Commentary Magazine


Yes, Mr. President, Time to Stop Pretending About the Middle East Peace Process

If only he really meant it. During his joint press conference yesterday with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, President Obama addressed the tension between the United States and Israel by saying that American policy toward the Middle East must be rooted in reality. The remark was yet another White House jab at Prime Minister Netanyahu’s pre-election comments about not allowing a Palestinian state to be created on his watch. The president said that Netanyahu’s statement, even after he had walked it back after his election victory, had changed the reality of the region and that the U.S. can’t base future strategy on events that couldn’t happen. Fair enough. But what the president failed to note was that this is exactly what he has been doing throughout his presidency with respect to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

The president’s latest shot over Netanyahu’s bow was not meant to be subtle:

I am required to evaluate honestly how we manage Israeli-Palestinian relations over the next several years.  … What we can’t do is to pretend there’s a possibility of something that’s not there. And we can’t continue to premise our public diplomacy based on something that everybody knows is not going to happen at least in the next several years.  That is something that we have to, for the sake of our own credibility; I think we have to be able to be honest about that.

The unspoken threat there—made more explicit in comments leaked to the press by officials speaking without direct attribution—was that the U.S. would reevaluate its willingness to stand up for Israel at the United Nations and other international forums. By making it clear that he doesn’t believe the two-state solution is possible in the foreseeable future, Netanyahu had not merely offended Obama but gave him the opportunity to fundamentally change U.S. policy in a way that would tilt it even more toward the Palestinians and against the Jewish state.

The justification for such a switch will be to head off what Obama called the possibility of complications from Netanyahu’s candor:

That may trigger, then, reactions by the Palestinians that, in turn, elicit counter-reactions by the Israelis.  And that could end up leading to a downward spiral of relations that will be dangerous for everybody and bad for everybody.

That means Obama believes he must address Palestinian distress at Netanyahu’s foreclosing the possibility of their getting an independent state. The president is right about the possibility of a surge in violence, but not about its cause.

There’s not much secret that Obama’s reaction to Netanyahu’s statements stems largely from his anger about the prime minister’s decisive victory, coming as it did after he spoke to Congress in opposition to the president’s push for a dangerous nuclear deal with Iran. But the problem here is not so much the way the Israeli election demonstrated again what a sore loser the president can be. Rather, it is his determination to distort the facts about the conflict to conform to his pre-existing prejudices about both Israel and Netanyahu that makes his reaction so egregious. It is exactly his fixation on peace hinging on Israel’s acceptance of two states that is so inaccurate.

As we’ve noted here too many times to count, the obstacle to a two-state solution has never been Israel’s unwillingness to embrace it. Israeli governments offered the Palestinians statehood and independence in Gaza, a share of Jerusalem, and almost all of the West Bank three times between 2000 and 2008. They were turned down each time. And in spite of what Netanyahu said last week, he accepted the U.S. framework for talks offered by Secretary of State John Kerry and sent his rival Tzipi Livni to work with the Palestinians in talks that even she admitted were blown up by Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas’s unwillingness to negotiate in good faith.

The roadblock to a two-state solution today is the same one that existed when Obama entered office in 2009: the inability of the Palestinian leadership to accept any agreement that would force them to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders would be drawn. With Hamas running an independent Palestinian state in all but name in Gaza and his own Fatah still committed to Israel’s eventual destruction, Abbas can’t make peace even if he wanted to do so.

The people of Israel understand this, and that is the reason why the parties of the left have been discredited by the failure of Oslo and the catastrophe of the withdrawal from Gaza that both illustrated that what they had done was to trade land for terror, not peace. Netanyahu’s election victories in 2009, 2013, and this month can be directly traced to the fact that Israelis have done exactly what Obama says he will now do: stop basing their country’s foreign policy on things that can’t happen. They know a two-state solution isn’t possible because they want it while the Palestinians continue to reject it.

Even worse, they also know that Palestinian violence is not a manifestation of frustration with Israel so much as it is based in the ideology of their national movement and indications that the West might abandon the Jewish state. If Hamas is getting ready for another war, as some think possible, it is due to their sense that Obama will leave Israel on its own, not because of Netanyahu’s statements.

