Although Jimmy Carter was president more than 35 years ago, and although Barack Obama will no longer be president starting next month, it is still worthwhile listening to what Carter recently suggested to Obama: “The simple but vital step this administration must take before its term expires on Jan. 20 is to grant American diplomatic recognition to the state of Palestine.”
The former president also called for the UN Security Council to pass a resolution “laying out the parameters for resolving the conflict.”
Carter›s first piece of advice cannot be followed through. Even though 136 of the 193 UN member states recognize Palestine as a state, the US is not one of them. Obama has declared US opposition to such recognition, saying that ultimately, it is Israelis and Palestinians – not the US – who must reach an agreement on the issues that divide them. He also said he would veto any Security Council move to recognize Palestinian statehood.
However, US parameters for a two-state solution, to be ratified by the Security Council, would reaffirm principles that have become familiar over years of negotiations: A Palestinian state with recognized borders based on the 1967 lines with its capital in East Jerusalem, and a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue focused on resettlement in a Palestinian state. Setting parameters at the UN is to register the two-state solution in international law, an international declaration of what belongs to the Palestinians and what does not belong to Israel.
Israel staunchly opposes any move by Obama to secure a UN Security Council resolution that would embrace US-drafted parameters for a two-state solution. Furthermore, Obama parameters could do more harm than good because US domestic political constraints would likely ensure that the parameters would fall short of international consensus and be tilted in Israel’s favor. The Palestinians would be required to accept more concessions than they’ve already made, while Israel would almost certainly, and with impunity, ignore any such international declaration.
And even though an outgoing President Obama could have taken a last stab at peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians, that was when he thought Hillary Clinton would win and Clinton was thought to be four more years of Obama. But now on big, transformative issues, Obama and President-elect Donald Trump may not be in alignment.
One more thing: Following the failure of the John Kerry mission to reach a settlement, Obama might have lost any appetite for involvement in peace negotiations that show no indication of a likely breakthrough.
It is historically true that US presidents do not like to embark on new initiatives in their final year, let alone final month, in office. But whether they admit it or not, they are very much concerned with their legacy. To date, Obama’s legacy with regard to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has been disappointing. Obama entered the White House more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause than any incoming president before him. He had repeatedly criticized American policy, calling for a more even-handed approach toward the Palestinians. But unlike his predecessors, Carter and Camp David as an example, Obama has not a single achievement to his name. So his final month in power could be a unique opportunity to correct the record. A new late-term initiative may not be a bad idea at all.
Or Obama could do nothing — exactly like the Israeli government. They will always fall back on the argument that the only way to make any progress whatsoever is through direct negotiations. Anything else they say is interference and constitutes undue pressure.
But doing nothing means accepting the ever-deteriorating status quo and a future of spiraling violence. In the absence of diplomatic leadership, instability and violence are filling the vacuum.
