Obama’s Middle East peace talk test

Today, President Sarah Palin convened a meeting of Middle East leaders to resume the search for a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine. “It has been President Palin’s knowledge of the players, the issues and her exceptional diplomatic skill that has made this event possible,” said Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. 

There is a reason you will never see the preceding paragraph written in a news report. Hint: It has nothing to do with Palin’s commitment to seeking peace.

It is precisely because it is unimaginable that Sarah Palin could play the role of honest broker on the international stage on an issue such as Middle East peace that she will never be president. For better or for worse, being president of the United States requires individuals who can assume such a role. Indeed, the success or failure of many American presidents has turned on whether or not they have risen to the challenges of international statesmanship. The American people recognize this fact and with very few exceptions look for character traits in winning candidates that translate into presidents who can hold their own with top leaders on vital issues (although sadly, international experience is not one of them).

This week, with the renewal of direct talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians, President Obama’s test in this defining crucible will begin. There have been hints of his aptitude for such challenges before — in the late night session at the global climate talks in Copenhagen, for example, during which he showed skill and drive. But there have also been warning signs, such as his comparatively weak showing when confronted with tough Chinese leaders in Beijing. Nothing he has yet done, however, will be as important as his role in these upcoming talks in revealing to observers around the globe whether he is the real thing or a pretender when it comes to being in the first ranks of world leaders for any reason other than the title he holds.

While the odds are against a breakthrough in these talks, any hope of progress is likely to be directly linked to whether President Obama becomes directly engaged, places his political capital on the line, and is willing to work the issues and the other leaders participating in the talks.

Rising to just such challenges has been a central factor in shaping the reputations of most modern American presidents. Harry Truman was tested early in his tenure at Potsdam. John F. Kennedy is thought to have stumbled in his first meeting with Nikita Khrushchev (although press coverage was good at the time), and only restored his international standing in his proxy confrontation with him over Cuba over a year later. Richard Nixon’s reputation as a canny international player was itself borne in a one-on-one with Khrushchev when he was vice president and later burnished in ground-breaking summits in China and Russia. Jimmy Carter is credited even by his detractors for his essential role in the Camp David talks. Ronald Reagan’s four summits with Gorbachev play an over-large role in defining his legacy. Bill Clinton’s engagement in Middle East talks was one essential element in his being seen as a complete president. George W. Bush’s failure to engage on the Israel-Palestine issue in particular was seen as a particularly striking blemish on his blemish-rich record.

Indeed, not only is summitry an important way by which presidents are judged but virtually every president since Truman is judged by how he handled the specific complexities associated with Israel and its neighbors. Like it or not, when America elects a chief executive, the responsibilities include actively managing American interests in that part of the world.

An engaged Obama can distinguish himself whether the talks succeed or fail if he is shown to be knowledgeable and skillful, if he is not shown up by the other parties, if he is not seen to be “phoning it in” or hanging back, unwilling to engage unless others make progress first. You have to be willing to perform without a net in talks such as these and that may prove a challenge for the cautious law school professor — the aspect of Obama that is least compelling to many voters.

Clearly any progress at all could be seen as a coup for the President. But even without specific progress, Obama will be scrutinized during these talks for the answers to several big questions. They include:

• Will he be seen in the Arab world and elsewhere as living up to the promise of his Cairo speech to be a different kind of U.S. president seeking a different kind of relationship with the majority population in the region?
• Will he be seen in Israel and among Israel supporters as being the unwavering backer of the Jewish state he claims he is or will he be seen to something less than that, the ambivalent fair-weather friend some worry he is?
• Will he be willing to engage deeply and take risks that might reflect badly on him personally, or will he remain aloof and, as George W. Bush did, leave it to his lieutenants to really do the heavy lifting?
• Will he show creativity and genuine leadership?
• Will he be outplayed by Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and other experienced old hands who were bottle-fed on this issue and who have the nuances of every element of it imprinted on their DNA?

Undoubtedly, preliminary judgments on these questions will be offered too quickly. But within a year, the real answers will play an enormous role in determining how he is viewed elsewhere in the Middle East, on the world stage at large, and by American voters. 

You can send soldiers and even unmanned drones off to fight Mideast wars. But Mideast peace demands the president himself get into the trenches. For that reason, these talks are just as high stakes for the U.S. president as they are for his counterparts from Israel and the Palestinian territories. Each needs the others at this point — perhaps more than they yet know.