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

Added 12.07.2018
The cabinet members who resigned this week apparently feared that politics is taking May toward a “soft Brexit,” their worst of all possible worlds........“soft Brexit,” maintains the status quo, more or less, letting Europeans freely circulate into British labor markets and allowing European firms to operate easily in the UK. The problem with “soft Brexit” is that it raises questions about why the UK is leaving at all, since it will still have the same obligations to Europe as before, it just won’t have a voice when the remaining 27 members of the European Union meet to make decisions.
Added 12.07.2018
One study on the 2010 World Cup found that there was a 37.5% rise in admission rates across 15 accident and emergency departments on England match days........Examining reports of domestic abuse in Lancashire (a county of approximately 1.5m people in Northern England), across the 2002, 2006 and 2010 World Cup tournaments, we discovered a 26% increase in reports of domestic abuse when England won or drew, and a 38% increase when England lost. Reports were also more frequent on weekends, and reached their peak when England exited the tournament.
Added 10.07.2018
If, back in the 1980s and 1990s, the US government, rather than arguing for Chinese economic opening, had prohibited any US company from investing there, China’s rise would have been significantly delayed, though not permanently prevented. Because that did not happen, China’s rise is now self-sustaining. A huge and increasingly affluent domestic market will make exports less vital to growth.
Added 10.07.2018
Comparing today’s demagogues with Adolf Hitler is almost always unwise. Such alarmism tends to trivialize the actual horrors of the Nazi regime, and distracts attention from our own political problems. But if alarmism is counterproductive, the question remains: At what point are democracies truly in danger? What was unimaginable only a few years ago – a US president insulting democratic allies and praising dictators, or calling the free press “enemies of the people,” or locking up refugees and taking away their children – has become almost normal now. When will it be too late to sound the alarm?
Added 09.07.2018
In view of such actions, expectations for Trump’s behavior at the upcoming summit have gone from prickly to dangerous. The sense of foreboding has been heightened by the announcement that, just four days after the summit ends, Trump will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, in Helsinki. The nightmare scenario is easy to imagine: Trump lays bare NATO’s fractures, including by questioning mutual defense, before selling his allies down the river by publicly embracing Putin. But this does not need to be the outcome.
Added 09.07.2018
After 2027 (or maybe even 2025, only 7 years from now), the number of EVs will rapidly accelerate, as virtually all new vehicles bought will be electric (an effect of rapidly falling battery and other component costs and of the fuel for electric cars being essentially free; you can power one off your rooftop solar array).
Added 03.07.2018
Most pundits interpret Trump’s outbursts as playing to his political base, or preening for the cameras, or blustering for the sake of striking future deals. We take a different view. In line with many of America’s renowned mental-health experts, we believe that Trump suffers from several psychological pathologies that render him a clear and present danger to the world.
Added 03.07.2018
In the United Kingdom, Brexit looms large, with everyone from government ministers to tabloid newspapers frothing daily about the deal that will be struck with the European Union and the effects that it will have. But the EU faces too many pressing challenges to be obsessing about Britain. The UK’s concern is understandable: evidence is mounting of the likely damage a departure from the single market and customs union will do to the UK economy. According to new research from the Centre for European Reform, the UK economy is already 2.1% smaller than it would have been had voters chosen to remain. The hit to public finances totals £440 million ($579 million) per week.
Added 26.06.2018
Nowadays, Britain’s words and actions on the world stage are so at odds with its values that one must wonder what has happened to the country. Since the June 2016 Brexit referendum, British foreign policy seems to have all but collapsed – and even to have disowned its past and its governing ideas. Worse, this has coincided with the emergence of US President Donald Trump’s erratic administration, which is pursuing goals that are completely detached from those of Britain – and of Europe generally. 
Added 26.06.2018
With each passing day, it becomes increasingly evident that US President Donald Trump’s administration cares less about economics and more about the aggressive exercise of political power. This is obviously a source of enormous frustration for those of us who practice the art and science of economics. But by now, the verdict is self-evident: Trump and his team continue to flaunt virtually every principle of conventional economics.
Added 26.06.2018
The sights and sounds of Central American children being ripped from their parents by US Border Patrol officers have, by now, spread across the globe. The experience has been traumatizing to its victims and deeply painful to watch. It has also done incalculable damage to the very idea of America. This is June when we are supposed to be celebrating "Immigrant Heritage Month". Each year, I have taken this opportunity to recall my family's immigrant story - the opportunity and freedom they sought, the hardships they endured, and the remarkable progress they made in just one generation. 
Added 24.06.2018
State terrorism comes in many forms, but one of its most cruel and revolting expressions is when it is aimed at children. Even though U.S. President Donald Trump backed down in the face of a scathing political and public outcry and ended his administration’s policy of separating migrant children from their parents, make no mistake: His actions were and remain a form of terrorism.
Added 22.06.2018
It is now clear that the twenty-first century is ushering in a new world order. As uncertainty and instability associated with that process spread around the globe, the West has responded with either timidity or nostalgia for older forms of nationalism that failed in the past and certainly will not work now. Even to the most inveterate optimist, the G7 summit in Quebec earlier this month was proof that the geopolitical West is breaking up and losing its global significance, and that the great destroyer of that American-created and American-led order is none other than the US president. To be sure, Donald Trump is more a symptom than a cause of the West’s disintegration. But he is accelerating the process dramatically.
Added 20.06.2018
Sessions quoted a line written by the apostle Paul to a small community of Christians living in Rome around 55AD to defend the Department of Justice’s approach. He said: "I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order." Sessions used the Bible because one of the most vocal opponents of the crackdown on asylum cases has been the Catholic Church. It’s no surprise that Sessions appealed to Romans chapter 13 verse 1 in response: not only did he hope to undermine Catholic authority by using the Bible against them, he cited a statement so broad that one might use it to defend anything a government does, good or bad. Picture below St Paul writing his epistles, by Valentin de Boulogne, via Wikimedia Commons.
Added 19.06.2018
 

