Why Gilo Matters

To date, the conventional wisdom regarding the Obama administration’s approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict is that it has had the wrong focus (a complete settlement freeze) with the wrong strategy (that the freeze serve as the basis for restarting negotiations). 

For weeks analysts have been calling for the United States to diminish its expectations, to discard the two-state solution for a different approach, or to simply give up entirely and wait to see what happens. 

So when the administration released a strong statement earlier this week expressing “dismay” over construction in the Gilo neighborhood in South Jerusalem, several observers were quick to argue that this essentially amounts to “more of the same” Arab-Israel diplomatic ineptitude from the Obama administration.  

The Obama administration may have mangled some of the steps necessary to achieve progress in its early months in office with the current right-wing Israeli government and a divided Palestinian society. However, there is one ingredient the administration got right from the beginning, and continues to get right today: determination.

Rather than doubling down on its mistakes, the White House’s statement on Gilo sends an extremely clear message that, despite receiving harsh criticism for the lack of progress thus far, the White House isn’t about to give up anytime soon.

President Obama is serious. So is George Mitchell, who noted at the time of his appointment as special envoy that while working to resolve the Northern Ireland conflict "we had 700 days of failure and one day of success.”

As Shimon Shiffer wrote in the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth this week:

President George Bush announced that the objective of the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians was the creation of two states living side-by-side. A Palestinian state with territorial contiguity, and land swaps that would permit the Israelis in the settlement blocs to remain under Israeli sovereignty in exchange for areas that would be given to the Palestinian entity. Many people will say that Bush didn't mean what he said. Obama means every word.

Still, much of the early reports and analysis suggests that the Americans are fighting against construction in a neighborhood that has long been considered “kosher” for building.

So is Gilo the right fight, at the right time?  Yes, it is.

Firstly, Gilo is indeed considered by Israelis to be part of the Jerusalem municipality, not a settlement.  But the proposed construction is designed such that it would expand Gilo in a way that would impinge on the West Bank (as well as on Palestinian homes in the area), making a viable Palestinian state even harder to achieve.

(Americans for Peace Now has provided a cogent account of the specifics of the plan and why it’s so problematic).

Far from being insignificant, the administration knows that actions like these on so-called final status issues (in this case, the issues of Jerusalem and borders) serve to provoke mistrust and animosity on both sides and distance the entire region further from the goal of a two-state solution.

In other words, the administration needs to draw a line against such actions such that the Israelis and Palestinians actually have a chance to negotiate a line (in this case, a border) between them.

Secondly, the White House’s Gilo statement underscores what might be considered a theme for the Obama administration’s renewed Arab-Israeli strategy—“no more games.”

For weeks, Prime Minister Netanyahu has insisted that he would be willing to sit at the negotiating table with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas at any moment to discuss a two-state solution, if only Abbas would cease his intransigence, drop his preconditions and get serious about talking peace. Yet Netanyahu has remained obdurate himself on halting settlement construction, to the delight of his right-wing coalition partners. You can’t claim you want talks without preconditions, and then create conditions through your actions, as Netanyahu is doing, without compromising the integrity of your position. That’s precisely what the Israeli prime minister has done.

Meanwhile, Abbas and his colleagues in the P.A. are throwing threatening darts, hoping something sticks.  Abbas has warned that he would not run in the next election, his colleagues have threatened to resign, some have suggested the P.A. will consider declaring a unilateral state and others that it is time to take the issue of a Palestinian state to the U.N.  All of this is in part to score political points – as Fatah and Hamas are battling for public opinion in the West Bank and Gaza – and also to pressure the Americans to apply pressure on the Israelis in turn.

In this context, the White House statement on Gilo could represent an important new message from the United States: It is time that both Israeli and Palestinian leaders start putting their national interests ahead of political ones.

For the Palestinians, “no more games” means stopping the threats, recalibrating their short-term demands and achieving results.  Israelis are not going to stop all construction, including within the so-called settlement blocs—that train has effectively left the station. Abbas and the P.A. in the West Bank are reliant on the U.S. and Israel to achieve genuine progress, but it is unlikely that any steps forward can happen under the threats of dissolution of the P.A. or a unilateral declaration of statehood.

For Israel, “no more games” means stopping such measures as the Gilo construction project (preferably before they start) that serve to darken the chances for a two-state solution and put Netanyahu’s public statements in support of peace in stark relief.  It also means providing creative ways to bolster Abbas’ vulnerable position.  Israel needs to show it is prepared to do more than just talk about peace. There are many important measures that can be taken—a prisoner release, improved conditions for Gaza, a halt to new settlement construction, removal of illegal outposts, various economic improvements—that can bolster the P.A.’s credibility and potentially improve the environment such that the parties can eventually get back to the negotiating table.

Earlier this week, Ha’aretz columnist Aluf Benn spoke with Netanyahu and concluded that the prime minister is indeed serious about achieving a two-state solution:

The minute Netanyahu is convincing that he is serious and has a serious peace plan and not mere slogans, the political world will be shaken up, and those supporting a settlement with the Palestinians will back him.

Benn is right; those supporting a conflict resolution will back him—including the American president and a majority of Israelis. The Gilo construction imbroglio offers Netanyahu an opportunity to start to be convincing. He could begin by stopping the construction and reversing the decision, or taking significant measures to strengthen Abbas such as those mentioned above.

“No more games” should also mean something for the United States. After weeks of few statements on the peace process (despite a meeting between Netanyahu and Obama) and even fewer expectations, the strong response of the White House to the Gilo project offers President Obama a chance to lay down new rules: if either side wants to make new demands or take new actions, then they have to counteract them with new, significant concessions.

The new name-of-the-game needs to be accountability.  Obama must take the lead to enforce responsibility on the parties for restarting peace negotiations. If his administration assumes this role, there might be hope for its success after all.