Charm doesn’t work in Mideast
President Obama himself at fault for failure of trilateral summit in NY
US President Barack Obama stood at the podium and reprimanded the Palestinian and Israeli leaders next to him for not doing enough to resume negotiations. “It is past time to talk about starting negotiations - it is time to move forward,” he said. Yet he forgot to mention that he is the one responsible for the dead-end no less so than the leaders he reprimanded.
Even the president’s aides admit now that he made two mistakes on the settlements front: By focusing all attention on the construction freeze while ignoring much greater obstacles en route to negotiations, and by demanding a total freeze, including an end to construction in Jerusalem and the large settlement blocs. No government in Israel can accept such terms.
Mahmoud Abbas, who only months ago engaged in intensive negotiations with Olmert without presenting any preconditions, realized he cannot demand less than what the US president wants. Even after the Obama administration realized its mistake and engaged in talks with Israel on a temporary and limited construction freeze, Abbas continued to insist on an absolute and unlimited freeze.
The result was failure by the president’s special envoy, Senator George Mitchell, to prompt the renewal of negotiations – a move that was supposed to play a starring role in the trilateral meeting. During the summit, Obama used a new term, “restraining the settlements,” which will surely disappoint the Palestinians and Arabs who already saw in their mind’s eye how an American president forces Netanyahu to freeze construction at all settlements.
In the absence of substantial results on the ground, an attempt was being made to produce appearance of progress. Obama, who is a media, persuasion, and imagery master, decided to convene a trilateral meeting in order to create an image of leadership and commitment to securing an Israeli-Palestinian deal. Perhaps he thought that charm and persuasion ability will prompt the leaders to shift from their tough positions. If this is what he thought, he certainly learned by now that these traits do not work in the Middle East.
No room for optimism
After eight months in the White House, Obama, who aspired to lead broad and rapid revolutions in the US and in the world, cannot boast of any significant achievement. The trilateral summit, or more accurately its photos, was meant to demonstrate leadership ability and personal commitment by the president to prompting revolutionary changes in Israel’s ties with the Arabs. Here you go, the president managed to bring together leaders who did not want to do it. Yet the forced summit, in New York and not at the White House, during the UN’s General Assembly and not as an event in and of itself, served to demonstrate the president’s weakness rather than his power.
Obama again sat an unrealistic target date for the start of negotiations, a few weeks from now. A few months ago he ruled that Israel and the Palestinians must secure a final-status agreement and establish a Palestinian state within two years. This is a timetable in line with American politics and presidential and Congress elections, rather than the objective conditions in the Middle East. Similarly, a few weeks ago he ruled that in summer, before Congress goes on break, legislation that would bring genuine revolution to America’s health service will be completed. Yet Congress, which is under complete Democratic control, rejected the president’s plans and his timetable.
American public opinion is bothered by the still faltering economy and by Obama’s plans on the health front. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is of no interest to it. This conflict is also of no particular interest to most leaders who arrived at the UN General Assembly. They are much more interested in rehabilitating the global economy, in Iran’s nuclear program, in fears of nuclear proliferation, in the swine flu, and in the negative implications of hothouse gases affecting the global climate.
We will only be able to assess the summit’s results in the near future. For the time being there is no room for great optimism in respect to the chances of securing an Israeli-Palestinian final-status agreement or to Obama’s international leadership.
Professor Eytan Gilboa is a US expert and a political science and communications lecturer at Bar-Ilan University
