Mideast: Focus on the Possible
As relevant today as it was then, this op-ed I coauthored with Shibley Telhami appeared in the Christian Science Monitor in June of 2002.
As violence in the Middle East continues, hopes for a settlement have been further dimmed by an alarming polarization. Palestinians and Israelis have returned to the language of maximal demands, and to pointing fingers at all that has gone before. This trend can only make peace more elusive.
For now, we say, seek peace, not historical judgment. Far too much public discourse focuses on who is to blame - and by implication, who should carry the main burden of ending hostilities and settling the conflict.
Those who blame the intifada want the Palestinian Authority to suppress it. Those who blame Israeli occupation of the West Bank want Israeli troops withdrawn. One side points the finger at Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and seeks his removal, the other at Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and seeks his.
Trying to sort out who has been most abusive, who has suffered more, and who has stronger claims will only extend the bloodshed. For now the focus should be on finding a formula that allows both sides to live together.
We say "for now," because once peace is firmly established, there will be time for a truth commission to look into matters of blame and justice. After all, even in other parts of the world, from South Africa to Argentina, such investigations took place after a new regime was established. Even there, the main purpose was reconciliation and healing rather than incrimination.
To envision peace, we must flesh out at the outset the "final status," the vision of what the world is going to look like - one in which a Palestinian state and Israel will live together, both not merely recognized by all governments but also enjoying normal relations with them.
To argue that political negotiations about the final status must await cessation of hostilities is to seek to prevent them from taking place. To hold that we can fight and talk is equally untenable. Clearly a significant scaling back, especially of attacks on civilians by Palestinians and military control of civilians by the Israeli army, must and can take place for a fleshing out of the final status to proceed.
We say fleshing out, because there is a surprising, widely shared informal understanding of what the outline of the final status is likely to be. It would entail a fully independent, viable, contiguous Palestinian state and a secure Israeli one. Their borders would be roughly along the 1967 lines, with some possible land swap between the two, based on mutual agreements.
Granted, this shared understanding seems not yet to extend to notions about Jerusalem, although even here there is much support on both sides for some kind of compromise.
It is precisely because "the basics" are in place that there is room for working them out in more detail. Without such a clear vision, it is hard to see people on either side putting new hope into what must be their shared future.
No settlement can be complete, or even merely reasonable, without attending to the refugees, including getting them out of camps. Ignoring their conditions, rights, and aspirations is not conducive to a lasting peace.
Two criteria must be met, beyond financial compensation: First, because a two-state solution is based on the notion of self-determination for two peoples, the Jewish character of Israel must be preserved through a robust Jewish majority. The second is that a solution must not be imposed on the refugees. They must be offered several options for permanent settlement, including in the Palestinian state.
Whatever final status agreements are made, the process must involve the people on the ground, not just diplomats. There has been too much death and destruction, too much hate and mistrust, and too much discourse of intransigence to overcome quickly.
Hence, while negotiations take place, we call for a process of cooling off, of preparing the public for compromise. Some unilateral gestures would help, such as underresponding rather than overreacting to perceived transgressions; dismantling of some of the outlying Jewish settlements; and the arrest - and continued detention - of those who ignore the Palestinian Authority's ban on attacks on civilians.
A settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, or even the Arab-Israeli conflict, will neither end troubles in the region nor the challenges facing US policy, but it is an important step toward tackling many of the region's ills. No issue is as critical to the political psychology in the region or to the perceptions of America as the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Clearly, the official positions of Israeli and Palestinian leaders are far from our outline of a settlement. Public support for tougher positions has also increased with every death, because people are losing faith in the possibility of peace - even as majorities continue to crave it. Among Americans who care about Arabs and Israelis, we find many who have been pained not only by the bloodshed, but also by the polarization of the past few months - but who refuse to be drawn into separate camps. Polls indicate they may even be a torn silent majority.
Now is the time to rally behind a vision of a fair, peaceful option that saves lives, and to postpone an accounting of history.
Amitai Etzioni is University Professor at George Washington University. Shibley Telhami is Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Amitai Etzioni’s new book, to be published in spring 2007 by Yale University Press, is titled Security First: For a Muscular, Moral Foreign Policy.
(Crosspost with Amitai Etzioni Notes )
We say fleshing out, because there is a surprising, widely shared informal understanding of what the outline of the final status is likely to be. It would entail a fully independent, viable, contiguous Palestinian state and a secure Israeli one. Their borders would be roughly along the 1967 lines, with some possible land swap between the two, based on mutual agreements.
