Jun 4th 2014

A New Peace Paradigm

TEL AVIV – The collapse of yet another attempt by the United States to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement should do more than provoke finger-pointing. It should spur a fundamental reconsideration of a paradigm of peacemaking – direct bilateral negotiations, under US guidance – that lost its relevance long ago.

While the US remains an indispensable global actor, it is no longer willing to use coercive diplomacy in its quest to build a new order. But it is not just a matter of willingness; the US has lost its ability to intimidate other countries, even allies and clients like Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

In the Middle East alone, the US has overstretched its capabilities in two controversial wars; repeatedly failed to broker a peace between Israel and Palestine; estranged key regional powers; and performed disappointingly on issues like Iran’s nuclear program and Syria’s civil war. All of this has diminished its capacity to shape the region’s future.

The problem is not limited to the Middle East. Despite its professed strategic pivot toward Asia, US President Barack Obama’s administration has done little to address China’s increasingly assertive efforts to stake its territorial claims in the South and East China Seas or North Korea’s affronts to the status quo on the Korean Peninsula. Add to that America’s weak response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and it is no wonder that Israeli and Palestinian leaders have dismissed its peace overtures.

US Secretary of State John Kerry, in his bid for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement, operated as if conflict resolution could be achieved through non-coercive solutions, deriving from the good will of the relevant parties. According to this plainly naive approach, the negotiation process operates according to its own embedded logic, independent of considerations of power, coercion, and leverage.

But treating force and diplomacy as distinct phases of foreign policy gives the negotiating parties the sense that American power lacks purpose and resolve. Diplomatic ripening sometimes requires the mediator to be a manipulator and an arm-twister.

Indeed, America’s only successful attempts at peace diplomacy in the Middle East involved a masterly combination of power, manipulation, and pressure. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger used it to lead Israel toward groundbreaking interim settlements with Egypt and Syria following the 1973 Yom Kippur War. President Jimmy Carter used it to conclude the 1978 Camp David Accords, establishing diplomatic relations between Egypt and Israel. And Secretary of State James Baker used it to overcome the recalcitrance of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir during the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference.

If the US cannot provide this today, it must relinquish its monopoly on international conflict resolution. It is time for the US to recognize that it cannot resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, defuse the Iranian nuclear dispute, change North Korea’s behavior, or stop the Syrian civil war on its own.

Over the last two decades, the world grew accustomed to US-led international coalitions for war in the Middle East. America should now try to form a different kind of coalition – one aimed at achieving peace. Such an alliance would entail a larger role for the other three members of the so-called “Middle East Quartet” – the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations – and key Arab countries.

Within this new peace paradigm, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would become amenable to a truly international solution. If Iran’s nuclear program demands negotiations with the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany, and North Korea’s requires the so-called “six-party talks,” why should the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict be left exclusively to the US?

As if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict’s depth and duration were not enough to merit an international solution, there is also the issue of Palestine’s mistrust of the US. For Palestinians, the US – a staunch ally of Israel whose leaders have strong domestic political incentives not to challenge it – cannot act as an honest broker in negotiations.

Under a truly international paradigm, the principles underlying a peace deal – two states along the 1967 border (with territorial swaps to accommodate Israel’s settlement blocs), two capitals in Jerusalem, an agreed solution to the refugee problem, and robust security arrangements – could be enshrined in a Security Council resolution. After establishing the terms of a fair deal, the international alliance – under US leadership – could devise an implementation strategy.

Such an international approach would also require a broader peace process, aimed at achieving a regional settlement between Israel and its Arab neighbors. This is critical, because the future Palestinian state could not offer Israel much security. Even now, Palestine is a relatively minor security challenge for Israel; the more formidable threats, which have compelled Israel to build up its military considerably, come from the Arab states that surround it.

