The latest developments in the Middle East peace process have been mind-boggling. After a 10-month settlement construction freeze in the West Bank, during which Israel continued to expand settlements, the United States is trying to bribe Israel into extending the non-freeze freeze for 90 days--because apparently three months will make all the difference. From what's been leaked about the American proposal, the Obama administration is prepared to offer Israel the following: 20 F35 fighter jets, worth US$3 billion, for free; a promise to veto any UN Security Council resolutions critical of Israel; a commitment not to raise the settlement issue again after the 90-day freeze; and pressure on Egypt to rally other Arab states to make gestures towards Israel. In exchange, Israel is supposed to freeze all, or perhaps only most, settlement projects for that period, except in East Jerusalem, and agree to discuss final borders with the Palestinians. Naturally, this proposal, which the State Department remains coy about discussing, has been met with outrage in America. Americans should be aghast that their country, during a deep economic crisis, is offering US$3 billion to persuade a country to respect international law for a 90sdays. They should be outraged that the mendacious government of Binyamin Netanyahu is perpetually humiliating their country by sabotaging its efforts at securing a peace deal that is a strategic necessity for US regional ambitions and the safety of American citizens. They should be worried that such offers degrade the international image of the United States and its ability to deal with Israel as well as other countries in the future. More surprising is that the Israelis are hesitating. Netanyahu wants the agreement in writing, and may have leaked the idea that the settlement issue would not be raised again to secure what would be an important gain for his expansionist, colonialist government. He may be afraid that his far-right allies will oppose another settlement freeze (even one that will not really be implemented) on principle, because in their experience the international community lets them get away with anything (including, quite literally, murder). What possible incentive would they have to comply with Western demands, they must be thinking, when they have always been able to do as they wish and can continue to expect more of the same? It has been suggested by some commentators (usually pro-Israel ones) that Obama's proposal is in fact a veiled threat: that by offering Israel things it used to give for free, the United States is actually threatening to withhold such privileges in the future if it doesn't get more cooperation from Israel. The idea that the Obama administration is pressuring Israel by making it an offer it can't refuse is pure fantasy, because everything that has happened in the past decade (if not two decades) suggests Israel always ends up getting its way and the United States always kowtows. Consider the F35s. The United States has long had a policy of maintaining Israel's “qualitative military edge” against its neighbors. The offer of extra planes financed by Washington is a boon for Lockheed Martin, the plane's manufacturer, that will find support from the arms lobby. It was likely to happen sooner or later, and in fact the Israelis discreetly made such a request last August. If it doesn't happen this year, it will happen next year. The political conditions for the United States to deny a contract for its arms industry and withhold military assistance to Israel simply do not exist. Same thing for the promise to use the US veto at the United Nations. The United States has used its veto to protect Israel 42 times since 1972, and nothing has changed in the political makeup of Congress or even the administration to suggest it would do otherwise. Israel's calculation--and that of its American backers who have systematically put its interests ahead of those of the United States--is that Israel can accept the deal, not abide by it, and suffer little consequence. Only the extremists among the current governing coalition might reject the deal for political gain with their domestic base. This kind of no-holds-barred approach to secure Greater Israel--which the Israeli right dreams of openly and the Israeli mainstream refuses to relinquish--is the logical consequence of the weakness of the United States and the international community (including the Arabs) in the face of Israeli intransigence over the last 20 years. The Israelis have gotten used to signing agreements they have no intention to uphold, to using delay tactics successfully, to carrying out massacres of civilians with impunity and to making it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to have a peace process that has any meaning. Consider yesterday's Knesset vote that makes any relinquishing of sovereignty from the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem subject to a referendum. It was passed because the extremists are confident that most Israelis will back them in this land grab, no matter what international law says. This new law does not include the West Bank, which Israel never officially annexed, but also makes any land swaps--key to any future two-state solution--subject to a referendum. Many Israeli commentators believe the decision has effectively made a two-state solution impossible. The United States, the European powers and most of the Arab states have spent two decades making compromises with Israel, and have gotten nothing. Comprehensive initiatives such as the 2002 Arab peace initiative have been ignored, while Israel's hold over American politics has made the United States more a part of the problem rather than the solution. No wonder countries like Iran and movements like Hamas and Hizbullah appear as more attractive models for dealing with the neighborhood bully. Issandr El Amrani is a writer on Middle Eastern affairs. He blogs at www.arabist.net. His column appears every Tuesday.
