Aug 23rd 2010

Direct talks and their potential consequences

by Alon Ben-Meir

A noted journalist and author, Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is professor of international relations and Middle East studies at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University. Ben-Meir holds a masters degree in philosophy and a doctorate in international relations from Oxford University. His exceptional knowledge and insight, the result of more than 20 years of direct involvement in foreign affairs, with a focus on the Middle East, has allowed Dr. Ben-Meir to offer a uniquely invaluable perspective on the nature of world terrorism, conflict resolution and international negotiations. Fluent in Arabic and Hebrew, Ben-Meir's frequent travels to the Middle East and meetings with highly placed officials and academics in many Middle Eastern countries including Egypt, Israel, Jordan, the Palestinian territories, Syria and Turkey provide him with an exceptionally nuanced level of awareness and insight into the developments surrounding breaking news. Ben-Meir often articulates

The Obama administration's success in moving the Israeli-Palestinian talks from proximity to direct negotiations is an important achievement for making real progress. However, direct talks will not produce substantive results unless the United States takes a number of pivotal steps to insure that the progress made in the negotiations is irreversible, and will eventually lead to a final agreement. This is the only way the United States can avoid the pitfalls of past bilateral negotiations, so that if-for whatever reasons-the negotiations stall or break down, they can be resumed from where they were left off. Moreover, the United States must remain directly and actively involved in the negotiations, serving as the 'depository' of any incremental agreement achieved, while delinking progress on any particular issue from the remaining unresolved issues. To that end, the Obama administration ought to focus on four different steps:

First, the Obama administration must persuade Israel to start the direct negotiations with the Palestinians by focusing on the issue of borders. Addressing the final borders would first and foremost signal to the Palestinians that an issue at the core of the conflict-the parameters of a two-state solution-is to be negotiated in earnest, something that will dramatically strengthen Abbas' position. This will also have a tremendous psychological and practical impact on the Palestinians as it will inadvertently address the status of the majority of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Delineating the borders will allow both sides to determine through negotiations which of the settlements will be incorporated into Israel proper through a land swap of equal size and quality, which settlements will be turned over to the Palestinians, and which will be dismantled. As a result, settlement construction should no longer be a point of contention, as Israel would build only inside the settlements that are determined to be part of Israel proper. Borders have been comprehensively discussed twice before-in 2000 at Camp David and in 2008 between the Olmert Government and the Palestinian Authority, with general agreement achieved in both sets of the negotiations. Utilizing this experience, it is conceivable that an agreement on borders could be achieved within six months. The critical point here is that once there is an agreement on borders, it should be 'banked' by the United States and delinked from any other issue, including the Palestinian refugees and the future of East Jerusalem. Moreover, the Palestinians in particular will develop a vested interest in continuing the negotiating process and will be far more inclined to negotiate to the finish line as the vision of their own state will be in sight.

Second, the United States must expand the negotiations beyond the scope of the Quartet and the Roadmap by officially embracing the Arab Peace Initiative as the central framework for a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace accord, with the objective of changing the dynamic of the negotiations. Such a step is critical at this juncture for five reasons: 1) it would give the Arab states confidence that the United States is committed to a comprehensive solution, and therefore they would be more inclined to invest greater political capital in the process; 2) it would allow the Obama administration to insist that some of the leading Arab states such as Saudi Arabia and other Gulf and North African states make certain concessions to Israel in return, including goodwill gestures such as over flights and opening trade. Such measures would go a long way toward ameliorating the attitude of many Israelis who oppose the Arab Initiative, and disabuse many others who do not believe that the Arab states intend on making peace. In addition, it would strengthen Prime Minister Netanyahu's hand with his coalition partners by providing him with the necessary political cover to make concessions as negotiations are advanced; 3) it would increase the stakes of the Arab states in the peace process and strengthen their resolve to deal with any rejectionist groups such as Hamas, by bringing them back to the Arab fold in one form or another, including coercive diplomacy; 4) representatives of leading Arab states should continue to be present as observers at the negotiating table beyond the first session in the White House on September 2nd. Their participation will bolster Mahmoud Abbas' position, serving as a political shield that will provide Abbas with the backing he needs from the Arab world to make difficult decisions in the negotiations; 5) embracing the Arab Peace Initiative would also provide a useful and necessary context with which to try to co-opt Hamas into the political process as well as advance Israel-Syria talks. Notwithstanding Hamas' extreme positions, it would be wise for the United States, the Palestinian Authority, and Egypt to encourage Hamas to accept the principle of the Arab Peace Initiative in order to become part of the process, as long as it also maintains its current non-violent posture. If Hamas is ignored, it will stop short of nothing to undermine the peace negotiations. Similarly, the Obama administration must prepare the groundwork to reopen the Israeli-Syrian negotiations. Peace between Israel and Syria remains central to achieving regional stability. Finally, throughout these efforts, the United States must remain directly and actively involved, advancing new ideas, bridging differing positions, and inducing collaborative approaches to get results.

