Been There, Done That

Let's hold the applause. Obama's trip to Israel was nothing new.

Forgive me if I don't join the parade currently marching down Constitution Avenue.

Barack Obama's recent trip to Israel was indeed a brilliant success. Low -- or perhaps more precisely, no -- expectations helped. Had it occurred earlier, we might have avoided the soap opera that has passed for U.S.-Israeli relations during the president's first term.

Powered by terrific speeches and wonderful visuals, Obama succeeded in recasting his image in Israel -- and America too -- as a genuinely pro-Israeli leader. He even managed to convert his press availability with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu into a more relaxed event, which could have convinced the casual observer that these two men actually like one another.

But before we get sucked down the rabbit hole into some wondrous Middle Eastern fantasy world, let's take a collective deep breath. Until we have a lot more information, it might be better to see the president's inaugural visit to Israel as more about managing old business and checking boxes than as a determined leap into the wonderful world of two-state diplomacy.

A woman I met at the Baker Institute in Houston last Friday got it right. "That Obama isn't gonna waste a lot of chits on the Palestinian issue," she said, in smart and direct Texas style. Maybe he won't. But if he does try, he's going to need a much better sense from Israelis and Palestinians that he has a chance to succeed.

Obama's no fool. He's a busy guy with a full domestic agenda. He didn't make up with Bibi only to go to war with him again over the peace process -- unless there's a real chance to get something big done.

For now, the president's trip to Israel still has the ring of a "been there, done that" exercise. And here's why.

Politics: Check the old box

As he began his second term, Obama had a problem he needed to fix. His own naive effort to get Netanyahu to freeze settlement growth had collided with the will of the tough-minded Israeli prime minister. Obama's detached, emotionless style and Bibi's previously existing suspicions only exacerbated tensions. These factors combined to produce one of the most dysfunctional pairs in the history of the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

That broken personal relationship was both unnecessary and politically harmful. It gave Republicans a hammer to hit the president, made Democrats nervous, and just wasn't good for business all around -- particularly if Democrats wanted a chance to take back the House in 2014. And so, even though presidential visits by sitting presidents are rare --only four of 11 have visited Israel since 1948 -- going to Israel early in his term was smart and necessary.

Policy: Manage the new challenges

The trip was smart policy too. Right now the Middle East is as complex, angry, dysfunctional, broken, and impervious to American influence as I've ever seen it. Americans are sick of the region and don't care much about it now, but things can get much worse.

The president needed to get an oar deeper in the water, to manage things as best he can. After all, it's not 2009 anymore. The clock's ticking down on Obama's presidency -- before you know it, the reality of lame-duck status will undermine his effectiveness.

As it stands now, in addition to Syria, Obama could be the president on whose watch two catastrophes befall the region. First, Iran could get the bomb, or he could go to war to stop it. Second, the window for a two-state solution to the Palestinian issue could slam shut. Whether Obama can actually fix either of these problems isn't the point. If he's to have any chance of dealing with them effectively, he needs to develop a much more functional tie with Netanyahu, who will play a central role in each.

That effort began last week, and by all appearances was largely successful. The president clearly bought time and space from Bibi for U.S. diplomacy with Iran, and in not pushing the settlements issue, may have built up some credibility to press the prime minister later on the bigger issues. Orchestrating the call between Netanyahu and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was a nice touch to boot.

Whether Obama's reset and his newfound popularity in Israel can help convert Bibi to the president's view of the world -- that it's necessary to use diplomacy with the mullahs and launch negotiations with the Palestinians to promote peace -- is an arguable proposition. After all, this isn't one hand clapping. Israel is only one actor -- no matter how vital. There are these other people called Palestinians and Iranians too with their own politics, agendas, and needs.

The re-reset?

The affable, even semi-affectionate tone in the Bibi-Obama press conference, as well as the warmth with which the president was received in public, masks some inconvenient truths with regard to the leaders' policy differences. For instance, if Obama tries to sells the Israelis on a deal with the mullahs on uranium enrichment, he'll likely find real skepticism.

