Optimism and Realpolitik in the Middle East

by Daniel E. Levenson, ALM

October 2, 2010

When the idea of direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians was first announced over the summer I felt a tiny twinge of hope, but mostly, based on my following of events in the Middle East over the previous few years, I thought that the level of optimism in the rhetoric coming from both the White House and the State Department seemed unwarranted. Then, in early September, as the first stage of the talks limped along, it became painfully clear to me that my skepticism was well-warranted: on the Israeli side Prime Minister Netanyahu’s political base looked increasingly shakey while he seemed unwilling or unable to extend a moratorium on settlement building, and on the Palestinian side Fatah appeared politically weak and Hamas' acts of terrorism in the West Bank seemed to confirm the idea that the Palestinian Authority was not acting with the full mandate of the Palestinian people. Not to mention the fact that Hamas, which is adamantly opposed to peace talks with Israel and rules Gaza with an iron hand, showed the world that it preferred instead to murder Israeli civilians as a form of political expression as opposed to negotiations.

If I were to apply the metaphor of building a house to the direct talks I would say that there were at least four architects involved (The US, Israel , the PA and Hamas) who had merely the same plot of land in mind, but envisioned four very different designs. Then, when they began to build this house they poured half of a foundation with badly mixed concrete and proceeded to try and build the roof next. Needless to say, I was not, and am not, overly optimistic about the prospects that we will see a lasting peace negotiated during President Obama’s first term in office. And there seems to be little reason for optimism at this point - The New York Times reported yesterday that a meeting of Palestinian leaders had taken place at which a consensus has emerged that the Palestinians should withdraw from the talks unless a new freeze was implemented. Reporter Ethan Bronner noted in this piece that the final decision is yet come and noted the persistent optimism of the White House “The Obama administration said that it believed there was still time to broker a compromise before the Arab League meeting in Libya, where the issue of direct talks with Israel will be debated and where, Mr. Abbas has said, a final decision on the future of the talks will be made.”

I am not sure what President Obama has to gain at this point by suggesting that somehow a ray of hope will emerge out of this meeting in Libya. There is room, at various times and places, for both optimism and pessimism in the practice of real politic, but it doesn’t seem politically wise for President Obama (or diplomatically realistic, for that matter) to put his faith in the Arab League. If anything, this body has traditionally been an instigator in the Arab-Israeli conflict. To think that the League is going to somehow be the body that will encourage the Palestinian leadership to take the brave and decisive step forward to continue with negotiations while Israel is still building is naïve at best. While both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas have made statements expressing hope that talks will continue, both leaders are visibly constrained by internal political issues. Unless and until they are able to address these issues effectively, I have little hope that we will see progress in any form of Palestinian-Israeli talks, direct or otherwise.

Copyright 2010 Daniel E. Levenson