If the emerging Washington consensus is to be believed, then here is the Middle East peace conundrum waiting to greet the new Obama administration: Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is more than ever a strategic priority for the United States, but it also seems more difficult to achieve now, perhaps even unattainable in the foreseeable future.
The transition of power always produces a proliferation of policy papers, reports and recommendations. This season virtually all converge around some variation of the following message: President Bush’s seven-year neglect of Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking eviscerated the regional standing of the United States, and this unresolved conflict fuels anti-Americanism, weakens allies, emboldens foes and is a recruitment tool for extremists.
The trouble is that a deep skepticism prevails as to what can be done given the divisions and political dysfunction displayed on both the Palestinian and Israeli sides and the failure of the Annapolis effort. Serious and well-intentioned people in America and Israel are arguing that the best the incoming administration can do on the Israeli-Palestinian front is focus on conflict management, postpone pushing for a comprehensive resolution and go for an Israeli-Syrian deal instead.
But it would be a profound mistake to put on the back burner efforts to achieve an Israeli-Palestinian breakthrough. Without addressing the Palestinian issue, it is extremely unlikely that the region can be re-stabilized, that American credibility can be revived or that Israel’s future can be secured. Nor is working to achieve a Palestinian-Israeli deal inconsistent with the goal of reaching an accord with Syria; regional issues are increasingly interconnected and a comprehensive approach (including American-Iranian diplomacy) makes most sense.
The challenge, then, is how to make an Israeli-Palestinian deal possible in the near term. In tackling this issue, it is essential to resist the temptation to lapse into familiar and failed approaches.
Focusing efforts on improving the Palestinian economy or security capacity, gradually building trust and confidence, while receiving updates on and encouraging the parties’ bilateral negotiations — all of this sounds reasonable and laudable. It certainly creates lots of diplomatic activity, announcements, visits and conferences. However, as we have learned from experience, this approach is not enough to yield meaningful and sustainable results. Condoleezza Rice, as secretary of state, visited Israel an astonishing 22 times (compared with eight visits to China and India combined) with precious little to show for it.
We live in a transparent world. It can do more harm than good when an American administration declares the Israeli-Palestinian issue to be a priority — and invests energy, effort and visibility — but the result on the ground is more insecurity, settlements and closures. When the United States appears incapable of delivering, friends and foes alike take notice. There is no such thing as an “A” for effort.
Israel, for its part, urgently needs to achieve permanent and recognized borders, reach a two-state solution and end the madness of ongoing settlements in the West Bank. A process without progress does not advance Israel’s interests.
So, is there a more promising alternative that better addresses American and Israeli needs (and the unconscionable predicament of the Palestinians) that has a realistic prospect of success? I think there is, but it requires bold, ambitious and new thinking, especially about the “when,” “who” and “how” of advancing Israeli-Palestinian peace.
First, the “when.” Delay, postponement and gradualism have ill-served the cause of peace. The conditions for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict do need to be created — but that can and should be a short-term project, not a perpetual pursuit.
As for the “who,” of course a resolution requires a threshold of Palestinian and Israeli capacity, but the idea that the sides need to do all the heavy-lifting and have hyper-charged peacemaking and implementation capacities is both unrealistic and holds back progress. Key and necessary ingredients for delivering peace and security can be substituted by the United States, the Quartet, Arab states, the European Union, NATO and others.
This is not to say that Israelis and Palestinians should be relegated to the roles of mere onlookers — sufficient local buy-in is essential. Israelis should be encouraged to acknowledge and address the stark choices and options that they face (occupation vs. democracy) and to build a consensus around the peace option. Palestinians need internal reconciliation and to build an inclusive national movement that can legitimately make national decisions and come to terms with Israel in the context of a dignified peace.
And finally there is the “how,” which really follows from the “who.” Israeli-Palestinian peace needs to be embedded in a new regional effort. That requires a comprehensive approach incorporating Syria and articulating a detailed plan for implementing the Arab peace initiative. Ultimately, a new regional security architecture should also be developed.
Closing the details of an Israeli-Palestinian deal cannot be left to the parties themselves — the emotional baggage weighs too heavily. When it comes to the minor modifications to the 1967 border and land swaps, special arrangements for Jerusalem’s holy sites and achieving recognition and compensation for Palestinian refugees absent relocation to Israel, there should be American proposals backed by the Quartet and Arab states. For both sides, closure is more easily reached by saying “yes” to a combination of the United States, Arab states and the international community than to each other. These external actors are also better placed to guarantee the implementation and finality of any deal — the end of claims being of particular importance to Israel.
Likewise, post-occupation security in a new state of Palestine should be internationally guaranteed by multinational (perhaps NATO) forces — at least for a period of time. This avoids creating the sort of power vacuum that followed Israel’s clumsy unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and gets beyond unrealistic attempts to incubate fully functional Palestinian security forces under the watch of both the Israeli army and a dispersed and increasingly violent settler population.
This, of course, is an ambitious menu. But it does suggest a direction for an administration committed to peace and to resolving the conflict, unwilling to cede this goal to the skeptics and open to new thinking.
