Donald Trump has surveyed the wreckage of decades of failed Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy, considered the world full of challenges his administration faces, and somehow concluded that.
He’s going to be the president who brokers a
comprehensive Mideast deal. “It might be a bigger and better deal than people
in this room even understand,” he proclaimed last week at a news conference
with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
What is it about the Holy Land that inspires
such messianism? Perhaps the question answers itself. In any case, Trump’s
outsize diplomatic ambition is hardly unique. In fact, it bears a striking
resemblance to that of John Kerry and Barack Obama.
For American leaders, the shining allure of
the Israeli-Palestinian peace prize appears to induce blindness to the
conditions on the ground; deafness to expert advisers who point out that a
grand initiative will be doomed to failure; and an irrational conviction that a
new American strategy for peace can suddenly make success possible.
By the time Obama took office in 2009, the
prospects for a deal on a Palestinian state were already moribund, thanks in
large part to the leaders of the two sides: Netanyahu and Palestinian President
Mahmoud Abbas, who in addition to despising each other were unwilling and
politically unable to make the necessary concessions. Eight years later, both
are still in place, only weaker and even more intransigent than before.
According to the AP, Kerry proposed renewed
Israeli-Palestinian peace talks in exchange for regional recognition that
Israel is a Jewish state, which would’ve included peace with dozens of Muslim
and Arab nations.
Netanyahu, who has long sought for Israeli to
be recognized regionally, turned down the offer because he would have to pull
out from territories seized in the 1967 Mideast war, which are now occupied by
Israelis.
The arrangement reportedly also would have
called for recognition of Jerusalem as a shared capital for Israelis and
Palestinians and softer language on the "right to return" for
Palestinian refugees who lost properties in what is now Israel.
The officials speaking to the AP saw this
deal as a way of “updating” but not “superseding” the 2002 Arab initiative. The
proposal was apparently positively received by Egyptian and Jordanian leaders,
but Netanyahu would not commit to it.
Not to worry, concluded Obama: He could
succeed where others had failed by exercising a bit of U.S. tough love with
Israel, starting with a demand for a total freeze on settlement construction in
the West Bank. That, combined with his outreach to the Muslim world, would
allow a peace deal to be struck within two years.
Obama’s plan soon flopped, for the very
reason his expert advisers warned him it would: U.S. pressure would never
induce Israel to entirely freeze settlement construction. That gave Abbas the
excuse he was looking for to refuse negotiations.
Then came Kerry, whose theory was that both
sides would bow to what Washington sees as the inevitable terms of a
settlement. They just needed someone, such as him, with the political skills
and tireless dedication to make them do it. An exhausting year later, the
experts were proved right again: Neither Netanyahu nor Abbas accept the U.S.
outline, even as a vague basis for further negotiations.
Two former top aides to Kerry confirmed that
the meeting took place secretly on Feb. 21, 2016. According to the officials,
Kerry tried to sweeten the 15-year-old “Arab Peace Initiative,” a Saudi-led
plan that offered Israel peace with dozens of Arab and Muslim nations in return
for a pullout from territories captured in the 1967 Mideast war to make way for
an independent Palestine.
Among the proposed changes were Arab
recognition of Israel as the Jewish state, recognition of Jerusalem as a shared
capital for Israelis and Palestinians, and softened language on the “right of
return” of Palestinian refugees to lost properties in what is now Israel, the
former officials said.
Now it’s Trump, who like Obama seems to think
that the United States should pare back its global commitments and stop trying
to nation-build except when it comes to the Israelis and Palestinians. Once
again the seasoned experts are sounding their warnings: “Today, unfortunately,
the conditions are not set for a peace agreement, given an unprecedented gulf
between the two sides,” report Mideast veterans David Makovsky and Dennis Ross.
“Neither Israelis nor Palestinians at this moment believe that peace is either
possible or desirable,” writes another, Martin Indyk.
Never mind, says Trump: He has a new concept!
Actually, it’s an old one rewarmed by Netanyahu, who last year proposed that
Israel build on its common interests with Sunni states such as Egypt, Jordan
and Saudi Arabia, which also are focused on containing Iranian expansionism and
destroying Islamic jihadists. Along the way, they might agree on a peace deal
in which Muslim regimes finally recognize Israel in exchange for concessions to
the Palestinians.
“It is something that is very different,
hasn’t been discussed before” was Trump’s naive account. “And it’s actually a
much bigger deal, a much more important deal, in a sense. It would take in
many, many countries and it would cover a very large territory.”
In reality, the idea dates to 2002, when a
proposal by Saudi Arabia for relations with Israel in exchange for its
withdrawal from occupied territories was adopted by the Arab League. That it
has gone nowhere since then is telling: Arab governments are not prepared to
negotiate on behalf of the Palestinians, much less endorse terms for a
settlement that Abbas would reject. The process would work only if Israel and
the Palestinians simultaneously reached agreement which, for now, they can’t
and won’t.
Makovsky and Ross have a sensible suggestion:
Instead of aiming for a Mideast home run, perhaps this administration should
try for a few solid singles. One could be persuading Netanyahu to limit
settlement construction to areas inside the security barrier Israel has built
near its border with the West Bank; another would be getting Palestinians to
stop paying subsidies to the families of militants who carry out violent
attacks against Israelis.
A few such steps might gradually create a
better diplomatic climate and at least preserve the option of Palestinian
statehood for the future. Of course, Trump would gain no peace prizes or
boasting rights but he would avoid becoming another Middle East loser.
0 Comments