http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/
But can he combine Let’s Make a Deal with The Price is Right?
During his visit to Israel this week, U.S. President Donald Trump made the strongest public link thus far between two important initiatives: reviving Israeli-Palestinian peace and creating an Israeli-Arab alliance to confront Iran. At his main event with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump ad-libbed about Saudi King Salman’s potential role in brokering a peace agreement, saying the monarch “would love to see peace with Israel and the Palestinians.”
At the heart of this agenda is the “outside-in” strategy for resuscitating Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. The talks would be linked to the development of a broader Middle Eastern coalition to oppose Iran’s ongoing expansion of influence in the Middle East and prepare for the day of reckoning when the nuclear agreement expires.
The Trump administration’s big idea is reportedly that Sunni-majority Arab countries could form a NATO-like alliance. This grouping could then have a less formal but still highly cooperative relationship with Turkey. And, most importantly, it could engage in meaningful coordination and cooperation with Israel to form a united regional bloc against additional Iranian mischief and pursuit of hegemony.
A new strategic affiliation between the Arabs and Israel — one that offered the latter new regional legitimacy, recognition, and a key role in a united front against its mortal enemy, Iran — would be meant to provide Israel new incentive to come to terms with an independent Palestinian state. The Palestinians, in turn, would be provided by Israel and Arab nations with political cover, diplomatic support, and economic aid to help make the necessary compromises for a final peace deal.
In theory, this is a great idea. It’s the only approach that anyone has posited in many years that might break the deadlock, potentially offering a win-win-win scenario for Israel, the Palestinians, and the Arab states. And there is evidence that Israel, some key Arab countries, and the Palestinians might be open to such a dynamic — if it can ever get off the ground.
But would-be peacemakers should not be preparing for their photo on the White House lawn just yet. The diplomatic and political obstacles in the region remain at least as daunting as the gains are enticing.
The key challenge is who will go — or perhaps blink — first. Israel already has peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, so the crucial players on the Arab side are Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and any other Arab countries they can bring along. The most promising development is a draft “discussion paper” being circulated by Saudi Arabia and the UAE that describes a range of confidence-building measures between Israel and the Arab countries. These would involve gestures such as telecommunications and commercial and overflight relations with Israel in exchange for Israeli moves toward the Palestinians, such as restricting settlement activities or easing the blockade on Gaza.
The mainstream Arab position is still characterized by the “Arab Peace Initiative,” introduced by Saudi Arabia and unanimously adopted by the Arab League in 2002 and reconfirmed twice since then. It essentially promises Israel fully normalized diplomatic and trade relations with the Arab countries once they reach an agreement with the Palestinians. Israel has dismissed the proposal from its outset. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are now signaling they are prepared to improve relations with Israel beyond the terms set by the initiative. Israel would be wise to recognize that the price for strategic cooperation with Arab countries and regional recognition of its de facto legitimacy have never been lower.
Israeli leaders might be tempted to believe that if they wait longer, the concessions required of them will drop still further still. That would be a mistake. The cost of normalized diplomatic ties is never going to be zero. These countries are constrained by both their long-standing diplomatic and political positions, genuine values, and honest assessment of the destabilizing political impact of the ongoing occupation that began in 1967 (and hence entering its 50th year with no end in sight).
In the past, major movement between Israel and Arab countries would have required a final status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. For a number of reasons, particularly mutual alarm about Iran, that’s no longer the case. What’s required is progress that can breathe new life into the long-term prospects for a two-state solution. The more steps Israel takes, the more the Arab countries can do in return. Under current circumstances, the best-case scenario is probably some sort of interim accord that maintains Israel’s overall security control, while also limiting Israeli settlement activity and other aspects of the occupation and expanding Palestinian prerogatives and areas of authority.
