BICOM

 

Key points

• US President Barack Obama has delivered his first major speech on the region since he visited Cairo in June 2009.
• President Obama has effectively reset US policy in the region by blending an ideological vision with some realist pragmatism, he offered support for democracy and warned repressive regimes that they would have to reform, or be replaced.
• The speech starts a busy week of Middle East diplomacy in Washington, with a meeting between President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today. Both leaders will speak at the AIPAC conference, and Netanyahu will also address a joint session of Congress on Tuesday.
• President Obama outlined some of the US positions on the core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Particular emphasis was placed on future borders and security agreements, as well as the necessity of recognising Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.

Background: President Obama’s vision for an Israeli-Palestinian deal

The speech outlined American policy in the Middle East and North Africa, particularly in response to regional uprisings and popular demands for freedom, but also presented the US vision for an Israeli-Palestinian deal. Intense international efforts were made in recent months to push forward the stalled peace process and the President’s speech was partly intended to reenergise US diplomatic involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian arena. Some EU states have called on the president to support clear terms of reference for a final-status agreement, to avoid UN General Assembly recognition of Palestinian statehood in September. Although the President’s speech did not set out comprehensive terms of reference, it outlined key parameters that will form the basis of a final status solution. The speech may therefore have a significant impact on the dynamics of international diplomacy, narrowing the gap between US and EU positions.

Many questions remain, however, regarding the practical implementation of the parameters presented in the speech. Particularly, it is unclear whether these parameters will be sufficient for the renewal of negotiations or whether initial steps by the sides will be required for direct talks to resume. Practical steps may include a Palestinian statement that recognises Israel as a Jewish state or a partial Israeli withdrawal in the West Bank, but it is unlikely either side will agree to make these politically challenging steps without a clear diplomatic gain. As such, the terms of reference presented by the President may be only sufficient to curb widespread support for a UN vote in September, but not provide the breakthrough needed to return to negotiations.

The main issues addressed by President Obama’s speech

The section on the Israeli-Palestinian contained a number of significant passages:

• The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. Obama’s endorsement of the 1967 ceasefire lines as the basis for negotiations is not a statement of new policy, though its wording is notably more explicit than previous US positions. Prime Minister Netanyahu has responded to this point, describing the 1967 line as giving Israel ‘indefensible’ borders. However, the differences between the US and Israeli positions may not be irreconcilable. Since the extent of the land swap remains open to negotiations, Israel can seek to retain the settlement blocs and ensure that security concerns are factored into any withdrawal. Netanyahu will also be satisfied with Obama’s call for early agreement on security and border issues, with other core issues delayed for later negotiations.
• A lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people.The explicit recognition of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people was repeated several times in President Obama’s speech. The US has always been forthright in its support for a resolution based on ‘two states for two peoples’ and the explicit reiteration of this position sends a message of support to Israel’s demand for similar Palestinian recognition. However, the speech did not include the demand for an ‘end of conflict, end of claims,’ and Israel may be concerned that the resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem was left quite vague.
• The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine.Netanyahu believes that Israeli security requires an Israeli military presence along the Jordan Valley. The US envisages future Palestinian sovereignty in the Jordan valley, but the president also linked Israeli military withdrawal to the Palestinians demonstrating effective security arrangements. This also leaves open the timeline for withdrawal. In his speech to the Knesset earlier this week Netanyahu noted that Israel would require ‘long-term’ – not ‘permanent’ – military presence along the Jordan River. As such, a formula may be found to bridge the two positions.
• For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. …Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.Whilst the US position on the Palestinian pursuit of support for independence at the United Nations is well-known, this was a remarkably strong statement. Israel will hope that it deters other European countries from supporting this Palestinian strategy. Obama’s distaste for the Hamas-Fatah unity agreement was also evident, and this passage will raise concerns in Ramallah that the current Palestinian policy will collide with the US at some point. 
• The status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace. Perhaps the most telling comment of the passage on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was that ‘no peace can be imposed’ on the sides. Although the speech provided details of US positions on a final-status Israeli-Palestinian agreement it did not provide a formula for a return to negotiations.

Conclusion: What now?

As PM Netanyahu arrives in Washington today, attention turns to his planned meeting with President Obama and his speeches early next week. The speech made by the President provided the outline of US positions but many questions remain unanswered and will be fleshed out in the coming days. Despite the differences between Israel’s and the US’s views, it remains to be seen whether Netanyahu and Obama can coordinate a shared position that bridges the gaps between the two administrations and seeks to move the diplomatic process forward.