If he pushes too hard on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, however, he may well run into open opposition and hostility. No matter how well this visit went, there are fundamental differences between Bibi and Obama on the core peace-process issues -- particularly on territory and Jerusalem, where Obama is much closer to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Moreover unlike Iran, progress on the peace process could fracture Netanyahu's own party, bring down his government, and set up another test of wills with the United States.

Obama knows the score, and has seen the movie. The glow in the aftermath of this reset will vanish quickly the harder he pushes Israel on the Palestinian issue. The real issue is this: Is the reset functional? Can Obama work toward a process that brings Netanyahu along without triggering a crisis, and still keep the Palestinians on board?

Right now, it seems like a circle that's very hard to square. The gaps on the core issues don't seem bridgeable, at least between Bibi and Abbas. And an Obama maneuver for regime change -- using his newfound popularity in Israel to undermine Bibi in hopes of getting a better government -- seems pretty fanciful. Is it plausible that Obama made nice to Bibi only to be in a position to push him harder?

And exactly how much is Obama prepared to pile on? If there is a deal with the mullahs on the nuclear issue, the president will need every ounce of persuasiveness to sell it to Netanyahu. And if the United States attacks Iran, he and Bibi will become even more closely aligned if Iran or its proxies retaliate. We're nowhere near any of this now. But it's clear that Obama isn't looking for a fight with Bibi so soon after trying to patch things up. It's really hard to see Obama getting tough with Israel the way Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush did, particularly after that lovefest in Jerusalem.

The Kerry canary in the coal mine

I've said repeatedly that Obama is the most controlling foreign-policy president since Nixon -- and he won't change easily, particularly when he's convinced his foreign policy has been pretty successful.

But he must, in at least one regard. Specifically, he should let John Kerry actually be in charge of the Israeli-Palestinian brief. The brief should come with two presidential caveats -- don't undo my fledgling reset with Bibi (yet), and don't demand a lot of time from me (now). The president should tell his secretary of state that he will gladly be available for the guts-and-glory phase of the peace process end game, but Kerry (and his team, which he must be allowed to build) have to set it up.

Give Kerry the mandate. It's perfect. Let him shuttle. That's what secretaries of state are for. Indeed, it's going to take months of conversations, hundreds of hours of meetings, and thousands of miles of travel to even test the proposition that some kind of agreement can be reached. And at this stage, it's no loss for the president so long as Kerry doesn't undo the reset. If it works, the president will be viewed as a managerial genius. And if it doesn't, well ... it's John Kerry's peace process, right?

Success, not domestic politics

People have it wrong. The real reasons presidents get involved in tough issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not just because they're important, but because they think they can actually succeed. It's not the absence of second-term political constraints, it's the presence of real opportunity that drives presidential involvement.  

The potential for progress is what's currently missing. Right now, the administration has no strategy -- or at least not one that holds a lot of promise. The current approach seems to be pressing for negotiations that lead to a provisional Palestinian state, based on a tradeoff between security for Israel and sovereignty for the Palestinians. Borders first, so to speak -- and then negotiation of a more general character on the identity issues, Jerusalem, and refugees.

I'm not critical of this approach, because frankly there doesn't seem to be a much better one right now. But we're deluding ourselves if we think it can work quickly, or perhaps at all. It's a very pro-Israeli approach, in that it calls for direct talks without preconditions, says nothing on settlements, and doesn't include a timeline to resolve the final status issues. And it really does presume an enormous amount of trust between Netanyahu and Abbas, which currently doesn't exist.

The answers to all these uncertainties will come in the weeks and months ahead. But one thing is clear: This president isn't going to repeat the mistakes of his first term -- setting goals he can't deliver, pursuing a settlements freeze, and having pointless fights with Netanyahu over issues that won't make him an historic peacemaker. Hopefully he won't be fooled into thinking that successful telephone diplomacy between Bibi and Erdogan means he's got a career as a Middle East negotiator.

