Working Out the Peace Process

Even though the Obama administration has publicly clashed with Netanyahu administration, resulting in what some have called a crisis, the White House has floated the idea of drafting a new peace proposal. Some reports indicate that U.S. and Israeli officials have secretly begun ironing out differences, with the top state department Middle East advisory traveling to the region and holding marathon meetings in Jerusalem.

Meanwhile, a key lawmaker is publicly chastising the administration for focusing on settlements instead of the Iranian nuclear program.

And, a new poll suggests that a two-state solution is losing ground among Palestinians, with 34 percent of Palestinians opting for a single, bi-national state.

The administration is weighing how to address the Iranian nuclear threat, issuing the strongest language yet that that the administration is considering a military strike. Further, the Syrian ambassador was summoned to the State Department to be condemned for permitting terrorists to obtain missiles, presumably to be used against Israel.

With all these changes and moving parts, some observers think the White House has still not determined its approach to the region and whether to prod Israel or take a staunch stance that could anger Palestinians and the Arab world.

Former Nixon and Carter administration aide William Quandt, who was integral to the Egypt-Israel Camp David peace accords, expressed concern that the administration is still evaluating the region — and time is running out on some crucial issues such as IRan and the ever-growing Palestinian opposition to a two-state solution. Quandt wrote:

“My own reading of this administration is that it really has not yet made up its mind what to do about Israel, the Palestinians and Syria–and this far into a new administration, that is reason for concern. On the one hand, there are frequent references to a major national interest in Arab-Israeli peace. That helps to explain Obama’s early focus on this issue, his selection of Senator George Mitchell to be his special envoy, his speech in Cairo last year, his tough stance on Israeli settlement activity, his frostiness toward Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the recent leaks about a peace plan.”

Quandt said the administration can’t succeed in its Middle East efforts until the White House takes a firm stance and aggresively pursues its strategy. He said:

“Arab-Israeli peacemaking is not for the faint of heart. The U.S. has done best in this difficult business when it was led by presidents and secretaries of state who had a clear notion of what was at stake, and who did not give up when they encountered resistance from the reticent and quarrelsome parties to the conflict. If the Obama Administration does decide to follow in the footsteps of Team A–Nixon-Kissinger, Carter-Vance and Bush I-Baker instead of Team B–Reagan, Clinton and Bush II–they will have to anticipate sharp criticism, complaints from the parties that we are being unfair or one-sided, and, in today’s political environment, probably strong partisan criticism.”