Obama Pivots and Re-loads on Mideast Peace

Much of the analysis following this week's tripartite meeting in New York reported a victory for Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a failure for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and a blow to President Obama's efforts to advance Mideast peace and security.   But the process is just beginning; it's far from over.

True, the Americans stepped down from their insistence on a complete freeze of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.  For months the United States, led by Special Envoy George Mitchell, had been pressing Israel to halt all construction, including in areas the Israelis deemed to be the result of "natural growth."   By not re-iterating this demand - and instead calling for settlements to be "restrained" - President Obama has softened his position. Even more, the president called for negotiations to begin "without preconditions," a common refrain of Prime Minister Netanyahu in recent weeks in response to Abbas' public demand that all settlement construction cease before negotiations resume.

These can be interpreted as "victories" for Prime Minister Netanyahu. 

The United States came to a pragmatic realization that the expectations for a complete settlement freeze had become too high.  The issue was becoming the main focus, in essence hijacking the agenda and keeping the broader strategic objectives at bay. 

In this regard, this week's tripartite summit put an end to the "settlements-are-the-only-issue discussions" of recent weeks and months. This was not as much a defeat for the administration as it was a pivot. 

It wasn't all good news for Bibi. Abbas did not back away from his demand for a settlement freeze and did not leave New York empty handed. 

President Obama used his remarks at the United Nations General Assembly to express the strongest endorsement yet by an American president for a "viable, independent" Palestinian state, one "with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people." He said "the United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians."

Furthermore, rather than endorse Netanyahu's vision of an "economic peace," President Obama essentially doubled-down on his commitment to Mideast peacemaking, using his UN speech to pledge to "pursue peace between Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Syria, and a broader peace between Israel and its many neighbors." He also did not abandon the settlement issue, saying "we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements."

Of course, Obama also made similarly strong statements for Israel, declaring America's "unwavering commitment to its security" and stating that "nations within this body do the Palestinians no favors when they choose vitriolic attacks against Israel over constructive willingness to recognize Israel's legitimacy and its right to exist in peace and security."  And, Netanyahu was delighted after the speech that the president had endorsed the concept of Israel as a Jewish state, a key demand of his administration in any future talks. 

Those prematurely writing off President Obama and his administration's peacemaking efforts are missing two critical points.

First, the administration has achieved much more than it is given credit for.  In the administration's first nine months, Palestinian and Israeli security cooperation is at an all-time high; the Palestinian economy in the West Bank has greatly improved; Israel has removed dozens of unnecessary checkpoints and roadblocks; despite continued growth in existing settlements, no new settlements have been established; and, a Likud Prime Minister leading a coalition government of mostly right-wing parties has endorsed the concept of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  These feats should not be underestimated-and they are the result of this administration's persistence.

Second, it is still early in the game.  The U.S. tried a policy--a complete settlement freeze as a precursor to negotiations.  It didn't work.  However, because the administration was engaged early and often, it can now adjust its policy in a way that - rather than capitulating to either side's demands - re-calibrates to an approach that can ensure that progress does not get stalled in endless debates over incremental steps. 

In this respect, the tripartite meeting was President Obama's chance to adjust and re-load.  The coming weeks and months will indicate how he proposes to advance the Mideast peace process.  One thing he made perfectly clear this week is he is not about to back down from the challenge.