Daniel Levy is a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and the Century Foundation. He previously served as an adviser in the office of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and was the lead Israeli drafter of the Geneva Initiative.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Cleveland Kidnapping, Elizabeth Smart and Us
Tracing the Jewish Origins of the Holy Ghost
Ethical Kosher Seal Stalls Amid Orthodox Opposition
Baby Boomers’ Rocky Road to Jewish Love
'War' With Ultra-Orthodox at Kotel? Bring It On
You've successfully signed up!
This is bizarre. Mr. Levy, and those who feel as he does, (I do not use the word, 'think') should finally understand that they are dealing with religious fanatics, whose faith impels them to reclaim all the land that they consider theirs. Islam will happily enter into any agreement, any arrangement, any treaty, any understanding, since they will simply bide their time, and when they find themselves strong enough, break it. People like Mr. Levy make the error of projecting their own morality of decency and honor onto their adversaries. For the common good, I have two suggestions for Mr. Levy and his associates: first, study the history of deception by Islam in the Middle East which it revels in to this day, and second, understand, deep down, that it is futile to attempt to negotiate with someone whose sole purpose is to destroy you.
Daniel Levy is in large part responsible for the dismal prospects of peace that now exist. It is hard to make peace when one side will make some territorial compromises and the other side demands all of historic Palestine and denies the legitimacy of the Jewish state. Levy has legitimized these extreme positions on the part of the Palestinian people by insisting on negotiations when he knows the poistions are incompatible. "new thinking" only encourages Arab and Iranian extremism
In order to solve a problem, one must first define it correctly. Why is the Arab or Islamic world anti-American? Well, according to Daniel Levy, it could be that "President Bush’s seven-year neglect of Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking... fuels anti-Americanism, weakens allies, emboldens foes and is a recruitment tool for extremists". Interesting. The most extreme act of all was the attack on the Twin Towers in 2001. Extremism and intense hatred preceded the "seven-year neglect". After the attack, as everyone recalls, there was dancing in the streets everywhere in the Arab world. No, let's find the real source of anti-Americanism. Of course, in order to understand the Arab world, it would be advisable to be able to read Arabic literature and to have a familiarity with the Arab Middle Ages. Not everything in our world is politics, and not everything is explained in yesterday's newspaper. The hostility of the Arab world is sociological: the self-image of Arabic society is in the midst of a terrible crisis as a result of modernity. America symbolizes the inexplicable and unworthy success of a non-Islamic society, and no change of policy is going to placate such a deep inferiority complex. The same is true of our conflict with the Arabs. In order to solve it, first we must define it. What is the true source of the Arab-Israeli conflict? It is not a conflict of borders, nor will an improvement in the Palestinian economy change the reality of violence. We can argue about the wisdom of settlements, yet the dismantling of the whole project will not lessen the intensity of the conflict. Neither will the return of refugees. It is a conflict about our legitimacy, and in this struggle to fight against our legitimacy, people have been willing to take up arms and resist - thereby losing their lives, their homes, their territory, their economy, etc. But these are new grievances that are the result of conflict and war, not the cause of conflict and war. However, to pretend that the conflict can be redefined in terms of its later grievances (and then be resolved) is just as silly as to pretend that anti-Americanism can be defined as a logical result of some bad policy. Please, don't belittle the Arab world. They have a long and cherished history which is the source of their world view - just like the Jews, the Americans and all other peoples. Perhaps an understanding of their culture will be the source of finding real solutions, or perhaps an understanding of their culture will bring us to a conclusion that there are no solutions to their real grievances.
I am always amazed by Mr Levy's portrayal of a victim, whose critical and negative views of the USA are unrelenting. He is, I fear, a product of this new generation, who wants his cake and eat it too. (Cake provided by the Americans, of course, they haven't a care in the World.) "Blame Bush," is the mantra and so much easier than taking on responsibility for themselves. I realize he is part of a "Think Tank" for Peace in Israel, but should he not look at the subject at hand from more than one angle?
No Mr. Kaine, I do not respect Bernie Madoff more than Daniel Levy. Bernie Madoff is moved by greed and does not care who he harms. While, Daniel Levy believes in what he is doing will bring peace. It will not. There will never be complete peace, but little inroads towards it, here and there. All nations have Army's of one sort or another and when a Country does not, they will be conquered. Diplomacy must be back by a bigger Army to any progress. The great thinkers of this World, should all sit on a rock, with their chin in their hand, stark naked and contiplate.
I dont think Obama can do much to push the Middle East Peace forward.For this to happen the US Congress has to be liberated from AIPAC and dozens of hard lined Pro-Israel lobbies.Have you folks forgotten the Zionist inspired attack on Barack Obama as to how faithful he will be to Israeli land grab ambitions! It was a pathetic scene to see a so called The Only Super Power bending backwards to placate AIPAC.Both aspirants to White House and much of Congress were in competition as to who will serve Israel best.To hell with if it hurts US National Interests!