It’s going to be a big few days for Israel here in Washington D.C.
On Sunday, President Barack Obama will address the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, likely putting himself front-and-center on the peace process, the so-called Arab Spring and the occasionally tense relationship between the United States and Israel. The speech will come days after the the U.S. peace envoy George Mitchell officially steps down amidst a stagnant peace process, increased violence between Israel and the Palestinians and a possible war brewing in the region after Israel’s border was threatened on three fronts this weekend.
With Mitchell out of the picture, the administration must now put a new face to the U.S. peace process efforts. And, at least for now, that face appears to be the countenance of the President himself. With Obama, albeit possibly only in the short term, making himself the face of the peace process after Mitchell’s departure, the President is taking on the responsibility for the outcome of any negotiations, for better or worse. But the prognosis isn’t great.
Even with Mitchell shuttling between the Israelis and Palestinians, both sides are still mired in distrust and constrained by domestic politics from making concessions to push the peace process forward. Since Obama took office, the Israelis and the Palestinians only met face-to-face on a very limited number of occasions, usually to avoid embarrassing the administration by not at least sitting down for a cup of coffee. But substance negotiations have not occurred, with Israeli and Palestinians both establishing certain criteria — such as the recognition of Israel’s right to exist or an uninhibited end to settlement construction — that have gone unmet.
The Obama administration’s track record on these negotiations is not superb, to say the least. With Obama as the face of the United States in pressuring the parties to negotiate, he could either jump start talks and resurrect a near-dead peace process, or, negotiations could fail to accelerate within the next year and a half. Either way, so long as Obama is paraded as having a hand in the negotiations, the President gets credit — or blame — for the outcome.
Even if Obama can resolve the refusal-to-negotiate impasse, actual talks have garnered very little progress. Both President Bill Clinton and George W. Bush expended quite a bit of time, energy and political capital to forge a lasting peace, to no avail.
The Obama speech will also likely provide the administration’s position on peace talks ahead of a key visit from Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu next week. Obama’s statements — or avoidance of key issues — will be critical to understanding the post-Mitchell administration policy and priorities, and then how Netanyahu either echoes or spurns those sentiments.
The fallout from the forthcoming speeches, policy positions articulated or avoided, and the perception that Obama is taking a lead role in the peace process will be the talk of Washington, D.C., Jerusalem, Ramallah and beyond.
While the 2012 election won’t likely hinge on whether the Palestinians and Israelis reach a peace deal, the impact of Obama-orchestrated peace negotiations could factor into the perception of Obama as player on the world stage. Will Obama be the President who caught terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden and resolved the unresolvable Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Or, if negotiations do not commence, will Obama be the President who failed to strong-arm peace negotiations and, possibly, fostered an environment where Arab revolutions created more countries run by radical Islamists.
Only time will tell, but the outcome of whether Obama-orchestrated peace negotiations take root will certainly factor into the perception of whether Obama has any clout in the Middle East, and possibly impact his reelection chances in 2012.
