Top Obama Adviser to Haaretz: Israel to Face Growing Pressure Over Settlements, Peace Process Impass

[geek tragedy]

A few minutes before the end of our lengthy phone conversation earlier this month, Ben Rhodes says to me, “You know, this focus doesn’t come from Obama or Kerry. The lack of a two-state solution was there when Obama came into office and it may unfortunately be there when he leaves office. And people will still be focused on it. Whoever the next president is, there is going to be significant international concern over the lack of a two-state solution and settlement expansion.”

...

In recent months, the prime minister and his people seem to be counting the days until January 2017, when a new American president — preferably, they hope, Republican — takes office. The thinking appears to be that with Obama and Kerry out of the picture, the “threat” of peace will be removed — or at least that the motivation to pressure Israel to make decisions and progress on the Palestinian issue will be lessened.

“Sometimes it is an excuse to suggest that this is solely an interest of Kerry or Obama. It will be an interest of whoever the next president is,” says Rhodes. “Sometimes people see this as a scorecard — like the comments about Kerry that this is a desire to win some award. This is about people’s lives and the president has met with Israeli families of terror victims, he met with Palestinian young people who are growing up without hope of living in their own state — those people are still going to be there after Obama leaves office … All the problems created by the lack of [a] Palestinian state will be there.”


....

“When President Obama put forward two parameters in May 2011, our purpose was to create an alternative to the Palestinians going to the UN and to create a basis for talks,” says Rhodes. “And if you look at what the president said, it was entirely consistent with every negotiation in recent years — on territory, the ’67 lines with mutually agreed swaps, and on security — language that was very favorable to Israel … We wanted to signal to Israel that we recognize its security needs to be the starting point for any final-status discussion.

“The prime minister made a decision to attack this proposal rather than work with it,” continues Rhodes. “Frankly — casting it as ’67 lines and not embracing the part on mutually agreed swaps … In his initial comments the prime minister misrepresented what the president said … suggesting we wanted Israel to go back to the ’67 lines — which we didn’t. Everybody knows what mutually agreed swaps mean … but the approach taken by Israel was to take it as the most threatening language possible. That was a determination by Netanyahu to basically reject this as a basis for discussion. And then the Palestinians went to the UN and it was our last chance during the first term.”

...

Obama, though, is much more skeptical than Kerry about the chances of achieving a breakthrough by the time he leaves office in January 2017. “We don’t have particularly high expectations for what can be accomplished in the next year,” admits Rhodes. “On the other hand, there has not been a year since we have been here in which there was not some effort made to bring Israelis and Palestinians together — either because we saw a diplomatic opening or because there were tensions that required trust building between the parties. Every day that John Kerry is secretary of state, he will continue to see this as [a] priority. He is personally willing to commit his time and energy to bring Israelis and Palestinians to the table,” adds Rhodes.

At this point, the U.S. administration has no solid plan of action for addressing the Israeli-Palestinian issue over the next year, but Rhodes says it also has no intention of ignoring it: Kerry will continue his exploratory efforts in the coming months, but in order for the president to intervene and invest his time in the matter, the secretary of state will have to convince him there is a high probability it will pay off. “I think we will be looking for opportunities and ways to build some confidence between the parties to avoid deterioration and keep some space open for the pursuit of peace,” adds Rhodes.

...

In this regard, asserts Rhodes, settlement construction weakens the prospects of ever achieving a two-state solution even further. “For Israel, the more there is settlement construction, the more it undermines the ability to achieve that peace and the more Israel will only have to be defending its settlement policies in the years to come. That’s a reality. It is not something the U.S. or the international community has chosen to make an issue. It’s an issue because there are settlements being built in the West Bank. That’s not going to go away — that’s going be an issue of international concern. There is no alternative that people can just forget this issue and say, ‘You know what, it is just going to work itself out.’ It is only going to get more difficult over time,” he elaborates.

...

“Barack Obama has been an enormous supporter of Israel. He has done more for Israel’s security than any other president, and he understands Israeli history very well. He has been and can be an enormous asset for Israel. He believes in Zionism. He believes in how just Israel is as a Jewish state and a democracy, and he can make that case to the world. He is more than happy to go around the world and defend Israel and Zionism. If anything, the fact he was in the Oval Office prevented and slowed other international efforts — certain actions in the UN or by some of our EU allies. He has been a brake on efforts to single out Israel. He should be seen as an ally, as a friend and as an asset to Israel’s standing in the world.”

http://www.haaretz.com/peace/.premium-1.684915

The Israelis are going to learn the hard way that President Obama was not the problem, but could have been the solution.

Bernie Sanders might have similar credibility to help Israel on the international stage. Hillary and the Republicans would have none, as they are perceived as being 100% in the tank for Israel.

[oberliner]

1. "Obama believes in Zionism"

I think more people around here need to wrap their head around that fact.

Some folks seem to have trouble understanding that being a Zionist is a mainstream position among Democrats, including the most prominent of them all, President Obama.

[geek tragedy]

2. He believes in liberal Zionism, and his policy initiatives have been a humiliating series

of failures as a result.

People who believe in liberal Zionism are all going to face the same choice Israel itself is--what's more important the liberal part (human rights including self-determination, peace, anti-racism) or the Zionism part.

Obama tried to advocate for both Israel and for liberal values, and it proved to be political malpractice. He's less popular in Israel than Athlete's foot, and the international community has pretty much concluded that the Israelis don't want friends, they want enablers.

George W Bush was of course chose Zionism over liberal/modern values.

Bernie Sanders would choose liberal values over Zionism.

Hillary and the Republicans would follow the George W Bush model--don't say anything to make Israel uncomfortable, don't to anything but feign interest for a negotiated resolution.

[oberliner]

3. Which policy initiatives would have been more successful?

With respect to the I/P conflict.

[geek tragedy]

7. .

Sometimes not trying is the best option.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

4. Does he believe in the right-wing Likrud version of zionism.

I'd put good money down that the Likrud verdion of Zionism is closer to David Duke than Pres Obama or former Pres Carter.

[oberliner]

5. Nope

He believes in the liberal version of Zionism that some folks seem to pretend doesn't exist.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

6. It doesn't exist worth a damn in Israel.

Israel's voters (see right wing population) have spoken. Israel's right wing politicians have spoken (see bigotry in action) and Israel's apologists have spoken.