The promise of a regional settlement that offers Israel the needed security guarantee – not to mention a considerable boost to its international standing – would make the painful concessions, including compromises on borders and Jerusalem, which are critical to the creation of a Palestinian state, more digestible for Israeli leaders. The initiators of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative understood this; perhaps now the US will come to appreciate it as well.


Shlomo Ben Ami, a former Israeli foreign minister, now serves as Vice President of the Toledo International Center for Peace. He is the author of Scars of war, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy.

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2014.
www.project-syndicate.org

 


This article is brought to you by Project Syndicate that is a not for profit organization.

Project Syndicate brings original, engaging, and thought-provoking commentaries by esteemed leaders and thinkers from around the world to readers everywhere. By offering incisive perspectives on our changing world from those who are shaping its economics, politics, science, and culture, Project Syndicate has created an unrivalled venue for informed public debate. Please see: www.project-syndicate.org.

Should you want to support Project Syndicate you can do it by using the PayPal icon below. Your donation is paid to Project Syndicate in full after PayPal has deducted its transaction fee. Facts & Arts neither receives information about your donation nor a commission.

 

 

Browse articles by author

More Current Affairs

Sep 6th 2009

In "Should You Get Your Drug Information From an Actor?" I discussed the pharmaceutical industry's egregious practice of using celebrity-driven, prime time televisio

Sep 3rd 2009

I have never really trusted those who are intolerant and condemning of other people's shortcomings. It makes me suspect that they are likely hiding their own.

Sep 3rd 2009

CAMBRIDGE - Everyone from the Queen of England to laid-off Detroit autoworkers wants to know why more experts did not see the financial crisis coming. It is an awkward question.

Sep 2nd 2009

While all the attention has been paid to angry opponents of health care reform at Congressional town hall meetings, a bigger problem for President Obama and his party is brewing among Democrats.

Sep 2nd 2009

President Obama and his administration have correctly emphasized that exploding costs, limited access, and uneven quality of basic medical care in the United States are all unacceptable.

Aug 30th 2009

Every year or so, the video game industry releases its latest demographics on its audience. And every year the big news is that the video game player is growing older (this year's result: 35).

Aug 28th 2009

How did everything fall apart so quickly?

After the first 100 days, President Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress were on top of the world. The President's job ratings were in the 60s.

Aug 27th 2009

Has the time come to rethink the concept of piano competitions? Many participants and leading musicians believe so.

Aug 26th 2009
There has been much commentary that the Senate debate on health care would have benefited from the parliamentary and personal skills of Senator Ted Kennedy had he been present over the months of illness
Aug 26th 2009

TAMPA - Patients and politicians increasingly demand a "cure" for cancer. But controlling the disease may prove to be a better strategy than striving to cure it.

Aug 25th 2009

Torture is back in the news (good) -- along with renditions (bad) and assorted assassination units (worse). Let's concentrate on what looks positive.

Aug 25th 2009

Summers are rarely kind to American Presidents. Despite Congress being in recess and Washington slowing to a quiet crawl, it is in August when issues heat up and boil over and when presidents appear to lose control of their agenda.

Aug 25th 2009

The first annual European-wide commemoration of the "the victims of Stalinism and Nazism" took place on August 23.

Aug 22nd 2009

The looming defeat of a progressive health care bill is a much greater disaster than meets the eye. The right wing will learn, as they already surmised from previous skirmishes, that they can blow the Democrats out of the water.

Aug 22nd 2009

During his recent meeting with Egypt's President Mubarak, President Obama expressed cautious optimism about the progress being made in the Arab-Israeli peace process.

Aug 22nd 2009

After September 11, many voices in the West argued that the lack of democracy in most of the Muslim world is the main cause of terrorism.

Aug 21st 2009

The British writer and Catholic convert, Malcolm Muggeridge can be found writing that the liberated do, in time, come to hate their liberators.

Aug 19th 2009

Overview:

Christina Romer, Chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, said she is “incredibly confident” the U.S. economy will recover within a year.1 We disagree.