USIP's Lasensky: US- Israel tension "totally overblown"

Scott Lasensky, the Senior Research Associate of the Center for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at the United States Institute of Peace, co-authored "Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace" last year with former US Ambassador to Israel Dan Kurtzer.  Their book includes a detailed account of previous US peacemaking efforts, a collection of documents and primary sources related to the Mideast peace process, and recommendations for how the US administration following the Bush II White House should engage in Arab-Israeli diplomacy. 

More than 7 months into the Obama administration, I wanted to get Lasensky's take on the state of peacemaking efforts. Below are his responses to a few of my questions:

Much has been made of Israeli attitudes toward President Obama in recent weeks. How concerning should this be for the administration? How can it be overcome?

LASENSKY: The issue has been totally overblown. Don't be fooled, there's no crisis in U.S.-Israel relations. Apologies to those former advisors to Bush or Sharon who are trying to whip up a maelstrom. There's been a lot of heated rhetoric, especially from the Israeli side, but this will soon pass, as cooler heads prevail.

Israeli politics are a blood sport, just read the Israeli press or watch a Knesset debate. Some Israeli political figures have taken to act similarly toward President Obama and members of his Administration, which is a mistake, and they are quickly learning how self-defeating such an approach can be, especially on an issue like settlements, which the Israeli public long ago abandoned.

That said, there's no doubt the Administration is paying careful attention to the public discourse, they understand that our influence is greatest when Israelis have confidence in Washington, and when we act to reassure Israelis, particularly when they are being asked to take difficult steps.

For the U.S., the best way forward is to produce quick and visible achievements, which is what they seem to be going for. Progress and momentum will give Israelis greater confidence in President Obama, and will also make it easier for the current Israeli government to move forward.

Three additional points to keep in mind.

First, if President Obama succeeds in rebuilding America's standing in the Arab and Muslim world--and in rebuilding America's leadership position more broadly in the international arena, it will be hugely beneficial to Israel. When America's power and influence are diminished, as they were in recent years, it's bad for Israel.

It's something that's not always easy for Israelis to see--i.e. to take the wide angle approach--given the immediacy of their threats and the proximity of their enemies, but it's a fundamental truth.

Two, we've now learned just how incapable Israeli governments are when it comes to tackling the settlements question on their own --- just read the government and military inquiries and reports, or take note of the court decisions. The late Zeev Schiff, the dean of Israeli strategic experts and defense writers, recognized some time ago that without American pressure, Israelis would continue to shoot themselves in the foot.

Three, on a certain level, it's fair for Israelis to ask "what's in it for us," should they accede to Washington's request for a settlements freeze. For this reason, it's critical that the Administration comes up with a deal where everyone gives and everyone gets, Israelis, Palestinians and the Arabs---which is what I think they are doing.

In your book co-authored with Ambassador Dan Kurtzer, "Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace: American Leadership in the Middle East," among your recommendations for the next president was to "put forward a successor to the Clinton parameters."  Is now the time for President Obama to present a new U.S. plan? If so, how should he do so? And, if so, what should be the central elements of such a plan?

LASENSKY: Yes, that was an important recommendation in the book. The U.S. has a tremendous ability to shape the debate in the region, and also on the international level, when it puts forward a peace plan--with a few caveats.

The time to present a new plan is after careful consultations with all the parties, particularly with Israel. There should be no surprises. It doesn't work. Look back at the "Reagan" plan, which was essentially dead on arrival, read one of the accounts of Ambassador Sam Lewis, consultation is vital, and needs to be meaningful, not pro forma.

The time to present a plan is also once sustained progress is achieved on the ground--on the issues that matter most to Israelis and Arabs---and once we can be assured of broader regional support for a new peace initiative.

Whether the right time is next month or next year is beside the point: the fact of the matter is that--over time--our silence on most of the core issues has empowered the rejectionists and the obstructionists. Our silence undermines the moderates and those who believe in a two-state solution and a comprehensive Arab-Israeli settlement---a settlement that must be backed by the United States, and supported by the international community.

Despite being rebuffed in public appearances, Special Envoy George Mitchell has insisted that Arab states are ready to make gestures toward Israel. What kind of gestures can the US expect the Arab states to make - and do you expect the Arab world to do so without an Israeli settlement freeze?

LASENSKY: The intensity of the claims and denials by all sides suggests to me that something important is taking place behind the scenes. All this public posturing signals that there may be far more movement than commonly understood.  Arab states will be pleasantly surprised at the reaction in Israel should they decide to step forward. The impact of gestures, even symbolic ones, can create more political space for Israeli leaders. Many leaders in the Arab world probably view Netanyahu and his government with deep suspicion--not to mention an Arab political culture of caution and prudence. So the trick for the Obama Administration will be to choreograph a process whereby everyone moves at the same time, and no one appears to be giving away bargaining chips for free.