The Debate on Dennis

There is only a handful of figures in the Israel-Palestinian conflict that have guided peace efforts and remain relevant today. Israeli President Shimon Peres helped shepherd in the Oslo accords, but remains on the outskirts of current policy efforts in his ceremonial role. The memory of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat continue to permeate negotiations and their respective society, but both officials died long ago.

However, White House advisor Dennis Ross helped shape the Oslo accords and remains relevant in how the current administration negotiates with Israel and the peace process. Ross has been a long time advocate of the “ripe” argument to peace negotiations. He has always alleged that the United States cannot impose peace and stipulations on either Israel or the Palestinians. Instead, he has said, the United States should serve as a mediator and can only succeed in its role when the situation on the ground is “ripe” enough for peace.

Further, Ross has worked for the powerful pro-Israel Washington D.C.-based think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Ross’ background as pro-Israel and touting the “ripe” theory to peace has put him somewhat at odds with the Obama administration’s policies, even though he is helping to craft them. The White House, as written widely here, has recently upped pressure on Israel to halt settlement construction, including a temporary freeze on building in East Jerusalem.

A recent article has thrust that private White House debate into the spot light, and Ross’ role has been hotly debated this week. The article pegs Ross, and other pro-Israel officials, against other Obama advisers, such as those policy makers aligned with Special Envoy George Mitchell who has reportedly been frustrated with the pro-Israel slant of the administration.

One official attacked Ross, saying:

“And no one asks the question: Why, since his approach in the Oslo years was such an abysmal failure, is he back, peddling the same snake oil?”

The officials point is that Ross has had a major hand in developing U.S. policy towards the peace process for two decades, yet the Oslo accords crumbled and the current negotiations are all but dead. The official basically says that Ross’ strategy toward the peace process is wrong and that he has failed for the last twenty years.

On one hand, that official is spot on. No one I know has failed in their job for twenty years, yet gets subsequently rehired and promoted.

That said, none of my friends have tried to navigate one of the most contentious and complicated disputes of the last century.

Ross’ strategy has not progressed. But, that strategy might not be the cause of failure. If his ripeness theory is correct, then the players must fall in line for peace first, something they have not yet done and probably won’t be ready in the near future.

Further, Ross brings something to the table that very few other officials can- he knows the players and brings credibility to the White House. Because he has devoted the better part of the last two decades to the peace process, Ross has a personal relationship with almost all the relevant officials. Similarly, he knows the intricacies of Israeli policy and whether the Israeli population — and more importantly the current coalition — would support certain provisions for peace, such as a land swap or a settlement freeze.

Moreover, Ross’ pro-Israel background provides the White House with cover that criticisms of Israeli policies are excessive. By having a staunch Israeli supporter guiding policy, the White House can leverage Ross as an asset that keeps any anti-Israeli or Israel-critical decisions to a minimum. And if Ross genuinely thought the Obama administration was excessively anti-Israel, I am sure he would resign.

That said, Ross’ allegiances are not to Israel over the United States. Ross is an American who believes in the shared values between the two countries and the strategic necessity to maintaining close ties with Israel.

As the peace process remains stagnant, or even if it resumes, Ross and Mitchell are likely to be at the center of the spot light. It is yet to be determined whether Ross’ “ripeness” argument is accurate and whether the current situation fits his criteria for the resumption of negotiations. It is also yet to be determined how much influence Ross will have moving forward and whether he, Mitchell, or other officials will sway policy toward their ideology.

What is known is that Ross is a pro-Israel voice in an administration that has become increasingly critical of Israel, particularly settlement construction. These efforts to arm-twist the Netanyahu administration into taking the first steps toward peace will guide the resumption of peace talks and Ross will have an integral role in shaping how much pressure the White House will exert.