Third, it is extremely important that President Obama address the Israeli public directly, preferably by visiting Israel or, at a minimum, by dedicating an exclusive press conference on the heels of the resumption of direct talks at the beginning of September. Although Mr. Obama has repeatedly stated America's unshakable commitment to Israel's national security, there is still considerable consternation among Israelis about the President's personal commitment. The bilateral American-Israeli relations during the first 18 months of his presidency were rocky for a variety of reasons, including the conflict over a settlement freeze. Now it appears that President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu have reached a much better understanding about the requisites for conducting meaningful negotiations with the Palestinians, particularly following Netanyahu's visit to the White House on July 6th. Going forward, it is critical that the President demonstrate to Israelis not only America's non-negotiable commitment to their national security, but that pursuing peace with the Palestinians based on a two-state solution offers Israel long-term security guarantees, and that it remains the only viable option to resolve the conflict. Indeed, the President must emphasize that America's strategic interests in the Middle East are intertwined with Israel's national security interests. Our shared interests in security and stability throughout the region would significantly be advanced by a comprehensive peace between Israel and the Arab states. Moreover, Israelis must understand that dealing with any threat emanating from Iran or its surrogates, Hamas, Hezbollah and others, requires an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the full backing of the U.S. and the Arab states.

A visit by the President to Israel at this particular time may evoke criticism from some who may accuse the President of political pandering in an election year. Conversely, a visit at this time could blunt the impact of the Obama administration's critics who have begun to use the past friction between the Obama White House and Israel as a political tool during this election season. Putting such cynicism aside, there is nothing more powerful than the presence of the President of the United States in a country which is eagerly seeking to restore the unflinching bond that has symbolized the relations between the two nations. Furthermore, only when the Israelis are confident in the state of U.S.-Israel relations, will they be more likely to make the kind of meaningful concessions needed to conclude a peace agreement. Only under such circumstances will the Israeli public demand from its own government to make the necessary concessions to achieve peace with security.

Finally, the President should use his visit to Israel to reassure Israelis that the United States is committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Israelis are terrified of the prospect that, if not stopped, Iran will eventually acquire nuclear weapons and Israel will face an existential threat. The President's spelling out the United States' commitment to avert such a scenario-in unequivocal terms-will send an important message not only to the Israeli people, but to Iran as well. Delivering this point from Israel will clearly signal where the United States stands on Iran's nuclear program while making a compelling case to the Israelis that America stands shoulder-to-shoulder with their country. The President does not need to threaten the Iranian regime with military force to show solidarity with Israel. However, such a message would be particularly important because if force is ultimately used as a last resort against Iran's nuclear facilities by either country, both the United States and Israel would be implicated.

President Obama has already invested substantial political capital in trying to resume meaningful negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, and must now invest even more to bring an end to the decades long, debilitating conflict. The resumption of direct negotiations gives the President his first chance since he came to office to meaningfully pursue an Israeli-Palestinian peace through a two-state solution. It most likely will be his last chance. A failure to achieve a breakthrough this time around will not simply delay a peace agreement or restore the status quo ante; it will seriously erode the President's credibility, and could usher in a period of intense violence and instability-if not all out war-setting back the prospect for a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict by a whole generation, with potentially terrifying consequences. Neither Israel, the United States nor the Arab states can afford such a breakdown at this particular juncture, especially when the war in Afghanistan continues to rage, violence is still inflicting Iraq, tension between Israel and Lebanon is simmering and Iran is racing toward acquiring nuclear weapons.

The experiences from former negotiations strongly suggest that the measures stipulated here must be carefully considered in order to avoid the pitfalls of the past. In particular, the United States must become the 'depository' and final arbiter of all interim agreements achieved-such as borders-and must commit both sides to honor these agreements in the future should the negotiations falter at any stage and for whatever reason, including a change of government. To be sure, the United States must insist that future talks resume from where current negotiations leave off, otherwise they could be used as a tool to stall from reaching an agreement rather than achieving a permanent solution.

This is the time when the United States must insist that all the parties to the conflict put their cards on the table and demonstrate once and for all that their protestations to seek peace are genuine. By demonstrating leadership, the United States can insure that the parties no longer claim to seek 'peace' without making the difficult decisions necessary to achieve it.