Obama doesn't want to be the American president on whose watch the two-state solution expires. But he won't rush to be its midwife either, without a much greater sense that he can succeed.

So, Israelis and Palestinians, take notice. You want the president to help produce a two- state solution? Give him a reason to believe you have a real stake in one too. Otherwise, stop whining: Barack Obama has more important things to do.

GPO/Getty Images

Reality Check

So You Want to Be a Peacemaker?

Here are 11 lessons to keep in mind if you want to have any hope of solving the Middle East's most intractable conflict.

President Barack Obama is trying his luck in the Holy Land this week. He is holding meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and Jordan's King Abdullah. Clearly Middle East peacemaking is on the agenda -- though nobody is expecting much progress, let alone a breakthrough.

Still, the U.S. president is a determined man. I suspect that one way or another -- before all the sand runs out of the presidential hourglass -- he'll try to leave his mark on the peace process, most likely by laying out a series of parameters that will define how to resolve the conflict's core issues.

The world of negotiations did not begin with the Obama administration. History's lessons are still important -- they won't guarantee success, but ignoring them will almost certainly produce failure.

As the president (and his able secretary of state) consider what they might want to do about the knotty problem of the much-too promised land, here are 11 facts to keep in mind.

1. Presidential visits aren't a given: Since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, only four U.S. presidents (out of 11) have visited while in office: Richard Nixon (once), Jimmy Carter (once), Bill Clinton (four times), and George W. Bush (twice). And with the exception of Carter -- who took a real risk in February and March 1979 by traveling to Egypt and Israel to nail down the terms of a peace treaty -- the other trips were far less consequential.

Nixon's trip was a largely a farewell tour, a last hurrah following his administration's deep involvement in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war and the diplomacy that followed. The visit was a strange affair, maybe an escape from the raging Watergate scandal: At one point, while discussing terrorism with Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, Nixon jumped up, exclaiming that there was only one way to deal with terror and sprayed the assembled cabinet ministers with imaginary machine-gun fire, Chicago gangland style.

Clinton, who was identified with and committed to the Oslo peace process, went to mark the signing of the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty in 1994, again in 1995 to attend Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's funeral, in 1996 to try to keep the peace process alive in the wake of Rabin's assassination and Hamas terror attacks, and finally to address the Palestinian National Council in 1998. Of Bush's two trips, one of them was to participate in a meeting between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Abbas, which had no chance of producing any meaningful agreement -- or even a credible way forward.

Lesson: Anyone who expects the president to achieve big things on this foray - or is pushing the president to try -- isn't thinking clearly.

2. We fail more often than we succeed in the Holy Land: In 50 years of Arab-Israeli diplomacy, only three Americans -- two Republican secretaries of state and a Democratic president -- have managed to successfully broker agreements that had any lasting impact.

Following the 1973 war, Nixon's diplomatic wingman, Henry Kissinger, managed to negotiate three interim disengagement agreements between Israel, Egypt, and Syria. The final agreement, signed on June 1, 1974, still governs arrangements between Israel and Syria over the Golan Heights. 

Carter brokered both a framework for an Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty and one for a Middle East peace involving Israelis and Palestinians at Camp David in September 1978. The former resulted in the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, which was signed at the White House in March 1979. The latter, which envisioned full autonomy for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, failed -- partly because there were no Palestinians involved in the negotiation process.

Secretary of State James Baker, finally, put together a diplomatic framework that enabled Israelis, Syrians, Jordanians, Palestinians, and a delegation from the Arab Gulf states to attend a three-day conference in Madrid in October 1991. Madrid itself produced no breakthrough agreement, but it lent cover to the secret talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians in Oslo, laid the basis for a future Israeli-Jordanian agreement, and broke some important taboos regarding direct negotiations.

