Window on Israel: Obama's Middle East record to date: unimpressive to embarrassing

Since the country went back to work after Rosh Hashana, the airwaves were filled with competing speculation about the upcoming meeting in New York of Barack Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas. The central question: What, if anything, would Obama wring from Netanyahu and Abbas? Perhaps Bibi would agree to more of a settlement freeze than previously, and Abu Mazan would agree to negotiate with him.
 
Once the leaders had met, and the American president spoke, the commentary shifted to new terrain, where it will likely stay for awhile.

Neither Bibi nor Abbas gave Obama what he wanted. The president came close to admitting defeat when he spoke of "restraining" building in the settlements rather than "freezing" it, and did not mention east Jerusalem. The process will continue. Secretary of State Clinton and special envoy Mitchell will return to the region, and press Israelis and Palestinians to be reasonable.
 
Some commentators are saying that Israel will eventually pay a heavy price for refusing to bend under the pressure of the American president. Others are ridiculing Obama. How could he have invested his time and prestige so heavily and achieve nothing?
 
Actually, he achieved less than nothing. He made things worse.
 
Earlier, the Palestinians negotiated while construction in the settlements continued. Obama hardened their position by his insistence on a freeze. And he may have spurred a greater rate of construction by Israelis enraged by his demand to freeze construction for Jews in neighborhoods of Jerusalem.
 
Skeptics will say that Obama's efforts have had no impact. The gaps between what the most generous of the major Israeli parties are willing to offer and what the Palestinians demand are so great as to make agreement unlikely.
 
So what is the future?
 
Most likely more of the same. Scenarios emerging from recent events look something like this:
 
If Palestinians in the West Bank continue to refrain from terror, there will be quiet. The IDF will stay out of Palestinian cities and villages, and remove more of the barriers that hinder movement. Individuals will continue to invest in commercial, industrial, and residential properties, and the West Bank economy will outshine stagnation in Gaza.

Israeli leftists will join the international chorus in crying foul. Some are already saying that if Israel does not agree to a two-state solution, the world will insist on a one-state solution with full rights for everyone between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. That will produce another Middle East country beholden to its Muslim majority, and would mean the end of Israel.

The Israeli center and right will ignore those calls for national suicide. Aside from occasional lip service, the world will leave Israel and the Palestinians to the Israelis and Palestinians.

If Palestinians tire of prosperity without the formal structure of their own state, and begin another round of violence, Israel will respond with violence. If recent events repeat themselves, there will be rubble where there is now construction. The United Nations and organizations claiming to be concerned with human rights will accuse Israel of violating their norms.

Change can happen. It is not wise, however, to plan for a major departure that rests on speculation, often by individuals with ideological commitments. Best to assume that the recent past is the best guide to the near future. The distant future will depend on an unknown variety of local, regional and world events that are impossible to take into account for meaningful planning.
 
And what about President Obama?
 
His performance in the Middle East to date has fallen somewhere between unimpressive and embarrassing. It bears the marks of a new leader, with fresh advisers, who charged into foreign cultures with conceptions developed in their own country.
 
Americans should hope that he does better at home, and elsewhere in the world where he aspires to make his mark.