Examining the Next Year on the Israeli-Palestinian Front

On June 16th, the New America Foundation co-sponsored an event with The Century Foundation examining the status quo of the Israel-Palestine conflict and the future it portends. The event hosted was hosted by Patrick Doherty, Deputy Director of the American Strategy Program, featuring three speakers representing the Palestinian, Israeli, and American perspectives on the conflict. An MP3 audio recording can be downloaded below, while video is available at right.

Palestinian activist and former presidential candidate, Mustafa Barghouti offered the Palestinian perspective—outlining the measures taken by the Israeli government in the wake of the Annapolis agreement that is increasingly making the two-state solution impossible. First, contrary to the promises made at Annapolis, the Israeli government has overseen twenty times more settlement expansion than any time before Annapolis. It has recently, for example, signed off on the creation of 7,974 new housing units in East Jerusalem, six times more than for the four years between 2002 and 2006 where 1,600 units were built. Furthermore, the wall that surrounds the West Bank has served as a form of functional annexation as large parts of it reside within the territory. For Barghouti, these expansions increasingly emaciate a potential Palestinian state making it an unviable entity. In addition to these two problems, the increased rate of Israeli military attacks even in the West Bank where there are no rocket attacks are alienating Palestinians and undermines the authority of Palestinian governance and the peace process in general. Since the pre-Annapolis period, attacks have increased by 300% and the checkpoints which constrict Palestinian freedom of movement have increased from 521 to 670. His second line of criticism was of the U.S. The U.S. has, for him, full rights for its bias toward Israel but heavily protests the former’s demand to hold a monopoly on mediating the peace process. In the end, the only solution he finds is a unification of the Palestinian polity under the sign of democracy.

The second speaker, Daniel Levy, Senior Fellow and Director of the Middle East Initiative in the American Strategy Program at New America, gave the Israeli perspective on the situation. His first observation on the status quo was critical of Bush’s appropriation of the failed Clinton legacy. The latter is marked by an attempt to rush a last-minute peace deal after years of disengagement which is hard to see as working in light of how intransigent the conflict has been over the years. In general, Levy does not think conditions are conducive to reaching an agreement on paper between now and the end of the year. Neither Prime Ministers Ehud Olmert nor Mahmoud Abbas have the degree of legitimacy that can hope to sign and sell a historical agreement. The challenge for the next 6 months is, then, two-fold. First, the Administration should attempt to lock in some of the content of what is being negotiated in order to ensure the next round of negotiations do not start from scratch and, second, to try and change the day-to-day situation on the ground to prevent further slippage on the two-state front. One should be modest in expectations that peace agreements being signed in the short-term will guarantee next administrations will follow them. The option available is for Secretary Condoleeza Rice to set out the parameters of the U.S. position. The first caveat is getting it right in content and negotiating this with the next Administration. Finally, there is a need for a honest conversation between the US and Israel. The former should clearly state its desire for a two-state solution and, if Israel is willing, to ask what parameters it wants. If they are not realistic, however, the American President should take the position that it will not force Israel into a position but that it will also not have sham negotiations. Instead, the U.S. will focus on keeping the two-state solution alive and make the conversation about settlements and not eroding existent conditions. The important content agreement is a ceasefire being signed between Hamas in Gaza and Israel (which has occurred since the event). Finally, Levy thinks the US-Israel relationship needs a healthy dose of instrumentalism. The U.S. should realize that the price of slippage is too high. It is bad for the US’s image, its alliance building, and is a gift to its adversaries. From the Israeli side, it should realize that American hegemony is on the decline and Israel has a fundamental interest in permanent borders while American power is such that it can achieve that.

The final speech was delivered by Aaron David Miller, former Middle East negotiator in the State Department, on the American perspective. He had six points. First, no conflict-ending solution is possible in the short-term. Second, there is the possibility of some kind of agreement that will advance the goal for peace and make the situation better. It will not be a comprehensive nor implementable piece of paper but is necessary. Third, a cease-fire in Gaza will be a respite but a road to nowhere because of the crisis in Palestinian politics of a fractured polity. Harmonizing the divisions is the only chance for a realistic agreement. No Palestinian leader can commit the public to conflict-ending issues without legitimacy and no Israeli Prime Minister can make existential concessions to a partner who does not have the monopoly on the forces of violence within its community. Fourth, Israeli and Syrian negotiations are welcome but limited because the reason behind the negotiations have more to do with domestic politics and to maintain quiet on the northern border. Neither side is willing, however, to pay the price needed for an agreement. Furthermore, the U.S. is indispensible to marshal support and broker the gaps but has not been interested in peace. Five, the U.S. acts like a modern-day Gulliver wandering as a superpower while tying itself down. The eight years of Bush has been, for Miller, a “galactic stumbling” in Middle East policy. Sixth and finally, the next President needs a sober assessment of history and reality before going off on adventures in peace-making or transformative diplomacy. Another Clinton-esque late-in-the-day attempt to bridge divides will be catastrophic. An agreement on the cheap is impossible to sell for both Israelis and Palestinians. Miller’s last criticism was of U.S.-Israel relations. Miller supports the “special relationship” with Israel and considers supporting states with similar values an important part of U.S. strategy. Yet, one should not make this an exclusive relationship preventing the U.S. from approaching other actors and being a constant yes-man to bad Israeli policies.

-Kailash Srinivasan, Research Intern for The Century Foundation

Participants

• Mustafa Barghouti
  Member, Palestinian Legislative Council
  Former Presidential Candidate
  Former Minister of Information in the Palestinian Unity Government (Independent)

• Daniel Levy
  Senior Fellow and Director, Middle East Policy Initiative, New America Foundation
  Senior Fellow and Director, Prospects for Peace Initiative, The Century Foundation
  Former Senior Policy Adviser in the Israeli Prime Minister's office

• Aaron David Miller
  Served under six Secretaries of State, most recently as senior adviser on Arab-Israeli negotiations
  Author, The Much Too Promised Land: America's Elusive Search for Arab-Israeli Peace

• Patrick Doherty
  Deputy Director, American Strategy Program
  New America Foundation

Related Links

• Speaker Bios (PDF, 1 p)