It may be that United States President Barack Obama’s magic is wearing off.
More likely, delays he has encountered in kick-starting the Middle East peace process — which he considers a US national security priority — merely reflect the notorious complexity of the task and the bloody-mindedness of those involved.
Change is an easy slogan. Making it reality is the hard part.
The presence this week of half a dozen senior Obama advisers in Israel, plus their side visits to Syria, Egypt and the Palestinian territories, gives the impression of furious, progressive diplomatic activity. This is doubtless deliberate.
US-Israeli relations have dipped sharply, with Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, bluntly refusing to take US ”orders” on ending settlement growth, east Jerusalem demolitions, Iran, or anything else. Obama’s peace drive, like other flagship policies, has faltered.
Now the Americans are publicly making nice while pressing hard in private. US envoy George Mitchell emphasised the enduring strength of bilateral friendship. Defence secretary Robert Gates is offering security reassurance in talks on missile defence and Iran.
Meanwhile, the parties are reportedly edging closer to a deal on freezing Jewish settlement construction for a fixed, possibly six-month, period, with the exception of 700 buildings now under construction.
The response of Arab neighbours and the Palestinians to any such deal will be crucial if Obama is to succeed in getting real negotiations under way.
Mitchell, who has promised an inclusive peace agenda by the end of the northern summer, is urging them to make reciprocal, confidence-building gestures, possibly including Israel-Arab overflight agreements, visa and trade relaxations and cultural exchanges.
An unusual piece of public diplomacy published in the Washington Post recently by Bahrain’s crown prince, Sheikh Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, was one such effort. ”We must stop the small-minded waiting game in which each side refuses to budge until the other side makes the first move,” he wrote.
Waiting for someone else to jump first is precisely what Saudi Arabia and Syria are doing, adamant that Netanyahu must give ground before they move. The Palestinian position is identical, albeit complicated by Fatah-Hamas disunity and institutional and economic weakness.
Opinion about a settlements freeze and what Netanyahu should deliver to a peace process is similarly divided inside Israel.
”The bottom line is, we [Israel] can’t stay there [in the Occupied Territories] and they [the Palestinians] can’t govern,” said Alon Pinkas, a former diplomat. The government would be forced to make concessions, he predicted. ”If Netanyahu continues to mess up his relations with Obama, he will go down. He has less than a year.”
Isaac Herzog, a Labour ally in Netanyahu’s coalition, said conditions presented ”a golden opportunity to move full speed ahead to a regional peace process”.
The conservative Netanyahu, he said, ”knows he has to make historic decisions— He’s thinking about it. He can shift.” But for progress to be made, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, would have to shift, too, he said.
Israeli settlers are deeply suspicious. ”We’ve already got a freeze on settlement ‘natural growth’, so what Obama is suggesting makes no difference,” said Oded Revivi, the mayor of Efrat, in the southern West Bank, who complained of a housing shortage resulting from a building halt. ”Obama thinks because he got elected, he can bring peace to the whole world.”
Gidi Kelman, who lives in the dusty, wind-blown Givet Boaz hillside outpost, one of 23 settlements even the Israeli government deems illegal and that Netanyahu has pledged to dismantle, said all of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) was Israel’s by right.
”If they bulldoze us, people will go nuts. But I don’t believe it will happen. In the long run we’re much more determined [than the Palestinians] and we will stay.”
Yariv Oppenheimer, the secretary general of Peace Now, is not optimistic about a peace breakthrough. If the regional settlement sought by Obama was to be attained, Oppenheimer said, Israel needed a ”big leader” such as Ariel Sharon.
”[Netanyahu] is similar to [former prime minister Yitzhak] Shamir. He will try to manage the conflict and the relationship with the US.” —