I find it exceptionally irritating when I hear liberals worry about whether Israel will be able to remain a "Jewish and Democratic State" if it retains control of occupied Palestinian lands.

Added 18.06.2018
Daniel Wagner: "My prediction Korean War will be formally ended, the peninsula will be denuclearised, and a lasting peace will be the result."
Added 14.06.2018
Extract: PiS [ the ruling Law and Justice party] has established the most significant addition to the Polish social safety net since 1989: the Family 500+ program. Launched in 2016, Family 500+ embodies the nationalism, traditional family values, and social consciousness that the PiS seeks to promote. The program pays families 500 złoty ($144) per month to provide care for a second or subsequent child...........The program has been enormously popular. Some 2.4 million families took advantage of it in the first two years. The benefit, equivalent to 40% of the minimum wage, has almost wiped out extreme poverty for children in Poland, reducing it by an estimated 70-80%........... Liberal pro-European politicians and policymakers are not convinced. They complain that such a generous family benefit will weaken work incentives and blow up the government budget. But initial evidence suggests that Family 500+ has actually increased economic activity. It has also reversed the post-communist decline in fertility, increased wages (particularly for women), and enabled families to buy school materials, take vacations, buy more clothes for their kids, and rely less on high-priced credit for basic household needs. And, thanks to rapid economic growth, the government deficit has steadily fallen, not grown.
Added 12.06.2018
The depths of hypocrisy of the Republican Party in supporting Trump’s meeting with the North Korean dictator in Singapore are hard to plumb. This is a party whose leading members adopted the Ostrich Foreign Policy Principle for decades. If you don’t like a country’s government or political and economic system, pretend it does not exist.
Added 12.06.2018
US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has spoken out against China’s strategy of “intimidation and coercion” in the South China Sea, including the deployment of anti-ship missiles, surface-to-air missiles, and electronic jammers, and, more recently, the landing of nuclear-capable bomber aircraft at Woody Island. There are, Mattis warned, “consequences to China ignoring the international community.” But what consequences?
Added 12.06.2018
With a general election approaching in September, Swedish voters are being warned that now it’s their turn to be targeted by Russian interference in the democratic process. According to Sweden’s Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB), which is leading the country’s efforts to counter foreign-influence operations, such interference is very likely, and citizens should be on the lookout for disinformation and fake news.