may be, the young Hale is not a replacement for a big-league figure such as Mitchell, formerly a senator. Another adviser who left is Dan Shapiro, appointed ambassador to Israel. Shapiro, who counts among the youngest of Obama’s staffers, oversaw ties with Jewish communities during the president’s long electoral campaign for the White House and has been dispatched to Israel in order to strengthen relations between Jerusalem and Washington as the 2012 elections approach.
In the midst of the Israeli peace camp, Ross’ character is disputable. On the one hand, he is undoubtedly acquainted with the intricacies of Israeli politics and realizes that if there’s a need to motivate political processes, it may be that high-ranking American politicians would have to meet with the Shas* leaders, for example, in order to receive their support.
On the other hand, Ross has, supposedly, always been a proponent of an approach that asserts that the U.S. government must not surprise the Israeli government. So any move toward the Palestinian Authority should be coordinated between them in advance. As a result, he aroused the ire of the Palestinians, who saw him as an unfair mediator.
Void Will Be Hard to Fill
One can agree with Ross’ approach or not, but even his critics would admit that his departure means a major blow for the peace process since over the past three years he has run the attempts to resuscitate the peace talks and, for the moment, there seems to be nobody who can fill his place in the White House.
Ross also played an important role on the Iranian issue and led the American strategic alignment against the Iranian nuclear program for a long time. He was among the senior advisers who fought to enhance American and international pressure on Iran and he visited key countries several times to mobilize support for additional rounds of sanctions that would make the arming of the Iranians difficult to continue.
There’s no doubt that Ross leaving means a void has been created that will be very difficult to fill. The conclusion that the administration in Washington has no intention in resuming this political process in the course of the upcoming election year is worrisome. This year, Americans are about to focus on the problems in their economy and with their army’s exit strategy from Iraq and Afghanistan.
In the Middle East, there’s no “luxury” of an election year. The desperation on the Palestinian side is growing and the dying peace process urgently needs a renewed revival. It’s a pity that Dennis Ross will not be there to save it.
*Translator’s Note: The Shas is an ultra-orthodox religious political party in Israel, the fourth largest member of the governmental coalition.
First of all: full disclosure. In the past, I worked with Dennis Ross. He was my professor at Georgetown University. I appreciate him and am fond of him both professionally and personally. There is no doubt that he is a first-class diplomat, which is only one reason why I regret his resignation from the post of senior adviser to U.S. President Barack Obama.
A second and more important reason is that Israel is losing a close friend and advocate who was intimate with the decision-making process in the administration in Washington. He understood Israeli politics better than all of Obama’s other advisors and knew how to combine Israeli interests and American political needs.
Ross’ resignation marks the decreasing significance of the peace process in the view of the American president, on the threshold of an election year, constituting a disservice to Israeli interests in Washington.
A Controversial Image
Ross’ departure joins other abdications from President Barack Obama’s Middle East peace process team and, in practice, disintegrates the team completely. Special Envoy George Mitchell left a few months ago and his deputy, David Hale, is currently filling his position.
However talented he may be, the young Hale is not a replacement for a big-league figure such as Mitchell, formerly a senator. Another adviser who left is Dan Shapiro, appointed ambassador to Israel. Shapiro, who counts among the youngest of Obama’s staffers, oversaw ties with Jewish communities during the president’s long electoral campaign for the White House and has been dispatched to Israel in order to strengthen relations between Jerusalem and Washington as the 2012 elections approach.
In the midst of the Israeli peace camp, Ross’ character is disputable. On the one hand, he is undoubtedly acquainted with the intricacies of Israeli politics and realizes that if there’s a need to motivate political processes, it may be that high-ranking American politicians would have to meet with the Shas* leaders, for example, in order to receive their support.
On the other hand, Ross has, supposedly, always been a proponent of an approach that asserts that the U.S. government must not surprise the Israeli government. So any move toward the Palestinian Authority should be coordinated between them in advance. As a result, he aroused the ire of the Palestinians, who saw him as an unfair mediator.
Void Will Be Hard to Fill
One can agree with Ross’ approach or not, but even his critics would admit that his departure means a major blow for the peace process since over the past three years he has run the attempts to resuscitate the peace talks and, for the moment, there seems to be nobody who can fill his place in the White House.
Ross also played an important role on the Iranian issue and led the American strategic alignment against the Iranian nuclear program for a long time. He was among the senior advisers who fought to enhance American and international pressure on Iran and he visited key countries several times to mobilize support for additional rounds of sanctions that would make the arming of the Iranians difficult to continue.
There’s no doubt that Ross leaving means a void has been created that will be very difficult to fill. The conclusion that the administration in Washington has no intention in resuming this political process in the course of the upcoming election year is worrisome. This year, Americans are about to focus on the problems in their economy and with their army’s exit strategy from Iraq and Afghanistan.
In the Middle East, there’s no “luxury” of an election year. The desperation on the Palestinian side is growing and the dying peace process urgently needs a renewed revival. It’s a pity that Dennis Ross will not be there to save it.
*Translator’s Note: The Shas is an ultra-orthodox religious political party in Israel, the fourth largest member of the governmental coalition.