By the time this article appears, the world will know who the next president of the United States of America will be, provided, of course, that the candidate who loses concedes defeat. This article is not about the presidential elections in the United States as such. It is rather about the policy the White House will adopt concerning the Middle East peace process after the new US president is sworn in next January. Will the next occupant of the White House invest time and august influence, as the most influential head of state in the world, in moving the Israelis and Palestinians towards implementation of the two-state solution or not? The two presidential candidates, Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton, have done their best to convince American Jewish organisations and Israeli officials, too, that once in the White House they would bolster American-Israeli relations and defend Israel's security against terrorism. Trump even promised to move the US embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. The US Congress has already passed a resolution in this respect, but no American administration has acted accordingly, so far. In the three televised presidential debates between the two contenders for the White House in 2016, neither one of them touched on or brought up the question of peace in the Middle East. The general situation in the Middle East was amply debated, particularly how to deal with terrorism and the so-called Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria, as well as the American role in the region in light of the growing Russian role across the Middle East. While the presidential campaign was in full swing in the United States, the Obama administration reached and signed a memorandum of understanding on “security assistance” between the United States and Israel, 14 September, the terms of which, according to US administration officials present at the signing ceremony at the State Department, are unprecedented in the history of foreign relations of the United States. In the next decade and beginning 2018, Israel will get $38 billion dollars in arms, plus another $5 billion for anti-missile defence programmes. The fact that the two presidential candidates are from New York could be a signal that regardless of who wins, the next president will lend more attentive ears still to American Jewish organisations. Needless to say, if Clinton is elected, she would enter the White House with experience in the peace process gained from her years as secretary of state in the first term of President Obama, from 2009-2013. It is doubtful that she would invest much time in talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians if the two sides don't show a clear commitment to reaching a final settlement. Nothing, at present, indicates that either side is prepared to get involved in credible and serious negotiations. The Palestinians are in the throes of severe internal bickering while they expect a change of leadership in the Palestinian Authority, a change that would take place, in all likelihood, during the first term of the next US president. If it is Trump, it is doubtful that he would be seriously interested in peace prospects between the Israelis and the Palestinians. His priority, judging from his positions in the presidential debates, is fighting terrorism and defeating the Islamic State group. As far as Clinton is concerned, she would be more interested in promoting democracy, in line with Bush and Obama policies, with an inclination to attempt to reintegrate, what the Americans like to describe as “moderate Islamists”, in countries like Egypt, for example. She will enter the White House, if she wins, with the Obama credo that the best way to fight extremism and terrorism is to enlist the help of those “moderate Islamists”. I am not sure that she will be interested in confronting the Israeli prime minister on settlements, as President Obama had done in his first term. Addressing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) 21 March 2016, during its annual conference, Clinton, and before being confirmed as the presidential candidate of the Democratic Party, told attendees that she feels “strongly that America can't ever be neutral when it comes to Israel's security or survival”. She went on to assure American Jews that “We will never allow Israel's adversaries to think a wedge can be driven between us.” She also committed herself to take the alliance between Washington and Tel Aviv “to the next level”. This statement predates the signing of the MoU referred to above. According to Clinton, “Israel's security is non-negotiable.” On the same day, 21 March, Donald Trump took the floor to give a speech at AIPAC and attacked Obama's record in dealing with Israel. According to Trump, “President Obama is the worst thing to happen to Israel,” criticising both the US president and his former secretary of state, Clinton, for “pressuring our friends and rewarding our enemies”. But who are the “enemies” of both the United States and Israel? Probably, he meant Iran. He assured his listeners that his “number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran”. He was referring to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action signed between Iran and the P5+1 group in July 2015. For him, this deal rewarded Iran with $150 billion “while allowing it … to eventually acquire nuclear arms.” Furthermore, he promised to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital, “the eternal capital of the Jewish people”. Meanwhile, Trump came down hard on the Palestinians, accusing them of inciting terrorism. The Palestinians “must come to the table knowing that the bond between the United States and Israel is absolutely unbreakable. They must come to the table willing to accept that Israel is a Jewish state and it will exist forever as a Jewish state.” He also promised to veto any Security Council resolution forcing a peace deal on Israel. Perhaps someone in his campaign should have reminded him that the Security Council already adopted a resolution on the two-state solution. Strangely enough, two of his political advisors on the campaign trail wrote on Medium that the two-state solution is difficult to foresee as long as the Palestinians have not repudiated violence, refuse to accept the “Jewishness” of the State of Israel, and decline to let Jewish settlers to live within the hoped-for Palestinian state. They added that the United States under the leadership of Donald Trump could never accept the establishment of a State of Palestine that provides terrorism with what they called “economic incentives”. Someone in the Trump camp should come forward with an explanation. If a President Trump would stick to this position, forget about a peace deal between the Palestinians and the Israelis in the next four years. Regardless of who will be the US president for the coming four years, he or she will have to deal with one of the most extremist Israeli prime ministers in dealing with the Palestinians and the peace process, Binyamin Netanyahu, who has not shown any real interest in resuming peace negotiations with the Palestinians. And there is nothing in the offing that would presage a change of heart on his part. Back in 1996, former President Bill Clinton met him after his first election as prime minister. After the meeting was over, President Clinton told Dennis Ross, the former US envoy to the Middle East (1988-2000), that Netanyahu “thinks he is the superpower and we are here to do whatever he requires.” Nothing has changed, I am afraid, in the last 16 years in this regard. The road to peace in the Middle East is still a long one. It would be a miracle if the next US president shortens it. The writer is former assistant to the foreign minister.
