Obama's Offer and a Lack of Will

One year ago the air was virtually blue with talk of a split between Israel and the US. Biden was publicly humiliated, Netanyahu was snubbed and it looked as if Obama was starting to demand Israeli compliance as repayment for US assistance. It looked as if the metaphorical reset button which had been pulled out of his pocket in Cairo was about to be pressed.

A year later and things couldn't be more different. The US is currently offering Israel even greater levels of support in return for temporary and half-hearted compliance with international law and US demands. The US will sell Israel 20 state-of-the-art jets, provide assurances that it will silence certain UN debates. In return it will get 90 days where settlement construction in the West Bank is halted. This is, quite obviously, an awful deal from an American perspective. Unlike his predecessor, Obama is not ideologically committed to Likud policy. Unlike other presidents he does not have the luxury of treating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a sideshow. So how did he end up in this position?

A large part of the responsibility has to fall on Obama's already burdened shoulders. In a pattern that we have all become familiar with, he begins with lofty rhetoric, adopts a moderate position, unilaterally compromises when there is no partner for compromise and then proceeds to compromise on the compromise. The initial demand was for a halt to all settlement construction, then for a temporary freeze and this time - the compromise of the compromise - for a three month freeze outside of Jerusalem. This distressingly weak habit was aggravated this time around by picking the wrong issue - the Israeli government needs to stop settlement construction, but it would be very hard for any government, let alone Netanyahu's, to halt the JCBs. By picking this as a key issue Obama has forced Abbas into a position where he cannot negotiate whilst settlement construction is ongoing, leading us to the impasse we currently face.

He has forced both parties into a corner and has not given them a way out. Perhaps Obama is secretly trying to kill off Oslo, and in that case he has my support and I commend him for his excellent manipulation of the situation. If, however, he does not reject Oslo, this is incredibly misjudged. If, however, he does think that a mythical 'final status' agreement can be reached, then he is frustrating the entire process by only allowing negotiations to occur in short windows. He has given the Israeli government the ability to hold the entire process hostage, by creating a situation where Israeli far-right cooperation is required for either of the other two parties to legitimately and effectively participate in the negotiations.

Personally, I believe Obama was gambling on his initial demand for an unconditional settlement freeze. I think he believed he had a chance, a good chance, of forcing the Israeli government into at least paying lip service to this. If he had succeeded it would have established American dominance over the US government and given the Americans greater credibility down the line in forcing the Israelis into making other difficult choices. It also would have forced the settler movement into a position where it had to decide between the US alliance or continued construction. If the gamble had paid off, then the political environment would be markedly more hospitable for doves.

To defeat the settlers, however, required facing down Netanyahu and forcing him to choose between the US and the settler movement. It required will, a will Obama lacks, as well as the almost brain-dead stubbornness needed to play chicken with a blind opponent. It became a question of who would blink first and, as per usual, it was Obama.