AMERICAN POLITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON MIDDLE EAST PEACE (LCI)

Last evening, July 11, I was a guest on Le 17/20 on French news channel, LCI. The panel was intended to focus on yesterday's meeting of the Middle East Quartet in Washington DC, but evolved into a discussion primarily about Israeli and Palestinian internal politics.

I contributed an analysis of the American political landscape with the following reflections:

--How strong is Obama's political will to press this issue? Currently on his plate: consuming debt negotiations and the early stages of the 2012 electoral cycle. Israel's defense and security is a US domestic electoral issue. Even if Obama were willing to take a harder line to transform his May 2011 speech into action, this would necessarily involve increased pressure on Israel and opening himself (and his campaign) to avid criticism from across the two-party spectrum, including from representatives protecting their own seats in their home districts.

--A closer look at US domestic opposition to the Palestinian vote this September: I signaled the resolution proposed by Reps. Cantor (R-VA) and Hoyer (D-MD), which passed the House almost unanimously (407-6), and threatens to suspend aid to Palestine if they proceed with the UN vote this September and advance toward a deal with Hamas.

--The US's inability to translate words to action: Again, no progress to speak of following Obama's speech; the loss of a widely-respected envoy (Mitchell) who failed to invest the two parties in productive dialogue; a replacement for Mitchell, David Hale, who has barely been visible on the issue; and an American administration very reticent to convene the Quartet out of almost total disbelief that it could produce any effective course of action heading into the summer.

--I suggested that Washington's paradoxical objectives (protection of Israel while maintaining access to Arab oil supplies) can often create an obstacle to developing a coherent policy in the region.

- Amy Greene

DEBATING OBAMA'S MIDDLE EAST APPROACH (LCI)

On May 23, I was a panelist on the program Le 17/20 hosted by Michel Field on French news network LCI.

The round table debate took place in French and focused on US policy towards Israel and Palestine in the context of President Obama's recent address and Prime Minister Netanyahu's remarks before a joint session of the American Congress.

Here are the main points I raised:

- On this issue, the US domestic debate is complex and multifaceted. Emotional stances can be found on all sides of this issue, cutting across party lines. Even within the administration there was vivid discussion about what to include in the remarks. Following the President's speech, criticism came from both high-ranking Democrats (such as Harry Reid) as well as from Republicans.

- The role of Congress on this topic is particularly important as Israel's security is not only a foreign political, but also a domestic electoral, issue.

- President Obama's clearly stated position put the focus and pressure squarely back on the two leaders concerned, Abbas and Netanyahu. Now that the US had made its policy known, the questions rightly became: Who is serious about moving forward? Who will or will not make concessions? Who is ready to make peace? If the President's plan is rejected, by whom and on what basis?

- Regardless of the current impasse, President Obama was not wrong to tackle this issue immediately upon inauguration. By continuously refining and asserting the US's position from early on, Obama - if nothing else - created a steady psychological impact, gradually removing doubt that the US would again bend to the same recycled reticence towards negotiations. He created an ongoing narrative suggesting that results would be demanded. The question of psychological impact was first raised by a fellow panelist.

- Amy Greene