Trump seems to realize that this sort of partial agreement is the most that can be secured, which is probably why he doesn’t bring up the two-state solution or Palestinian independence. If he’s really shooting for an interim agreement — which would actually be the first major progress since 1993 and hence no mean feat — calling it “peace” would be consistent with his “truthful hyperbole” style of branding by exaggeration.
For the Arab countries, such an agreement is hardly ideal, but it would surely be enough to allow for greater cooperation with Israel. Even the revival of the process itself, short of an interim agreement, might allow for some significant steps. For Palestinians, the prospect is more painful — but the choice is also starker.
None of this is what Palestinians want, which is an independent state in place of the occupation. Moreover, the prospect of an interim agreement presents them with a dreadful but familiar choice. This is completely understandable: 50 years of occupation and 24 years of Oslo, both of which were supposed to be temporary, feel extremely permanent. Yet as so often in the past, Palestinians may be presented with a very small and highly unsatisfactory set of limited gains, all of which come with a concomitant price. Or they can reject whatever is presented to them, and enjoy what they essentially have now, which amounts to nothing.
This is an infuriating conundrum. But it only has one rational answer, which is a grudging and resentful yes. Palestinians will be forced to compare the prospect of a deal with the situation they were in a few months ago. In recent years, they found themselves isolated, ignored, and deeply concerned that their issue had been discarded, not only by the international community but even by the Arab world. Now, suddenly, with Trump, they are back in the limelight, on the agenda and in the game.
For Abbas and his secular nationalist allies, this is all a political godsend. It not only revives their hopes that their diplomatic strategy can achieve tangible results, it also reaffirms their role on the international and regional stage. All that adds to the incentive to say yes — despite all the obvious reservations.
Shifting Israel might be more difficult. Netanyahu has expressed enthusiasm for stronger ties to Arab countries — but he’s notoriously skeptical about a broader agreement with Palestinians. Left on his own, the prospect of stronger ties with Saudi Arabia and the UAE might entice him to make concessions. But some of his coalition partners, particularly Naftali Bennett of the ultra-right-wing Jewish Home Party, are waiting to pounce on any moves he makes toward the Palestinians. Bennett’s long-term prospects depend on challenging Netanyahu from his right, largely by denouncing him as compromising Israel’s ambitions and security in the occupied territories. Netanyahu’s strategy for preventing this has been to keep Bennett close within the cabinet — but if he wants to move in the direction in which Trump is nudging him, he would have to allow Bennett to leave the coalition in favor of center and center-left groups. The profoundly risk-averse Netanyahu might soon find himself with the unenviable choice of defying an American president who he hoped would be his strongest ally, or risk being outflanked on the right by powerful rivals.
This Israeli conundrum goes to the heart of why there is such an impasse in the peace process — and why the “outside-in” approach could work. Under current circumstances, most Israelis feel little pain from the status quo, and Palestinians lack any form of leverage to get them to consider compromising. It therefore seems a no-brainer for most Jewish Israelis and their politicians to take no risks politically or in terms of national security. Bringing in the Arab and regional component reminds Israelis of the broader context — including the threat from Iran and the myriad benefits that would come from greater cooperation with and recognition from the Arab world.
Perhaps the biggest challenge, though, amounts to a chicken-and-egg question: Which shall come first? Is Israel going to move into a serious process with the Palestinians, in hopes of stronger ties with the Arabs? Or will Arab countries start building more open and robust cooperation with Israel in hopes that the Israelis will be more cooperative on peace? Neither side is likely to move on spec.
Here’s where the Trump factor becomes potentially decisive. Washington could push both sides together, but it would involve some very heavy lifting. It would probably require both carrots and sticks for the Israelis, which could come at a political price at home, especially among Republicans. And to move the Arab states, the United States would probably have to demonstrate some real progress in rolling back Iran’s influence in countries like Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon. It’s highly questionable if this is consistent with either Trump’s “America First” agenda, or the widespread aversion among Americans to getting sucked into additional Middle Eastern imbroglios.