Lesson: Success in this enterprise is rare. It requires luck and a mediator that knows what he or she is doing. Those who think America can impose its wishes at will are living on some other planet.

3. The parties on the ground have to want a deal: With the exception of the Madrid process, all the Arab-Israeli breakthroughs were launched secretly by the parties themselves -- with no U.S. involvement. 

Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's trip to Jerusalem in 1977 would not have been possible without the secret confidence-building contacts between Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan and Egyptian Deputy Prime Minister Hassan Tuhami. Oslo's Declaration of Principles, signed in 1993, was negotiated secretly with the help of the Norwegians. And the Israelis and Jordanians, who had carried on quiet diplomacy for most of the last century, called on their old contacts to set up their peace treaty negotiations. In each case, the United States was purposely excluded in the initial phase.

Lesson: If the parties aren't invested in the negotiations, you can hang a "closed for the season" sign on the peace process.

4. But there also has to be a U.S. role: Direct negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians played a critical role in the Oslo process, the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty, and the beginnings of the Egyptian-Israeli process. But in the Kissinger, Carter, and Baker diplomacy, the U.S. role as a third party broker proved more important.

This was particularly evident in the talks that culminated in the Egypt-Israel peace treaty. Carter purposely kept Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Sadat apart at Camp David and shuttled between the two sides, though Egyptian and Israeli negotiators played key roles.

Lesson: We might wish it were otherwise, but the locals can't get there by themselves.

5. Be realistic: Israeli and Palestinian negotiators were not "this close" -- thumb and forefinger an eighth of an inch apart -- at the July 2000 Camp David Summit. On none of the core issues -- territory, refugees, Jerusalem, even security -- were the gaps fundamentally narrowed.

It is true that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak put positions on the table that went farther than any premier had ever gone. But the fairy tale that we were "this close" to a deal emerged largely to justify Israeli concessions and hammer the Palestinians. Yasir Arafat's transgression was that he didn't empower his negotiators -- several of whom were more flexible than him -- not that he refused to sign on to an agreement made in heaven for Palestinians.

What the American side (myself included) refused to accept -- or didn't understand in the first place -- was that Oslo was the last concession Arafat was prepared to make. When it came to territory, Palestinians -- like the Egyptians and Syrians before them -- needed something that added up to 100 percent. Sadat got 100 percent of Sinai and Syrian President Hafez al-Assad wanted 100 percent of the Golan Heights plus access to the Sea of Galilee, after all. While Palestinians are prepared to allow the Israelis to retain a tiny part of the West Bank, they will need to be compensated with territorial swaps of equal size and perhaps value.

Lesson: The parties have enough self-created mythologies and illusions. The United States doesn't need to create new ones.

6. Fighting with the Israelis (and the Arabs too) is part of the job description: Pressuring both sides is an unavoidable part of serious and successful diplomacy. The question is whether the fights are productive or gratuitous.

A fight that produces an actual agreement that benefits all parties is good. With President Gerald Ford's blessing, Kissinger threatened a reassessment of U.S.-Israeli relations if Rabin didn't become more flexible on the second Sinai disengagement agreement. And more than once, Baker told Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir that if he didn't bend a little, Baker would get on a plane back to Washington. In both of those cases, U.S. diplomats used pressure to get the job done.

A fight that leads to nothing but mistrust, however, is bad: Obama's tough calls for an Israeli settlement freeze that no prime minister could accept first alienated Netanyahu, and then it alienated the Palestinians when Obama backed down. But the truth remains: Getting deals done requires not only ample amounts of honey, but vinegar too.

Lesson: If you aren't prepared to be both tough and reassuring, find another conflict to mediate.

7. Don't drag a president to a summit on a wing and a prayer: American presidents have convened only two leader-level summits with the Arabs and Israelis to try to reach peace agreements -- the successful 1978 Egyptian-Israeli summit and the unsuccessful 2000 Israeli-Palestinian summit at Camp David. Both were risky ventures. But the Carter summit had a much better chance to succeed for three reasons -- all mirrored in the failure of the second Camp David.

