The U.S.- Israel Relationship

Naomi Chazan, President of the New Israel Fund, spoke with emotional sincerity and occasional humor about the future of the peace process. Her main focus and argument was that the current domestic political situation within Israel works against an eventual peace agreement between either the Israelis and the Palestinians or the Israelis and the broader Arab world. Citing the potential election of Benyamin Netanyahu as Israeli Prime Minister and the politically divisive nature of Israeli elections, Ms. Chazan believed that even if peace was possible the politics of Israel would be unwilling to accept it. 

Overcoming these impediments to peace requires a broad and empathetic re-conceptualization of Palestinian grievances related to not only Israeli settlements in the West Bank, but also to Israel’s original war for independence in 1948. 

The logistics of handing over the West Bank to the Palestinians would require some sort of international peace-keeping force to oversee the process. Ms. Chazan believes sincerely that if the Obama administration does not act facts, the opportunity for a two-state solution could close. 

Daniel Levy, Fellow at the New America Foundation and The Century Foundation and a lead negotiator involved in the oft-cited Israeli-Palestinian talks at Taba in 2001, argued that the opportunity for a two-state solution will likely fade out after the Obama administration and may already have been rendered highly unlikely if not impossible to execute in practice. One major impediment is the thought that it is possible “to build a Palestinian state on a divided Palestinian house.” Without some sort of reconciliation between the armed political factions of Fatah and Hamas, a Palestinian state cannot be built. Once more, building a Palestinian state requires institution building and real, physical involvement by those vested in the peace process. 

Mr. Levy believes that the “Clinton Parameters,” devised by former-President Clinton, are still valid. However, not all relics of the past are worth keeping, namely the Annapolis Process, which Mr. Levy viewed as deeply flawed and is concerned that the incoming Obama administration will fall into step with that process. But Mr. Levy also stated that he expects the Obama administration to be better than the Bush administration at recovering and learning from failed initiatives.

See map: Google Maps

Participants

featured speaker
Naomi Chazan
President, New Israel Fund
Former Deputy Speaker, Israel Knesset

respondent
Daniel Levy
Director, Middle East Policy Initiative New America Foundation
and The Century Foundation