CMEP Analysis of the Obama-Netanyahu Washington Summit May 18:  What Happened and What Next?

~ May 20, 2009 ~

written by Warren Clark, Executive Director of CMEP

 

The meeting May 18 between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu was watched closely to see whether the differences between the new U.S. and Israeli governments could be narrowed. -- Would there be agreement on the goal of Israel-Palestinian peace based on creation of a Palestinian state, the so-called two state solution? -- Would there be links agreed between progress on limiting Iran’s nuclear program and progress on peace with the Palestinians? -- Would there be agreement on stopping the expansion of Israeli settlements into Palestinian territory or in relieving the humanitarian and security problems in Gaza? The result was: no. Meetings between heads of government are almost always “successful.” In the case of Obama and Netanyahu, the meeting had to take place given the importance of the two countries to each other, notwithstanding the known differences, so the pressure was on. The meeting was full of expressions of good will and cooperation, but fundamental gaps were not bridged. On peace with Palestinians, President Obama said clearly that the creation of a Palestinian State, the two state solution, is in U.S. security interests. This is a strong statement by a U.S. President. He pointedly repeated three times that “all the parties:” (i.e., including Israel) have to “take seriously” the “obligations” they undertook in the Road Map and as discussed extensively at the Annapolis conference in 2007 to allow Palestinians to govern themselves as an independent state and meet the aspirations of their people. Prime Minister Netanyahu never used the words “two state solution” or “Palestinian state”. Instead, he said he wants to negotiate with Palestinians immediately, wants “peace”, and does not want to govern Palestinians. However, self-governance could be something far less that an independent state. He did not say negotiations would be about final status issues as discussed between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators in the past. On Iran, there was careful dancing around the question of Iran’s nuclear program. The President said the U.S. will seek to persuade Iran not to acquire nuclear “weapons” and would use “a range of steps”, including sanctions, to persuade Iran. Netanyahu characterized the President as saying he opposed Iranian “nuclear military capability” and was leaving “all options on the table”. Possession of weapons is not the same as possessing “military capability.” Many countries possess no nuclear weapons but do have advanced nuclear capability that could be used to develop weapons. The Obama administration may be looking for international IAEA safeguards that would effectively prevent Iran from moving secretly to production of nuclear weapons. By the same token, the phrase “leaving all options on the table” as used by Netanyahu was understood under the administration of President George W. Bush to include military intervention. In fact Obama said there could be a “range of steps, including stronger international sanctions”. This formulation suggests that the military intervention policy option is not under consideration by the U.S. at this time as it seeks an accommodation with Iran. Further, an Israeli military attack on Iran without U.S. agreement would seem to entail unacceptable political risks for Israel. Additionally the U.S. recently said it believes Israel should join the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), thus touching on the hitherto taboo subject of Israel’s own nuclear program. One can imagine a scenario where Israeli adherence to the NPT might be the price for an IAEA agreement that would preclude secret weapon development in Iran. Timing. The President cautioned against setting “artificial deadlines”, but perhaps in response to Congressional pressure for a timeline on engagement with Iran he agreed to review progress in negotiations at the end of this year. Linkages. A sensitive issue has been Netanyahu’s past insistence that there should be progress on the Iranian problem before there could be negotiations with Palestinians. The President said pointedly not only did he not think that progress with Iran was needed before negotiating with the Palestinian, but that the causality actually runs the other way: progress in talks with the Palestinians would help in talks with Iran and also undermine Iran’s influence with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Further, he said diplomacy with each was important independently of the other and should not be linked. Settlements and Gaza. The president said that under the Road Map agreement and Annapolis “settlements have to be stopped.” Just before the meeting with Obama the government of Israel announced permits for new settlements construction in Maskiyot in the Jordan Valley, far to the east of the separation barrier. No doubt the timing of the announcement was not coincidental, illustrating that the settler movement is alive and well on the Israeli political scene, notwithstanding the views of a U.S. President. The President also highlighted the need to deal with the smuggling of weapons into Gaza , but said as well that the hopelessness in Gaza caused by the border closures and restrictions on consumption and construction is “not a recipe for Israel’s long term security.” In his remarks, the Prime Minister did not mention settlements or Gaza, but focused almost exclusively on the threat from Iran and terrorism. What, then was accomplished by this meeting? The two new government leaders are now fully engaged, and the issue of a future Palestinian state has been reopened. The President is now committed to pressing ahead for Middle East peace starting with the Israel-Palestinian conflict. He has laid down a clear marker that the two state solution of Israel and a Palestinian state living together in peace and security is in U.S. security interest. Netanyahu agreed that progress with the Palestinians did not depend on progress with Iran, but he also gave away little from his previous positions. Intense diplomatic activity will continue in coming weeks leading up to a major speech by President Obama. In Cairo on June 4, the President is expected to expand the policy horizon to examine U.S. relations with the Muslim world and the Middle East region, of which strong U.S. advocacy for Israel-Palestinian peace can be expected to be a cornerstone.

            CMEP Home   CMEP Members    E-mail Alerts    Government Contacts     CMEP Letters    Statements