To produce this blockbuster, Trump, the reality TV veteran, will need to craft a script for Israelis, Palestinians, and Arabs that somehow combines Let’s Make a Deal with The Price is Right. Even if he pulls it off, it still wouldn’t really be “the ultimate deal,” as he keeps calling it. But it’s close enough.
THE ATLANTIC
https://www.theatlantic.com/
We Can’t Predict Whether Trump Will Succeed in the Middle East
At this stage, a great start and a false start would both look much the same
President Trump’s visit to Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories was long on rhetoric and optics but short on substance, particularly regarding the peace process. Trump is clearly determined to prioritize the Israeli-Palestinian issue and link it with broader regional concerns. But it’s impossible to judge whether we are headed in the right direction or charging headlong down the same old dead end. That’s because at this stage, a great start that ultimately produces tangible results and a false start that produces quixotic flailing at best or real harm at worst would both look much the same—and much like what we’ve been seeing.
On the positive side, Trump has salvaged the Israeli-Palestinian issue from the diplomatic dumpster of recent years. He’s owning the project, designating his son-in-law and chief adviser, Jared Kushner, as the nominal point-person, and his longtime attorney, Jason Greenblatt, as negotiator. Because this is now a White House undertaking closely associated with his own reputation, when the time comes, he might well be willing to leverage his personal and institutional credibility to pressure parties. That can’t be overestimated. Barack Obama’s second term shows what can happen when an American president walks away.
Moreover, both Trump and Greenblatt have established warm relations, not only with Israel, but also with the Palestinian leadership. That’s especially significant because it’s so unexpected. Many observers, particularly on the Israeli ultra-right, gathered from Trump’s campaign that he would embrace the Israeli settlement agenda, abandoning decades of international law and U.S. policy.
Nothing of the kind has happened. The campaign pledge, which continued into the interregnum before the inauguration, to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, has been shelved. Trump has somewhat adjusted the (already attenuated) American position on Israeli settlements; he’s gone from saying that they are “unhelpful” to saying that they are “not good for peace.” And he’s urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to “hold off” on more settlements. The administration seems to have reached a tacit understanding with Israel roughly similar to one George W. Bush developed with Netanyahu on settlements, agreeing that they can be built “up but not out.” This means Israel can add housing units to existing settlements, but not expand them territorially or create new ones, especially in highly strategic areas that alter the political equation and further undermine prospects for a Palestinian state.
On several other crucial issues, Trump has maintained longstanding American policies based on international law, and has been willing to irk Israel in the process. His advisers made it clear that, when Trump visited occupied East Jerusalem, Netanyahu was not welcome to accompany him because it is “not your territory, it is part of the West Bank,” despite Israel’s claims to have annexed East Jerusalem and insistence that all of Jerusalem is its “eternal and undivided capital.” Israelis have been making much hay recently about payments by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to the families of Palestinians imprisoned in Israel, including those accused of terrorism. Trump may have alluded to the issue, very obliquely, during his press conference with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas Tuesday, and reportedly raised the subject, but without much emphasis, during their meetings at the White House and in Bethlehem.
Greenblatt is reportedly working on a series of economic initiatives to improve living conditions for Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, which should also help stabilize the Palestinian political situation. It’s no substitute for an actual peace process, but it’s an important step forward under difficult circumstances. And the political credibility of Abbas has been greatly enhanced by Trump’s embrace of his leadership, the Palestinian role in the process, and the resurrection of the issue. None of that will survive indefinitely in a diplomatic vacuum, but it’s all very helpful.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu is bending over backwards to shower praise on Trump, who, in turn, seems to have really won over most Jewish Israelis by heaping his own accolades on their country. And the biggest lovefest of all is taking place between Trump and Gulf Arab leaders, particularly those of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Trump wants to bring them and other Arab countries into the mix by adding a regional component to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. He is hoping that these countries can add an additional incentive to Israel through greater regional legitimacy and recognition, and forging a common front against Iran’s aggressive regional agenda (particularly with an eye to the expiration of the nuclear agreement). Saudi Arabia and the UAE seem willing, as demonstrated by a draft “discussion document” outlining proposed stronger ties to Israel in exchange for Israeli curbs on settlement activities and easing restrictions on Palestinians.