If the president were truly interested in a reality-based strategy he would stop pushing the Israelis to do something that even Netanyahu knows most would embrace if it brought a chance for true peace. Instead, he should let the Palestinians know that he will only invest more U.S. effort in the peace process if they give up their century-long quest for Israel’s destruction.

But Obama, who before he was elected spoke about his antipathy for Netanyahu’s Likud and entered office under the delusion that the problem was too much closeness between the U.S. and Israel, is still fixated on Israel. He’s badly in need of a reality check, but if this last week is any indication, he’s just as reluctant to accept his own advice about not basing policy on fantasies as he has ever been.

Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »

7 Responses to “Yes, Mr. President, Time to Stop Pretending About the Middle East Peace Process”


    As with the artificial fracas raised at the time of Joe Biden’s visit to Israel, regarding the notice of approval of housing permits in Jerusalem, there is no salve for the President wanting to destroy the Israeli-US relationship after Netanyahu had the poor grace to win re-election and to state the obvious in public. There is no shortage of flaks (Earnest, Harf, Psaki, …) to bear this intent forward and spread it like the manure it is over the airwaves.

    If you consort with mullahs and tyrants of every stripe for 6 years, why not jettison the special relationship with Israel. It must seem out of place in the moonscape that is the current Administration’s strategic thinking.

    Perhaps it was the better part of wisdom by Mr. Tobin to so cautiously recommend Netanyahu not address Congress about Iran, for knowing the President’s proclivities all too well, he realized this would not end well.

    Being armed to the teeth to be capable of defending the state and surviving Obama has really been the only job Netanyahu has had for quite a while. If the President would withhold arms during a war that he counseled an ally unsupportively while it was under attack by terrorists, then it does not matter what happens at the UN, if Israel is not resupplied. The President has been sending his picadors to weaken Israel everywhere for quite a while… the appointment of Robert Malley for Middle East Special Advisor, Samantha Power at the UN, Susan Rice at NSC, Robert Gates at Defense, and on and on.

    This would have been subject to a withering criticism by now that could have reversed or paused these phony assaults on the alliance, if the Press were not in cahoots with the President. Like left-wing Jewish supporters of these abhorrent Administration policies against Israel, they must somehow have the feeling that no one will come for them after the world is made durably inhospitable to a Jewish State. Or maybe they see themselves as our future capos.

    There has to be a way Israel can fend this off until this Administration has left the scene. Must be.


      The Pr. was after Bibi and Israel long before the Iran issue came to the surface and with all the connections Hilary has with the Islamists, she may be even more problematic for Bibi and Israel than Obama.
      Any new conflict with Hamas and or Hezbollahs must be over ASAP and must lead to the total destruction of both H.


    Have you let your readers know that Obama illegally “…entered office..” and stays there illegally?
    Not recently. Not…ever.

    • JACK LEVEY says:

      Not . . .helpful.

      • STEPHEN PARKER says:

        Not helpful to whom, Mr.Levey? To those who through willful blindness, fearful silence, ignorance, apathy,
        selfish careerism, greed, corruption, or a virulent leftist strain of American anti-Americanism, have enabled a person with a fabricated past, who uses an alias, and who will not produce a single authentic document showing American citizenship, to occupy the presidency and to irremediably damage what was once the greatest country on earth?

        Mr. Levy, which one of those groups do you belong to?

  3. RICHMOND says:

    There is a parallel between Obama’s obeisance to Iran and his implicit support for Hamas. In both instances he has changed long-term American Middle East policy and in both instances the real victim of Obama’s cowardice and utter misunderstanding of Middle East realities, is Israel.

    Secretary Kerry was described as Messianic, what then Obama. Spiteful, deluded and grandiose, maybe.

  4. RICHMOND says:

    With friends like Obama, Kerry, Rice and Power, Israel does not enemies. It is quite incomprehensible how, against all the evidence,Iran’s support of terrorism and development of ICBM’s, that they can be trusted to abide by any agreement, unless it suits them.

    Rather liking putting a fox in charge of the chicken coop, Obama and Kerry appear to be negotiating an agreement that is completely opposed by it’s friends in the Middle East.

    It is equally incomprehensible that Obama allows his enmity towards Netanyahu to obstruct what is in America’s best interests as well as the world’s. Hubris?

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

Share This

Share this post with your friends!

Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
for full access to
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
Don't have a log in?
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.