The Obama-Netanyahu Divide

After his meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah yesterday, President Barack Obama said of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, "We can't talk forever. . . . At some point steps have to be taken so that people can see progress on the ground."

So far, the Obama administration's diplomatic approach to the Middle East has been about just that-talk, and to just about everyone. In speeches, press briefings, and YouTube messages, the administration has been methodically laying out a Middle East strategy that aspires to a comprehensive regional order, and peace, from Algeria to the Gulf.

Until now, the Obama administration has been focused on listening to the concerned parties, but when President Obama meets Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on May 18th, the conversation is expected to focus on action-what the Obama administration plans to achieve in the Middle East, and how the Netanyahu administration's policies fit in. Until that meeting, President Obama said yesterday, the Israelis "are going to have to formulate and I think solidify their positions."

They have a few weeks left to do so, but observers increasingly note that if recent statements are anything to go by, a wide gulf is forming between the Obama and Netanyahu administrations.  

So far most of the evidence comes from what the two sides are saying. Here is a sampling.

No Peace Until Palestinians Recognize Israel as Jewish?

On his third trip to Israel as special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell asserted the U.S. commitment to the creation of a Palestinian state. In response, Netanyahu told Mitchell that, "Israel expects the Palestinians to first recognize Israel as a Jewish state before talking about two states for two peoples"-a condition the State Department called "unacceptable to the United States."

Netanyahu subsequently modified this condition by saying that the Palestinians would not have to recognize Israel as the state of the Jews (over 20 percent of Israelis are not Jewish) to begin peace talks, but that no peace deal would be concluded without it. So far, the issue remains unresolved.

Israel Is Not Bound to the Annapolis Peace Process

The Annapolis process initiated by former President George W. Bush was the most recent attempt to define and resolve the outstanding issues holding up the peace process and come to a final agreement on a Palestinian state. The Obama administration had not officially endorsed the plan when Israel's new Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, rejected it. "There is one document [the roadmap] that obligates us-and that's not the Annapolis conference, it has no validity. The Israeli government never ratified Annapolis, nor did [the] Knesset," Lieberman said.

Days later, President Obama responded, "Let me be clear, the United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. . . . That is a goal that the parties agreed to in the roadmap and at Annapolis. And that is a goal that I will actively pursue as president."  

Whose Roadmap for Middle East Peace?

While disavowing Annapolis, Foreign Minister Lieberman did say that Israel is committed to the roadmap for Middle East Peace. In that commitment to the Bush administration the Palestinians vowed to fight terror and streamline their security forces, among other things, and Israel promised to stop settlement construction, and remove settlements they define as illegal and roadblocks that impede movement without providing security.

The potential conflict between Israel and the United States is not about whether Israel accepts the plan, but rather what version of the plan it accepts, and when it will begin its implementation. Ariel Sharon's government accepted the roadmap, but it added to it 14 unilateral reservations, and specified that Israel would not implement its initial requirements until the Palestinians had fulfilled all of their security commitments (contrary to the intent of the roadmap's framers).

Today, the Israeli daily Ma'ariv revealed that the U.S. envoy charged with monitoring the implementation of the roadmap, General Paul Selva, submitted a report to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that states: "Israel is evading the implementation of the steps required of it by the roadmap." More specifically, the report "includes harsh criticism of Israel's conduct on the matter of removing roadblocks. The report states that there is a large degree of deception in the Israeli conduct, since Israel removes barriers but builds new ones at the same time. The report states that the freedom of movement for Palestinians to which Israel has committed itself is not being implemented, and movement has not been eased." The report also claims that "there is no real evacuation of settlements."

When President Obama told reporters that it was time for "concrete steps" to be taken, he was undoubtedly referring to these roadmap commitments. Whether or not this report is mentioned, its findings can be expected to be a topic of conversation on May 18.

The Arab Peace Initiative

The Arab Peace Initiative, the Arab League offer for regional peace and full normalization with Israel in exchange for a Palestinian state, has been kicking around since 2002. Several Israeli leaders have hailed the initiative, including Israeli President Shimon Peres, but there has been no real dialogue about it yet. George Mitchell promoted the plan in Israel last week, and the Obama administration has been signaling recently that the initiative would be a major element of their diplomatic approach.

However, Avigdor Lieberman may have thrown a wrench into that plan yesterday when he called the Arab Initiative, "a dangerous proposal, a recipe for the destruction of Israel."

Where to from Here?

Lieberman's statement will not sabotage President Obama's plan for Middle East diplomacy. In fact he may just be reacting to its inevitability. (His main concern regarding the Arab Peace Initiative seems to be its implied call for the right of return of Palestinian refugees, a provision that will be negotiated if the Arab Initiative is adopted.)

Iran First?

But the next important test of President Obama's diplomatic approach will occur when Obama and Netanyahu meet next month. Ironically, the issue that could kill the peace process is the one they are both focused on-how to deal with Iran.    

Obama is believed to be preparing a comprehensive Middle East peace plan that deals with Iran by offering it engagement but also by addressing the major issues it meddles in: the Syrian-Israeli and Palestinian-Israeli peace process, and cooperation with Arab countries. That plan-promote peace between Israelis and Arabs while paying attention to Iran-could be the one that addresses all of Israel's concerns.  

But, according to a Washington Post report today, Netanyahu is not having it. His government, the Post says, is not planning to take steps on the peace process with the Palestinians, "until it sees progress in U.S. efforts to stop Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon and limit Tehran's rising influence in the region." While such an assessment is open to interpretation, the Israeli and American administrations have not seen eye-to-eye on where Iran is on the nuclear process. According to Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair, "The Israelis are far more concerned about it, and they take more of a worst-case approach to these things from their point of view."

And then there is this irony: Obama's plan holds that progress on the Israeli-Syrian and Israeli-Palestinian fronts will work to change Iran's power hold in the region by removing its excuse for regional interference (its support for Hamas and Hezbollah, for instance). But the Netanyahu government now says that there can be no progress on those goals, until the Obama administration deals with Iran in a manner acceptable to Israel.

This dispute demonstrates that if Israel and the United States cannot forge a common approach about how to address the issues facing the whole region, they are likely to find themselves in a confrontation. Both sides will want to avoid that. We'll know more after May 18th.