First, Begin and Sadat were strong leaders who came prepared to make decisions. Second, they knew what they were prepared to accept, and the issues on the table were ones that could be mutually agreed upon in a way that would satisfy those needs. And third, the U.S. mediators were well prepared and took charge of the summit to drive the parties toward a successful conclusion.

Committed leaders whose desire for an agreement outweighs the tangible risks of failure, a doable deal, urgency, and a competent American broker: That's the recipe for any future success. 

Lesson: "Trying and failing is better than not trying at all" is an appropriate slogan for a high school football team, but it's no substitute for the foreign policy of the world's greatest power. Failure has consequences.

8. There's still a long way to go: An enormous amount of work has been done since Israelis and Palestinians first started searching for a conflict-ending agreement during the 1990s. In fact, gaps have been narrowed conceptually on all of the issues -- borders, security, Jerusalem and refugees -- not just in so-called Track II diplomacy, but in formal efforts between Israel and Palestinian negotiators.

But to suggest that this body of negotiating history demonstrates that everyone agrees on the end game -- or that it should be easier to arrive there because they can see it off in the distance -- trivializes the challenges at hand. The gaps between Israel and the Palestinians on the core issues remain enormous, and won't be easily bridged simply because the international community has a vision about what the end game should be.

Lesson: The reason we don't have a conflict-ending agreement isn't for lack of clever fixes and rational bridging proposals, it's because of the lack of political will, capacity, and urgency on the part of leaders who continue to see more dangers in trying to change the status quo than risks in maintaining it.

9. Beware of an interim deal: This year marks the twentieth anniversary of Oslo, a heroic but largely failed effort to use an interim approach to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Given the difficulties of achieving an end game, there will be great temptation to adopt another interim approach -- perhaps the idea of an interim accord or a Palestinian state with provisional borders. Oslo offers a cautionary tale.

Interim agreements can work if the general principles of the final deal have been agreed upon, both sides concur that no unilateral efforts will be made to gain leverage during the interim period, and it's only a matter of implementation proceeding in phases. They can also work if both sides believe an interim deal is better than nothing at all. But a phased approach will not work if it's an open-ended arrangement that aims to reach a piecemeal settlement by piece deferring certain issues and creating ambiguity around others.

Lesson: Be careful before you throw good money after bad.

10. Lone Ranger diplomacy doesn't work: Obama is the most controlling foreign-policy president since Nixon. He doesn't delegate, he dominates. And if Susan Rice becomes his new national security advisor, the marginalization of the State Department will only become more acute.

This kind of control might be fine if you had a real strategy -- if the United States were still viewed as a regional heavyweight, or if Obama's sidekick were Henry Kissinger. But none of that is the case. The Arab-Israeli peace process can't be micromanaged out of the White House; it tends to get politicized and lead to blunders (see: Obama's first term). In any case, the president is too preoccupied with other matters to devote sufficient attention to it.

Lesson: Empower Secretary Kerry, and let him run his own team -- made up of experts who understand the issue and have a clear plan to make progress. That won't guarantee success, but it's the best bureaucratic model.

11. This isn't getting easier: There never was a successful peace process that could be had on the cheap. And the environment is now more challenging than ever before: The Palestinian national movement seems hopelessly fractured, Arab leaders are weaker and more accountable to Arab publics, Islamist voices are louder, and Israelis are seemingly uninterested in peace issues.

There's no mystery in what it would take to produce a conflict-ending agreement and no reason why it couldn't or shouldn't happen. You simply need the following things: Israeli and Palestinian leaders bold enough to pay the price for peace; a determined American mediator prepared to be tough, persistent, and ready to assist with implementation; and Arab states that will support the Palestinians politically and financially -- and who are willing to reach out to Israel with confidence building measures. And all of those things are now missing in action.

Lesson: Good luck, Mr. President. You'll need it.

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images