Blinken, during his first four months in office, has traveled so far to Tokyo, Seoul, Kabul and several European destinations – reflecting his nation’s foreign policy priorities. He probably would have liked to push off further his first visit to the Middle East, a reflection of the receding import this region has in American foreign policy.
But the Mideast, being the Mideast, has its own rhythm, and can upend even the most carefully laid foreign policy plans. This is why Blinken is coming now – not because he wanted to, but because events forced his hand.
There were many reasons behind Hamas’s recent decision to attack Israel by firing rockets on Jerusalem: Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s postponement of the PA elections, Iran, a desire to appear as the Guardian of Jerusalem, a weak political moment in Israel.
Hamas was also interested in testing President Joe Biden’s commitment to Israel. While this was certainly not a prime reason for the conflagration, Hamas – and the entire region – were watching to see how the new administration would act.
Would the US stand by Israel, or would “daylight” emerge between Jerusalem and Washington as it did frequently when Barack Obama was president? Would Biden unequivocally support Israel’s right to protect its citizens, or would he bow to pressure from loud progressive voices in his party, who have taken to whitewashing Hamas and acting as apologists for its terror?
Biden stood by Israel. So when his emissary comes to Jerusalem, he will be met warmly, and not with a sense – as was often the case when ex-secretary of state John Kerry used to arrive – that the other shoe was about to drop and intense pressure on Israel would be stepped up. Neither Blinken nor Biden has given any indication that this is their intention.
It is telling how various rounds of violence with the Palestinians – be they intifadas or campaigns against Hamas in Gaza – lead to drastically different conclusions in Israel and the rest of the world.
Much of the world sees the violence as proof that a two-state solution is needed now more than ever.
Most Israelis, however, draw a vastly different conclusion and ask how the world could expect Israel to withdraw from the West Bank, when the last experiment at withdrawals – from Gaza in 2005 – led to the bitter fruits the country continues to reap today.
It is clear that when Blinken comes to the region and meets the Palestinian, Egyptian and Jordanian leadership, he will want to provide a positive horizon. As such, the two-state solution will surely be on his lips.
But Blinken needs to be real and be careful about creating false expectations.
For a two-state solution to ever emerge it will need Israeli support, and for that support to coalesce there will need to be dramatic changes on the ground. New conditions need to be created before a critical mass of Israelis will even begin to entertain this notion again.
And that is where Blinken would do well to start: creating those conditions. He indicated that he is well aware of this during television interviews he gave Sunday. Pressed about the two-state solution on ABC, he said that while Biden has been clear that he is committed to it, this is not “necessarily for today.”
Instead, Blinken said, it was necessary to “start putting into place the conditions” that would allow the sides to negotiate in a meaningful and positive way toward the two-state goal.
We agree. First create new conditions on the ground that could enable negotiations to succeed where they failed so often in the past. And the most important condition is to sideline Hamas.
Hamas is badly bruised from the battering it took over the last two weeks, and as such this may be an opportunity – if America leads and the Arab world and Europe follow – to condition the reconstruction of Gaza on pushing Hamas to the side.
It’s a tall order. But if another round of Gaza devastation is to be avoided – and if real hope for a better future is to be provided – then it’s a critical one.