At Camp David, as reported by Charles Enderlin, the Palestinian team attempted to secure US and Israeli acceptance of the "principle of exchange of territories" - the idea that the 1967 borders were a baseline, and that deviations from it in a final settlement should be based on an equitable swap.
Clinton is reported to have flow into a rage at such suggestions, mocked and belittled the Palestinians for their quaint faith in UN 242, and berated them for not making a counterproposal to the Israelis that specified some percentage of the West Bank that the Israelis would have been allowed to keep, without any compensating swaps.
So while you are right that there is a "widely shared informal understanding of what the outline of the final status is likely to be" that includes land swaps, the United States government has for some time not been part of that understanding. No prominent and viable American politician will endorse it. If one has, then I have missed it.
And so while I also agree that "now is the time to rally behind a vision of a fair, peaceful option that saves lives, and to postpone an accounting of history," I would like to hear some practical suggestions as to how we Americans can get our government to buy into and articulate the same informal understanding that, as you say, much of the rest of the world accepted long ago. At this time, it appears both political parties are unwilling to take such a stance.
March 26, 2007 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
DanK says:
"At this time, it appears both political parties are unwilling to take such a stance."
Why?
March 26, 2007 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amitai,
Thank you for you interesting article.
1. “We say "for now," because once peace is firmly established, there will be time for a truth commission to look into matters of blame and justice.”
This look like backdoor for Palestinians to reopen their claims against Israel at the later time. Obviously Israel will never agree to this.
2. “Clearly a significant scaling back, especially of attacks on civilians by Palestinians and military control of civilians by the Israeli army, must and”
I don’t think it’s possible anymore. There are too many players on Palestinian side who are controlled by external masters. Without military control of civilians by the Israeli army, attacks on civilians by Palestinians will increase dramatically.
See What price safety? By Amir Oren
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=821380
So, I’m not sure if today “a process of cooling off, of preparing the public for compromise” is possible to achieve the way you suggest.
March 26, 2007 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because a people that can so easily murder without remorse, women in their own families out of a sick, perverse sense of "honor", can be expected to live in peace and harmony with Israelis.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21434471-2703,00.html
March 26, 2007 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The Lobby" - or whatever you want to call it. Large hawkish chunks of the pro-Israel activist community oppose that approach, and US politicians are afraid of them for some reason.
March 26, 2007 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we keep the lobby discussion on MJ blog where it belongs ?
March 26, 2007 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Misplaced priorities, sad stuff.
March 26, 2007 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
LEL66 - In America we routinely murder 17,000+ people a year - many of them women. So what is our excuse?
March 26, 2007 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Davai - The Truth Commission that Amitai proposes is an Information commission, not a Compensation commission. If the issues on both sides are not brought out into the open, the wounds will fester for generations. The only thing that Israel has to fear is that some of their "dirty laundry" will be aired before the world. Same is true of the Palestinians.
You are correct that any peace agreement will require some security on the West Bank for a period of time. However, the Israelis are NOT the people to provide it. It must be some combination of the UN and Arab League forces (no heavy weapons) to provide the security.
I for one am willing to get behind anyone who pushes for a genuine peace to this conflict.
March 26, 2007 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose one could move it there if it had nothing to do with US politics, the theme of this blog.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
March 26, 2007 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The lobby is root of all problem is the world. This fact is firmly established by MJ and his pupils. There is nothing left to discuss.
March 26, 2007 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Noting that you didn't answer my question, I will accept that you have nothing further to discuss. You are the Weakest Link. Good-bye.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
March 26, 2007 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
“The only thing that Israel has to fear is that some of their "dirty laundry" will be aired before the world.”
Israeli media does this work every day. I doubt that there is much left to air.
“Same is true of the Palestinians.”
Nobody gives a damp about Palestinians dirty laundry. In any case, what’s left hidden?
So what’s the point of this The Truth Commission?
“However, the Israelis are NOT the people to provide it. It must be some combination of the UN and Arab League forces (no heavy weapons) to provide the security”
I’m sorry, but this is not going to work.
Did UN stop Hezbollah from doing what they want in South Lebanon?
Did Egypt stop Palestinians from smuggling weapon in Gaza?
