Official White House Photo by Pete Souza
President Barack Obama holds a working dinner with, clockwise from left, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, King Abdullah II of Jordan, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, and Tony Blair, the international Middle East envoy and former British Prime Minister, in the Old Family Dining Room of the White House, Sept. 1, 2010.
The Obama administration has given up on getting the Israeli government to go along with a temporary freeze on settlement activity. Even an extremely generous package of inducements failed to sway Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. This is both a blow to the peace process and to U.S. credibility in the Middle East. The administration finds itself in the most unenviable of situations: having begged in vain for Israel to extend the settlement freeze and then attempted to buy it off without result, the United States seems both inept and weak.
Perhaps, as some suggest, the setback is a blessing in disguise. Foreign policy expert Steve Clemons says it is an opportunity for the United States to rethink its entire approach to the peace process. I hope so. Maybe it’s time for the Obama administration to bring its own comprehensive proposal to the table. At a minimum, such a step could clarify whether the parties are serious about a deal. Clearly, the Obama administration, having invested so heavily in the peace process, shows no signs of simply walking away. (It might be wise, however, for our negotiators to read up on the sunk cost fallacy.)
The administration has its work cut out for it. Prime Minister Netanyahu, having taken the measure of President Obama, clearly feels he can defy him with impunity. Republican gains in the November elections have only strengthened Netanyahu’s already powerful hand. Congressman Eric Cantor — soon to be the Republican majority leader of the House of Representatives — has reassured the Israeli prime minister that Republicans are prepared to act as a “check” on the president’s policies. Netanyahu may be looking forward to the 2012 U.S. elections and the prospect of a Republican president more amenable to the positions of the Israeli government. For his part, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas finds himself in a dangerous corner. On the one hand, the inability of the United States to wring any significant concessions from Israel bolsters his radical rivals in Hamas. On the other hand, the Palestinian Authority remains extremely dependent upon Western largesse.
It is has become a cliché to say that time for a two-state solution is running out. The other options are, to put it mildly, unpalatable. A one-state solution, under which the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza become citizens of Israel, will be fought tooth and nail by most Israelis, who would see such a step — rightly — as the death knell of the Jewish state. The other alternative — essentially maintenance of the status quo, with a continued Israeli military occupation and increasing settlement activity in East Jerusalem and the West Bank — is surely a recipe for further conflict. I consider the chance of the first outcome occurring as close to zero; that of the second, very high, indeed.
Here’s my question. Has the time for a two-state solution already run out? The prospect is almost too painful to consider. Which is why, perhaps, no one — at least in the Obama administration — is willing to give up on a peace process that finds us further away from Israeli-Palestinian agreement than when the Oslo accords were signed in 1993.
Joe Barnes is the Baker Institute’s Bonner Means Baker Fellow. From 1979 to 1993, he was a career diplomat with the U.S. Department of State, serving in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and South Asia.