The White House is pushing back against a D.C. rumor that President Barack Obama sent a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu offering a slew of favors in exchange for a two month extension of the West Bank settlement freeze.
The rumor originated from a blog written by researcher David Makovsky, who has ties to Obama aide and peace-process staple Dennis Ross. The two men co-authored a recent book on the peace process (read my review here). Makovsky protects his source, but describes the letter in startling detail. He wrote:
“According to senior U.S. officials, the administration’s efforts culminated in a draft letter negotiated with Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak and chief Israeli peace negotiator Yitzhak Molcho, and ultimately sent from President Obama’s desk to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.”
On policy issues, Makovsky says the administration promises not to ask for another settlement freeze extension, says it will veto any disfavorable UN Security Council initiative on the peace process, promises to accept Israel’s definition of its security needs and states that regional security (read: Iran) will be paramount to future Middle East peace process negotiations. Makovsky writes:
“In this context, the draft letter explicitly mentions the need to ensure a complete ban on the smuggling of rockets, mortars, arms, and related items, as well as the infiltration of terrorists into Israel. This touches on one of the most sensitive aspects of negotiations: averting infiltration into Israel from the eastern border of a Palestinian state.”
All of this could be pure fiction. But, for the sake of argument, let’s operate under the premise that this letter — or at least the administration promises — are true.
These promises provide a startling insight into the inner-thinking of the Obama administration. The fact that the White House would promise several far-reaching concessions, such as the guaranteed UN veto, illustrates that the administration truly believes that an end to settlements in the very short term will create major strides in the peace process.
Quite the contrary. Settlements are a major impediment to final peace talks and keeping the Palestinians at the negotiating table. But, negotiations only began this month and the settlement freeze has been in place for nearly a year. The conflict has been ongoing for decades — another two months of the settlement freeze will not make a dent in the peace process. Perhaps a permanent or years-long settlement freeze would provide the Palestinians with some assurance that Israel is willing to make concessions. But, a two month extension of a partial settlement freeze is insignificant.
Instead of pressuring Israel, the administration should focus its efforts on ensuring that the Palestinians are willing to stay at the negotiating table and actually make concessions on key issues — such as the right of return.
Granted, pressure on the Palestinians should not result in the administration ceasing to urge Israel to halt settlement construction. But, the administration was offering significant gestures to Israel for a minor concession. Instead, the administration should use those cards to push Israel into much more substantial concessions — such as a construction halt in Jerusalem.
And, if the United States promised to ratchet-up its Iran policy — by either authorizing an Israeli attack or beginning to launch its own military strike — the Israeli government might then express some willingness to consider Jerusalem construction. Netanyahu has described the Iranian nuclear program as his top priority and temporarily angering some Israelis to please the rest could spark his interest.
Therefore, if Obama is planning on bribing Bibi, he should reassess the cost, and, if he is legitimately prioritizing the Middle East, he should ratchet-up his offer and demands.