These personal relationships, and the accumulation of political credibility, can play a crucial role, but, history suggests, only in a limited way and at key moments in a process. Political considerations and national security imperatives are more likely to shape the choices leaders on all sides make. And that’s where grounds for doubt become daunting indeed.
The Palestinians are in the weakest and most exposed position of all.
Trump confronts in Netanyahu an Israeli leader whose instincts are risk-averse, who is extremely skeptical that an agreement with the Palestinians, however limited, is either achievable or desirable, and who is apparently convinced that regional instability makes significant compromises with the Palestinians out of the question. Moreover, in order to even make minimal concessions, he would almost certainly have to reshuffle his cabinet, most likely jettisoning the ultra-right-wing Jewish Home Party leader Naftali Bennett and replacing him with Labor Party leaders. That would open a very vulnerable flank on Netanyahu’s political extreme right, particularly given that the whole point of such a move would be to make some gestures toward the Palestinians in order to reach out to the Arabs, as Trump is urging.
The Arab leaders face an analogous conundrum. They, too, would like to forge a closer working relationship with Israel, mainly to form a united front against Iran, and, indeed, have already taken some significant, but very low-key, steps in that direction. But going further, especially more openly, would be exceptionally difficult for them unless there is a functional peace process that seems to be keeping the prospects of a two-state solution alive, if not leading directly to an end to the occupation. Without progress on the Palestinians, they can’t go much further toward Israel than they already have, which isn’t really all that far.
The Palestinians are in the weakest and most exposed position of all. They have almost no way of leveraging the Israelis, and, while they can always say no to any proposition, their national, economic, and political circumstances are so dire that there would be a serious temptation to consider almost any offer, as long as it’s not packaged as an “end of conflict and end of claims” final status agreement. Yet even while Abbas and company would probably want to take advantage of any opportunity to improve Palestinian lives, even modestly advance their national goals, and enhance their own political position, they would face massive opposition. Hamas surely would reject almost anything the PLO agrees to, but so might dissident factions within Fatah, who are currently jockeying for position to succeed the 82-year-old, ailing Abbas. So, even if it logically makes no sense for Palestinians to reject confidence-building measures, they still might feel constrained to do so politically.
The big danger is that Trump is raising expectations only to see them dashed because he lacks a real plan. This is a very dangerous game in the Israeli-Palestinian arena. Even with the best of intentions, miscalculations can cause enormous harm. During his first term, Obama, following the Roadmap of the Middle East Quartet, tried to secure a settlement freeze from Israel. Israel agreed to a temporary “freeze” with so many restrictions and caveats that actual settlement construction never really slowed. Then Israel refused an astonishingly generous package asking for a mere three-month extension of the agreement (which, at that point, would have seriously slowed settlement building). Obama walked away from the issue, leaving the Palestinians holding the settlement-freeze bag. Since then, we haven’t had any real negotiations, and Palestinians are still trying to figure out what to do with Obama’s unwelcome present.
Since Trump casts himself as the anti-Obama, he would do well to study this very carefully. In diplomacy in general, as in medicine, the starting point must be to first do no harm. Nowhere is this truer than between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
By paying close attention to the issue and injecting a novel and potentially fruitful regional approach into the mix, Trump may counterintuitively prove to be just the iconoclastic and innovative force that can shake up this moribund process and get it moving again, finally. Alternatively, this may be just another Trumpian boondoggle, a baseless and reckless gamble at everybody else’s expense. The problem is, under the current circumstances, no one can be sure which it is, because at this stage they’d both look pretty much like what we are currently seeing. Yes, in the Middle East, pessimists are usually proven right. But they never solve anything, and solutions are ultimately required.