The longtime manager of the New York Yankees, accustomed to a Prussian professionalism in the hitting and fielding of baseballs, moved over to the astonishingly hapless New York Mets in 1962 and, surveying his new team, uttered an exasperated question: "Can't anybody here play this game?" What applied to those Mets applies now to the Obama administration. In the Middle East, it's no hits and plenty of errors.
Cohen, (link to the article) who has been a longtime apologist for Israel and is a part of the political force that keeps U.S. tied to Israel has a point. First of all, when I heard there was a move towards negotiations I chuckled to myself. I'm kind of a fundamentalist when it comes to politics, at least at heart, and prefer a more classical approach as amended by my father's old teacher Hans Morgentheau who said "all relations are power relations." And I didn't see any power that could move either side, particularly the Israelis to real negotiations. To put it another way, to negotiate a settlement in that region is like trying to dribble a basketball in two feet of water--i.e., it can't happen!
Given the highly emotional nature of the settlement issue, it made no sense for the administration -- actually, President Obama himself -- to promote an absolute moratorium on construction as the prerequisite for peace talks.
This issue is the heart of the matter and Cohen, along with others in the FP establishment, believe that you don't negotiate the most painful issues first. On the other hand, it is this policy that has been one of the greatest sticking points that President Clinton refused to deal with as the Oslo accords, which (in my view) offered the best opportunity for peace in the region, gradually collapsed. It was possible, politically, to make it work then. Obama chose to get to the heart of the matter right away and I applaud his boldness but I don't see where the power comes to impose that on Israel. All Israel has to do is hold fast and, eventually (in their eyes), they will get the prize which is the dream of "Greater Israel." This project is, I believe, the policy of Israel and its supporters in the U.S.
Israel holds all the cards both vis a vis the Palestinians and vis a vis the Obama administration. There is no constituency in the U.S. that would pressure any administration to insist on conditions that Israel accept like the freeze on settlements.
What exactly is the problem with a continually expanding Israel? It appears to me that it just "looks bad" and increases tensions in the region. But let's be realistic here. How can the administration, for example, urge a morality-based (rather than politically-based) settlement on Israel when the U.S. has consistently ignored international law and international standards (such as they are) in its own foreign policy. If you look at body counts Israel is a fairly innocent country compared to not only the U.S. but many other countries. In short, the Obama administration, in spite of what it thinks has no moral authority to impose any standards on Israel and that is the only basis for negotiations I can see.
The Obama approach to the Israeli-Palestinian problem has been counterproductive. Either the Palestinians have to back down from their -- even more importantly, Obama's -- insistence that all settlements be frozen in place or Netanyahu has to back down from his pledge that any moratorium would be temporary. Either Abbas or Netanyahu has to lose credibility and neither man can afford to. They are not mere negotiators; they are heads of government.
Obama, too, has to husband his credibility. He foolishly demanded something Israel could not yet give. It was bad diplomacy, recalling neither Metternich nor Kissinger but the ol' professor and his question about the inept Mets. The answer, so far, is no.
Cohen and I could be wrong. It could be that this is a bold stroke--to call out the leaders in the region and say: "Here is the major issue on the table--deal with it." It follows that if they can't then the administration will just have to forget about it. It could be that the administration fully intended for the talks to fail on Netanyahu's obvious inability to deliver a permanent freeze (there was and is no way he can deliver that without losing his job). Then Obama could say, "look, the Israeli's just refuse to follow international law (settlements are illegal) etc." and begin the long process of changing U.S. public opinion towards Israel which is, clearly, controlled by the pro-Israeli lobby. If that's the case then maybe the administration may have a little Machiavellian in it. This is for sure--they better start channeling him soon.