On Thursday March 5th, Nathan Brown, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University and Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment For International Peace, delivered a policy brief titled "Palestine and Israel: Time For Plan B". Ghaith Al-Omari of the American Task Force On Palestine and Robert Malley of the International Crisis Group were included at this presentation to offer their opinions.
My previous diary discussed the paper in detail. Below the fold is a summary of the paper, as well as the comments from the panelists. (The transcript is here and the video is here)
From the summary of Professor Brown'spaper
- The international effort to achieve a two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict has come to a dead end, at least for the present.
- Things can—and might well—get worse unless the United States and other outside actors couple a realistic view of the present with a serious effort to push for a more promising future.
- The first step in a new diplomatic approach must be to establish a cease-fire that builds on the common interest of both Israel and Hamas to avoid fighting in the short term.
- A new cease-fire should be clear and perhaps even written; mediators (whether Arab or European) must be willing to make an agreement more attractive to both sides to sustain (Hamas can be enticed by some opening of the border with Egypt; Israel will demand serious efforts against the supply of arms to Hamas).
- The second step must be an armistice that would offer each side what they crave for the present—Israel would get quiet and a limit on arms to Hamas; Palestinians would get open borders, a freeze on settlements, and an opportunity to rebuild their shattered institutions. Such an armistice must go beyond a one-year cease-fire to become something sustainable for at least five to ten years.
- Finally, the calm provided by the armistice must be used to rebuild Palestinian institutions and force Palestinians and Israelis to confront rather than avoid the choices before them.
Professor Nathan Brown
In evaluating the present state of the peace process, Professor Brown stated that the idea of the two-state solution is not possible, presently, since the incoming Israeli leadership does not believe in it, the settlement population in the West Bank is entrenched, and the Palestinian community is fragmented. In addition, the Bush Administration controlled the process in such an ineffective way that it has devalued the two-state solution to all concerned parties.
Since Hamas took over complete control of Gaza in June, 2007, the Bush Administration focused on a West Bank First strategy. This policy attempted to build up Fatah economically, politically, and with respect to security in order to show the Palestinian people that Hamas had not delivered anything. This idea failed because it had the effect of creating an international protector in the West Bank. The Palestinian people have viewed the modest improvements in the West Bank economy and security as a result of other groups and not their own government.
Professor Brown believes that it is time to focus diplomatically on the intra-Palestinian and Israeli-Palestinian processes that presently exist. Hamas and Fatah are moving towards a National Reconciliation Government, and the Israeli Government and Hamas have had indirect negotiations concerning a cease-fire. He is supportive of a short-term Unity Government that paves the way towards meaningful elections. With respect to a negotiated cease-fire, it should be more detailed and effective than the one created in June, 2008. There has to be assurances that Hamas would not use the time to rearm and Israel would not act unilaterally. If successful, this cease-fire can offer Hamas the opportunity to build up thier party-state in Gaza and the Israelis can have a respite from rocket attacks. While this occurs, there can be strengthened diplomacy to move towards a more comprehensive and longer lasting armistice (5 to 10 years). Once this armistice is in place, there can be negotiations toward a final agreement.
For the most part, the Obama Administration is advocating similar ideas to the Bush Administration. There are two differences, however, that involve stressing a regional approach and a willingness to challenge the Israeli Government on the issues of settlements. These ideas are important, but they only offer a more muscular and competent version of the Bush policies. With respect to the Unity Government, the U.S. continues to focus on the acceptance of the Quartet conditions (ceasing violence, recongnizing Israel, and honoring previous agreements), which it will not do. Also, the U.S. is not spending any of its resources on a cease-fire. Unless the Obama Administration abandons the mistakes of the past, there will not be a change in the results.
Mr. Ghaith Al-Omari
Mr. Al-Omari believes that a resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not possible, at the present time. He, also, understands the need for an immediate and effective cease-fire, along with a long-term arrangement to move the peace process forward. However, the proposed armistice is more like the Oslo process "on steroids", which may have worked 15 years ago, but will not be effective at this time. The two main issues in the armistice, settlement freeze by the Israelis and control of armaments by the Palestinians, cannot be sustained during the lengthy time of the armisitice.
According to Mr. Al-Omari, the Bush Administration tried to weaken and destroy Hamas by isolating Gaza, but few resources were placed to shore up the other Palestinian groups. Professor Brown seeks to reverse this policy by directing resources towards Hamas in order to bring it into the peace process. Mr. Al-Omari states that Hamas should not be given immediate political rewards for their violent actions, but be brought gradually into the process. He also feels that the U.S. should show support to those Palestinian groups (PA, PLO, Fatah) that support U.S. regional policy, even if they are not as strong as Hamas. Since Hamas desires international diplomatic recognition, there is an opportunity to begin working with it. However, this should be done with a nation, like Egypt, that has an existing relationship with Hamas. If there is positive movement, then European nations or the U.S. can be brought into the dynamic.
Mr. Al-Omari agrees with the idea of a Palestinian Unity Government. Although, he believes it will be more of a Technocratic Government. Since the groups have such large differences, a long term government should not be expected. The goal of a short-term Unity Government should be to eliminate the individual group militias, develop non-partisan security reforms, and move towards a general election.
As opposed to Professor Brown, Mr. Al-Omari does not believe that a new approach needs to be taken with respect to the conflict. The previous policy was theoretically sound, but was handled in an incompetent manner. The Obama Administration should avoid reversing the diplomatic course and work more vigorously with other regional actors to bring about short and long term agreements.
Mr. Robert Malley
Since there has been little success for the Israeli and Palestinian peoples, Mr. Malley feels it is time to question the presently non-viable two-state peace plan. The Palestinians believe the process is controlled by the U.S., rewards Israel and Pro-Western Arab States, and seems to be a part of a broader geopolitical game that has little to do with their everyday lives and aspirations. The Israelis see the divisions in the Palestinian groups, and do not believe there is a partner that can negotiate a plan which ensures their secuirty. However, the two-state solution needs to be addressed since this is the plan that can maintain Israel as a Jewish Democratic State, provide a future for the Palestinian people, and help avoid radicalism of the regional Arab States.
With respect to Professor Brown's ideas, Mr. Malley feels it would be too difficult to freeze the settlements and define boundaries for a medium-termed armistice. He does agree with a cease-fire that is more solid than the one that is presently in place, as well as the need for a Unity Governmment.
When looking at U.S. involvement in the peace process, Mr. Malley notes that many significant events have occured without direct U.S. assistance (e.g.- Sadat's trip to Israel, Oslo Agreement, Israel-Jordan Agreement, recent Syria-Israel talks). The U.S. is a critical player when it comes to concluding agreements, but it has been ineffective in initiating successful ones. As such, other nations should have a dialogue with Hamas about issues, such as a Unity Government and allowing a national refurdendum on any peace plan. In addition, he believes the U.S. should stop boycotting Gaza in order to weaken Hamas and support Fatah. The U.S. should accept a Unity Government even if it does not meet the Quartet conditions. In the end, Mr. Malley believes that it is time for the Obama Administration to look at what hasn't worked, and try a new way because the time for a two-state resolution is short.
