Back in March, when President Trump invited Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for a White House visit in early May as a first step toward resumption of Israeli/Palestinian negotiations, we thought it was a case of putting a good part of the cart before the horse.
We had detected no evidence that the Palestinians had moved away from their apparent view of negotiations as essentially a forum for Israel to formally acquiesce in Palestinian demands for a state based roughly on the artificial pre-1967 status quo, with all of the attributes of sovereignty including an independent military and a right of return for the ancestors of Palestinians who had lived within the Green Line at any time.
Nor did we see given any indication that they had relinquished the conceit that if Israel didn’t see things their way, they could simply end-run the process by resorting to the virulently anti-Israel United Nations to get their way.
Certainly they were encouraged in that view by the hostile attitude of the Obama administration toward the Netanyahu government.
To be sure, Mr. Obama repeatedly touted a U.S. policy that recognized the need for territorial adjustment, albeit minor, and that the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians had to be settled between the parties. But while he obsessed about the settlements, which constitute the greatest leverage Israel has in terms of future negotiations, we cannot recall anything of remotely similar magnitude he asked of the Palestinians.
It was almost as if he had no problem with encouraging the Palestinians to believe that sitting down with Israel was a profound concession in itself.
But with the uproar that followed President Obama’s unfortunate refusal to veto that infamous Security Council resolution condemning Israel’s settlement policy, and given the context of Donald Trump’s overwhelmingly pro-Israel policy statements during the presidential campaign, the Palestinians had to know that the new administration was unlikely to make serious demands of Israel while encouraging Palestinian recalcitrance. Any feeling of victory on the part of the Palestinians over the UN condemnation was short-lived.
While the Trump administration’s Mideast policy remains a work in progress, what already stands out is a leveling of the playing field at the UN and the neutralizing of an important Palestinian escape hatch.
Indeed, buttressed by President Trump’s statements about cutting back UN funding, Ambassador Nikki Haley, in a forceful style not seen since Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s brief but memorable stint as Gerald Ford’s UN ambassador, has thrown down a marker emphasizing that henceforth the U.S. will strongly pursue its interests and those of its allies, including Israel, at the world body.
And she is proving effective. Just this week the new UN secretary-general, Antonio Guterres, said in a speech to the World Jewish Congress Plenary Assembly in New York that “A modern form of anti-Semitism is the denial of the right of the state of Israel to exist…. As secretary-general of the United Nations I can say that the state of Israel needs to be treated as any other state, with exactly the same rules.”
In any event, the upcoming meeting between Presidents Trump and Abbas could present an important opportunity for the new administration to underscore some general propositions that President Obama apparently found foreign to his worldview.
These are: Israel cannot be realistically expected to concede the leverage it has achieved by successfully countering repeated Arab attempts to destroy it. Nor can Israel be expected to act as though the Palestinian Authority is in control of the Palestinian street and capable of carrying out its commitments. Nor can Israel proceed as though there are governments in the Middle East stable enough to directly or indirectly underwrite any agreement. Nor can Israel or the U.S. pretend that the presence of Iran and Hizbullah in Syria presents no special problems.
Coming from President Trump, such talk would convey a sense of urgency to Mahmoud Abbas, who became accustomed to the undemanding Barack Obama and who does not know what to expect from Mr. Trump. At the very least, such an approach would introduce a sense of reality to any negotiations and hammer home the notion that the U.S. will not pressure Israel to act against its own interests.
It will be recalled that it fell to President Richard Nixon, with his longstanding credentials of being an outspoken anti-Communist, to credibly argue the legitimacy of “Red” China to Americans and open that country to diplomatic relations and trade. One wonders if President Trump, who prides himself on his deal-making skills and who professes himself as being “a thousand percent” in Israel’s corner, is similarly positioned to bring about successful negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
On the other hand, the president may well feel he lacks credibility with the Palestinians and try to secure some by stressing a determination to remain impartial in any future negotiations. Indeed, that is one way to view a report earlier this week that the Palestinian Authority has been spared previously announced cuts in overall U.S. aid to countries around the world. (Israel was exempted several weeks ago.)
We can only hope the Trump administration keeps its eye on the prize and seizes what may be a golden opportunity to bring about some semblance of Mideast peace while cementing Israel’s place in the community of nations.