As he settles into his new office at the State Department, John Kerry has already begun to move on what he has said will be an early priority: reinvigorating the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Reuters reports that Obama is not underwriting a strong push, that he will “proceed cautiously and let Kerry . . . take soundings for any fresh effort. That could allow Obama to avoid investing too much personal capital in a fresh effort until there was a prospect of real progress.”
This soft approach will not succeed. It might not even get far enough to be a failure. Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians are in a position to seek peace. The critics of Netanyahu’s 2009 speech offering a two-state solution are in the ascendancy in Israel, and the ongoing instability in the neighborhood gives few a desire to allow the Palestinian Authority more sovereignty. Meanwhile, Palestine continues live under two governments, leaving nobody with the authority and deep legitimacy needed to make, on behalf of the Palestinian people, the wrenching concessions on issues like the right of return that will be a component of any major deal. The Israelis don’t want to talk; the Palestinians can’t talk.
Any peace bid in this context would be troubled. The United States is an outside power in the Levant; it is easy for us to want peace when we aren’t accruing most of the costs of a deal. It is a bit naive to believe that such a state, however strong, could settle a foreign conflict rooted in incompatible interests on its own. Still, Washington has the ability to shape the discussion and cajole the two sides back to the table, provided both know that they will face the wrath of the president if they impede talks. Obama is not making such a threat, and Kerry, for all his gravitas, lacks the power to do so. Worse still, progress in the peace process would create new domestic pressures which Kerry would struggle to manage without his boss’s support. There is a danger that Kerry’s first big initiative will thus fail, weakening him and diluting America’s diplomatic power. A few bridges with Israel might burn, which could have knock-on effects on the dispute with Iran; a failed negotiation could spark an intifada.
We can only hope, then, that this is merely a pro forma peace push, and that Kerry has the judgment to discreetly fold a bad hand rather than betting big on a bluff. The secretary of state is one of America’s most powerful officials, and accordingly can resolve many matters without involving the president. The peace process, however, is not such a matter. The president must take leadership, indicating that he considers it a central priority and empowering his lieutenants to act boldly on his behalf. Otherwise peace will remain stuck in neutral.
Comments
John Allen Gay said:
Oh what crap. What pure-dee crap as they say in the South. It's such crap that earlier in his piece Allen himself admits it's crap that we can settle things there. So how the hell come the sole, plainer-than-hell logic coming from the mountains of stuff like this seemingly never even gets spoken? That—as obviously as obvious can be—the U.S. should just utterly and totally disengage in the fun little conflict the parties are having over there? Utterly and totally stop subidizing either side to the tune of our billions per year? Oh wait, I know: It's because our subsidizing is precisely what is massively contributing to Israel not needing to make peace, and despite that crystal clear reality one can never advocate that. (No matter that it's clearly and hugely in the U.S. interest to do so.) And so instead we get these pure-dee crap little pieces, over and over, from everyone, that make the foreign-policy community and commentariat feel good about themselves. "Hey," they think, "everyone important writes about the Israeli/Palestinian issue, I better write something about it too!," and out comes the meaningless pablum. Or "Gee, I've really got nothing I can say about the issue, but just so that people continue to regard me as an expert in same I better regurgitate some old words in a new article no matter how irrelevant they are so as to maintain my alleged reputation!" And so the circle of sham is complete. Typically, it's just the ... one more call for the President to get (ever more) involved! As if this is all U.S. Presidents are elected to do. So everyone benefits. Israel, the Palestinians, the Egyptians, American politicians, the American commentariat.... Everyone except the American taxpayer who year after year gets it in the neck, all for the privilege of getting it even worse in the next for the next years due to the insane call that "we can't give up now!" This is all stupidity and corruption on stilts. Where the hell is the American patriot who just simply says "Enough"?