Relations between the United States and Israel are at a nadir not seen since 1956. Though cooperation on a variety of issues relating to counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation continues apace, government to government and leader to leader, the relationship is a mess. As the Obama administration struts to a finish, the question of who is to blame for the deterioration in comity between Washington and Jerusalem is largely irrelevant. And though — with a view to electoral politics — GOP candidates may choose to blame the Obama/Clinton team, there is every reason to believe that the problem on this end was with Mr. Obama and not Mrs. Clinton. No matter what, it will fall to the next president to repair ties with Israel and to address the lingering challenge of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Here are the questions he or she needs to be prepared to answer:
U.S. President Barack Obama meets with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House in Washington October 1, 2014. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
1.) The peace process between Israel and the Palestinians has dragged on fitfully for decades. During the latter half of the Obama administration, Palestinian leadership embraced a United Nations, rather than bilateral, route to statehood. How do you rank the peace process among your foreign policy priorities, and will you support the unilateral Palestinian quest for statehood?
Successive presidents have devoted themselves to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process to no avail; the two remain in conflict, and the situation in the Palestinian territories has declined from bad to worse as Fatah and Hamas factions struggle for power. Arab states once preoccupied with the Palestinian cause have turned to more pressing problems at home and abroad, and no longer prioritize a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the most important foreign policy challenge. That said, the ongoing conflict remains a source of instability in the region. Hamas continues to be a threat to Israelis and others, and the lack of a settlement remains a challenge to the United States. Rebuilding the relationship after the corrosive personal acrimony between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears straightforward, but will be complicated by the new deal with Iran and continual crises in the region.
2.) What is the right approach to Hamas?
Hamas’ leadership in Gaza is, some say, a direct result of the George W. Bush administration’s push for democratic elections among the Palestinians. But whatever its provenance, the reality of a designated terrorist group governing a significant patch of land on both Israel and Egypt’s border must be addressed. The Obama administration has taken a pragmatic, management-oriented approach, seeking to better the lives of Palestinians under Hamas and ignore the terrorist group itself. Is that the right tack? Should the US aim be to oust Hamas? And in light of new alliances building between Hamas and Gulf States which may distance the group from Iran, is there any reason to hope for changes in the group’s conduct?
3.) Should the United States still be providing more than $3 billion in aid to Israel?
Much of the assistance to Israel is in foreign military financing, reflecting the United States’ commitment to Israel’s security and its qualitative military edge over regional adversaries. However, there are some who have suggested that Israel, a modern and successful economy with a per capita GDP that ranks among the highest in the world, should be weaned from dependence on US assistance. In addition to the potential savings to the US Treasury, some friends of Israel believe that the assistance program is a whip hand over Israeli policy that the United States uses to detrimental effect.
4.) What is the correct US foreign policy toward the Palestinian Authority?
The United States under the Obama administration has taken a more forward leaning position on the Hamas-Fatah governing partnership, and has not prioritized finding new figures to succeed the current aging Palestinian Authority leadership. However, the bankruptcy of governance in both the West Bank and Gaza — with corruption rife, education and income standards dropping and support for extremism growing — is bad news for Israel, the United States, and most of all the Palestinian people. In theory, a new president will have the opportunity to bring fresh thinking to both the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Palestinians themselves. Could that be an opportunity to embrace a new direction, focused exclusively on Palestinian governance and accountability, rather than on the relationship with Israel?
5.) What is the proper approach to Palestinian unilateralism?
The Palestinian Authority has gone to the United Nations General Assembly to pursue unilateral efforts for recognition as a state, has encouraged countries around the world to recognize a “State of Palestine”, and has pursued a case against Israel in the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Obama administration has fought these developments and followed the law in defunding certain UN agencies that have recognized “Palestine”. Its position on the ICC case is that the Palestinian Authority is not a legitimate member of the international court. As a result, when asked about the case proceeding against Israel, Washington denies a) that there is a real case; and b) that it has any leverage as the US is not a member. Does this undermine the peace process? Is there something the United States should do in response to the internationalization of the Israeli-Palestinian question by Palestinian leadership?
from AEI » Latest Content http://ift.tt/1Db7PJN
0 التعليقات:
Post a Comment