Browse articles by author

More Current Affairs

Jun 25th 2020
EXTRACT: "The facts are clear: the wealthiest 0.54%, about 40 million people, are responsible for 14% of lifestyle-related greenhouse gas emissions, while the bottom 50% of income earners, almost 4 billion people, only emit around 10%. The world’s top 10% income earners are responsible for at least 25% and up to 43% of our environmental impact. Most people living in developed countries would fit into this category, meaning you don’t have to consider yourself rich in order to be globally affluent. Even many poorer people in wealthy countries have a disproportionately large and unsustainable resource footprint compared to the global average."
Jun 24th 2020
EXTRACT: "To be sure, the American Dream was always more aspiration than reality. Economic, social, and intergenerational mobility have always fallen short of what the myth of the self-made man or woman would lead one to expect. But with social mobility now declining as inequality rises, today’s young people are right to be angry."
Jun 19th 2020
EXTRACT: "There is only one way to repair America’s reputation, regain the trust of allies, and ensure that the US can act as an effective counterweight to China: address the root causes of the cracks that Trump’s disastrous presidency has exposed and widened. This is in line with the vision advanced in 2011 by two military strategists, Captain Wayne Porter and Colonel Mark Mykleby, using the pseudonym “Mr. Y.” Porter and Mykleby argued that national security depends not only on the capacity to respond to threats from foreign powers, but also – and perhaps more important – on the “application of credible influence and strength.” That influence, in turn, depends on America’s success in providing a “pathway of promise” for US citizens – and a model for the world."
Jun 14th 2020
EXTRACT: "The most critical question then is not how far Trump will go to promote his treasonous agenda, but for how long Republican leaders will silently accept and subserviently enable Trump to destroy the basic moral tenets and values on which this Union was founded, and which they swore to uphold and protect...............Of course, shame on us if we continue to be surprised by Republicans’ continuing silence, because as we all know, even when presented with overwhelming evidence that Trump committed crimes against the American people, Trump’s Republican stooges in the Senate exonerated him following impeachment almost unanimously...................The Republican leadership, to be sure, has made its bed. It has committed moral suicide. History will judge them harshly for their treason and betrayal of the nation, including all of those who have lived and died throughout our history to foster and protect our safety, integrity, and freedom."
Jun 9th 2020
EXTRACT: " Governments can do nothing about the quotidian offenses of living as a black person in America – the empty taxis that refuse to stop, being mistaken for employees in supermarkets, the myriad intentional and unintentional insults. Many now in the streets won’t be satisfied unless the result of this national spasm is improved schools, health care, and job opportunities for minorities – a fair shake for black people. What will happen when America once again falls short of honoring its professed values?."
Jun 8th 2020
EXTRACT: "It should be apparent to most observers of international relations that the Chinese government wants the world to play by its own set of rules. Beijing appears to believe that China’s rise and its assumption of global leadership positions are an inevitable extension of earlier periods in its history, when it was the world’s most powerful country. This is often at odds with the global norms that have been established – with China’s participation, it is worth adding – since the 1940s. While this is clearly the Chinese century, few outside of China would agree that Beijing’s global leadership is either inevitable or necessarily desired – certainly not on the Chinese government’s terms."
Jun 4th 2020
EXTRACT: "Many Americans are clearly horrified by their president’s crass and incendiary words. But will their disapproval be offset by anxiety about violent social unrest? Will age-old racial prejudices, often unspoken, or even acknowledged, still make them vote for the false security of a coarse white bully?  Much will depend on how hot this summer gets. If people think rationally in November, it is hard to imagine that enough of them would vote to keep this appalling administration in power for another four years. But fear is reason’s worst enemy."
Jun 2nd 2020
EXTRACT: "For starters, many Americans have accepted that they live in a winner-takes-all society of deepening inequality. While the wealth and incomes of those at the very top continue to grow, tens of millions of Americans struggle to afford health care, childcare, and other basic goods. This story has been told many times over. But what often goes unremarked is that the responsibility for managing the social costs of this system has been offloaded onto the police."
May 27th 2020
EXTRACT: "Obamagate is the latest conspiracy theory to be pushed by US president, Donald Trump. It started on the morning of May 10, when Trump retweeted the word “OBAMAGATE!” By the next day, the Obamagate hashtag had accrued over two million tweets and another four million by the end of the week. Trump has repeatedly reused the slogan on his Twitter feed since and it has been promoted by right-wing influencers including Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and many others....You are not alone if you’re confused by what Obamagate actually is or why Trump is tweeting about it."
May 23rd 2020
