Obama’s About Face: Surrender in the Middle East

At the halfway point in his presidency, President Barack Obama’s only chance of going down in history as a Middle East peace negotiator will be as a horrifying example of how not to do it.

Whoever dares reach for the stars can quickly find himself in the gutter. The more ambitious the plans, the greater the danger of failure. President Barack Obama is now learning that painful lesson, especially in the Middle East, where the stars always twinkle brightly but are almost always unreachable. At halftime in his presidency, Obama’s only chance of going down in history as a Middle East peace negotiator will be as a horrifying example of how not to do it.

What hopes he fueled, what promises he made to the world: peace in the region, a Palestinian state and Israeli security. With the Nobel Peace Prize already in hand, he pompously announced revived peace negotiations that would lead to a Middle East peace between Israelis and Palestinians within a year. Then there was silence, suddenly followed by a new and brutal message from Washington saying that the U.S. had given up trying to get the Israelis to agree to a moratorium on settlement building in occupied territories. Translated, that meant the peace process was finished and the most powerful man in the world had surrendered to a group of settlers in the hills of Judea and Samaria.

The tangled dispute about the building freeze can serve as a lesson in failed Middle East policy. Before Obama, settlement building in the green hills had proceeded without either side walking away from the negotiating table. It may not have been politically correct since such construction is contrary to international law and not helpful to the peace process since there would be less and less land for a viable Palestinian state. But the bottom line was that the Palestinians, like it or not, gave in to pure pragmatism: No negotiations, no solution.

And then came Obama, putting his visions and principles up against Middle Eastern Realpolitik. He asked Israel to cease settlement construction and one can’t blame the Palestinians for adopting that position as well. They made use of the ladder Obama had put up for them, climbing high into that tree and announcing they would hence only negotiate with Israel if the bulldozers in the settlements stopped working.

Risky Zigzag

Up to this point, the story could have still had a happy ending because no one could accuse Obama of invoking legality and morality issues in the settlement question. Whoever did so would have to be steadfast and willing to enforce the right policies. The leader of a superpower nation should be capable of doing so, especially since the Israelis, as well as the Palestinians, are both totally dependent on the USA. Obama had every required lever at his disposal, but he proved unwilling to employ them. Concerning Israeli opposition to a construction freeze, he simply did an about face and dropped his demands. Since then, all his policies have been a risky zigzag rather than based on principle.

In diplomacy-speak, there is no such thing as failure, so Washington now doesn’t refer to an end to peace negotiations but rather to a “new start” for them. Back to square one, then, and rather than vision, everything will now be dictated by the Realpolitik. That, however, is a hopeless position because real global policies don’t work by trial and error. Obama had his opportunity in the Middle East and it’s hardly realistic to think that he’ll get another during the remaining second half of his administration.

Finally, the Israelis now know that they need not fear Obama. They just allowed him to rev his engine in neutral and demonstrated according to all the rules of diplomacy that his fuel tank is now empty. On the other side, the Palestinians have learned that Obama is not to be trusted. They believed he wanted a halt to Israeli settlement building and climbed high into that tree only to see him pull the ladder away and leave them stranded.

A great deal of damage has happened here, and rather than the promised peace accords within one year, there’ll now be an escalation of dissent because this conflict can’t be put on hold; it needs constant new movement. The United States will hardly be able to influence the coming uninhibited power play and a building boom will take place in West Bank settlements as well as in Arab territory in East Jerusalem. In reaction to this minor territorial war, the Palestinians have already announced their intention to create a homeland independent of any agreement with Israel. They intend to plead their case for recognition before the United Nations. That will precipitate a new crisis. This is all the result of American policies that were perhaps well intentioned but in no way well executed.