EXTRACT: "Not all aspects of our near and medium-term future can be foreseen at this juncture of the Covid-19 pandemic, but we now know enough to make some hypotheses about what is likely to change, based on what has already changed. The future is sure to look very different than it did before this decade began, regardless of whether a vaccine is found. If a vaccine is found, it is unlikely to be tested, approved, manufactured, and efficiently distributed to the world’s population of nearly 8 billion people for years. Bearing in mind that there is no vaccine for any coronavirus, what is likelier is that the world will be living with Covid-19 as a part of our ecosystem for many years to come – possibly permanently. That means that our new normal is probably already here."
May 21st 2020
EXTRACT: "LONDON – The new Franco-German proposal for a €500 billion ($547 billion) European recovery fund could turn out to be the most important historic consequence of the coronavirus. It is even conceivable that the deal struck between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron might one day be remembered as the European Union’s “Hamiltonian moment,” comparable to the 1790 agreement between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson on public borrowing, which helped to turn the United States, a confederation with little central government, into a genuine political federation."
May 19th 2020
EXTRACT: "In April 2011, Donald Trump, then considering a run for the presidency the following year, said that he had sent investigators to Hawaii to check out rumors that President Barack Obama wasn’t born there, but in Kenya, which would disqualify him for the presidency. His investigators, Trump declared, “cannot believe what they’re finding.” I can find no record of Trump being challenged on this outlandish claim at the time. In the fall of 2016, Trump, now the Republican presidential nominee, was convinced by his staff that he had to abandon this “birther” nonsense. He did so reluctantly, charging – also with no evidence – that such rumors had actually been initiated by his opponent, Hillary Clinton. There, in a nutshell, is Trump’s modus operandi: he’s not just a liar but a fabulist, seemingly unconcerned with whether his fictions will be exposed. If they are, the world simply moves on as he invents fresh distractions."
May 19th 2020
EXTRACT: "Li, a doctor, was purportedly silenced and chastised by Chinese officials for warning on December 30, 2019, about a new virus in the Wuhan hospital where he worked. When it became evident that he was on to something serious – so serious, in fact, that it ultimately killed him – the Chinese government changed its tune and celebrated Li’s bravery. If only that had happened sooner, the argument goes, the world would have avoided this horrific pandemic.................... But that’s not what happened."
May 9th 2020
EXTRACT: "Jana Winter and Hunter Walker at Yahoo News broke the story that 11 Secret Service agents have tested positive for the coronavirus. Likely some of them served in the West Wing. This week it was revealed at that a US military valet who brought Trump food came down with the virus, sending Trump into a “lava level” rage. Two aides to Vice President Mike Pence have tested positive. Some observers are afraid that the virus is circulating in the West Wing itself."
May 6th 2020
EXTRACT: "There has been much debate around the world about the source of the COVID-19 pandemic, ranging from a laboratory to Wuhan’s seafood market to some other form of animal-to-human transmission. While there is no proof (yet) that the virus may have been inadvertently released from one of the two biological research laboratories located at Wuhan, there is evidence that viral release has occurred in the past, and a host of additional data that point to a laboratory connection. "
May 4th 2020
EXTRACT: "A better bet is that nothing will be the same. Wealth will be destroyed on a catastrophic scale, and policymakers will need to find a way to ensure that, at least in some cases, creditors take part of the hit, a process that will play out over years of negotiation and litigation. For bankruptcy lawyers and lobbyists, it will be a bonanza, part of which will come from pressing taxpayers to honor bailout guarantees. Such a scenario would be an unholy mess."
Apr 29th 2020
EXTRACT: "We need the twenty-first century’s two superpowers, America and China, to set the example, by burying their rivalry and uniting all of humankind around a collective response to the current crisis, and to those that await us. As COVID-19 has taught us, the old international system can no longer guarantee humankind’s safety and security. We cannot afford to be taught that lesson twice."
Apr 29th 2020
EXTRACT: "It should come as no surprise that Trump has abused his power in orchestrating the federal response to the pandemic. For example, he made sure that Colorado received 100 much-needed ventilators, and made sure that Colorado voters knew it, in order to help re-elect troubled incumbent Republican senator Cory Gardner.  More alarming, Trump effectively threatened to wage germ warfare against US Postal Service workers by denying them congressionally approved virus-mitigation aid unless the USPS quadrupled rates on packages. Trump’s actual target was Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon and owner of The Washington Post."
Apr 28th 2020
EXTRACT: "These ten risks, already looming large before COVID-19 struck, now threaten to fuel a perfect storm that sweeps the entire global economy into a decade of despair. By the 2030s, technology and more competent political leadership may be able to reduce, resolve, or minimize many of these problems, giving rise to a more inclusive, cooperative, and stable international order. But any happy ending assumes that we find a way to survive the coming Greater Depression."
Apr 26th 2020
EXTRACT: "In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the US Federal Reserve will buy unlimited quantities of Treasury bonds, the Bank of England will purchase £200 billion ($250 billion) of gilts, and the European Central Bank up to €750 billion ($815 billion) of eurozone bonds. Almost certainly, central banks will end up providing monetary finance to fund fiscal deficits. The only question is whether they should make that explicit."