UN and Arab League forces will not protect Israel from Palestinian and foreign terrorists/insurgents/freedom fighters (I don’t want to argue about terminology)
They will protect terrorists from Israel.
BTW, why don’t UN and Arab League offer to replace US in Iraq?
If anybody offers this replacement, Congress would cut funding immediately.
March 26, 2007 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Howard,
Correct, I have nothing to contribute to THE Lobby the Root of All Evil Society as well as to the Flat Earth Society.
Best Regards.
- Davai
March 26, 2007 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah. And on what do you offer contributions that are other than victimization and snark? I'd welcome hearing substantive things, but whining does not become you.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
March 26, 2007 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Etzioni's analysis is well reasoned and could serve as a useful framework for discussion. Now, Dan K and the rest of you AIPAChaters, let's see if you can get the Hamas Prime Minister to say that too. Then it will be time for Olmert to talk to him a la Rosenberg and Levy.
March 26, 2007 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard, Correct, I have nothing to offer on the Lobbby subject.
This subject is being constantly discussed on MJ blog.
I don't think, anybody said anything new on this subject for a long time.
Bye now.
March 26, 2007 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps the time has come to offer Israel statehood. That is, perhaps it is time to offer Israel the opportunity to become 51st state in the Union, in exchange for a resolution of its conflicts with the Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese on the basis of the informal understanding to which Dr. Etzioni refers.
I can think of several excellent reasons for this move.
1. Israel and the US already share a common foreign policy, except for a few small disputes about arms sales and the like, so merging their policies in a mutually agreeable fashion should not be too much of a challenge.
2. Individuals who are citizens of both Israel and the United States would acquire a single national citizenship, and could no longer be accused of dual loyalties.
3. Israel's nuclear weapons could be incorporated into the US arsenal, and thus made legitimate and subjected thereafter to whatever NPT regulations govern the US nuclear force in general.
4. Iranian, Hizbollah and Hamas threats against Israel would be largely neutralized by the massive power and much enhanced credibility of the US deterrent. Attacks on Israel would henceforth constitute attacks on the United States of America, which should have quite an impact on the attitudes of regional actors.
5. People tend to regard Israel as the 51st state anyway. This would only formalize the arrangement.
6. Christian Zionists would have to put up or shut up, and show whether their avowed love for Israel translates into a willingness to incorporate it into their own country.
7. The US would acquire a sizeable population of well-educated and technologically skilled new Americans, as well as a number of highly-trained and battle tested soldiers who could help fill our recruiting shortfalls.
8. The US would no longer need to engage in duplicitous wars like the Iraq war to acquire basing opportunities in the Middle East, since it could maintain perfectly legitimate bases on its own territory in the region.
9. The US could cancel its foreign aid to Israel.
10. Israel already has a democratic political system, so it could easily adapt to the US nominating system and electoral systems without any significant aculturation hurdles.
11. The full power of the US treasury would be available to settle Palestinian refugee claims. It would perhaps be easier to get the Palestinians to accept (i) a full apology for the consequences of the Nakba (ii) and acknowledgement of their right to return to their homes, and (iii) a financial settlement in exchange for an agreement not to exercise those rights. hell, we could even borrow the money from China if we need more.
12. Israel is far away from the US mainland, true. But for people like me on the east coast, it's not much more distant than Hawaii. We haven't added a new state in a long time, and could use some new blood.
13. The US could enact legislation establishing a version of the Law of Return, allowing Jews from around the world to emigrate to the United States automatically. These immigrants can be much more comfortably accommodated in the large territory of the United States than in the tiny sliver of land that is Israel. In addition, the power and size of the United States might provide Jews with the comfortable security they have longed for, and which Israel itself cannot really provide despite its aspirations.
14. Part of the Israeli reluctance to make an agreement with its Palestinian neighbors is its concerns about the extremely narrow east-west strip they would be left with in some parts of the country, and their "backs to the sea" fears. These concerns should be allayed considerably with the expansive US backstop available should temporary ecavuation or refugee flight ever be required in time of war.
15. Jonathan Pollard could be granted an amnesty, on the plausible grounds that the country to which he provided information is now part of the country he took it from.
16. US soldiers would no longer be asked to spill their blood for another country, but only for their own country; US citizens would no longer be asked to subject their security to the unpredicatable behavior of another country, but only to their own country.
17. Israel's behavior would no longer be unilaterally determined, but as one state among 51 would be subject to the checks and balances of the US governmental system.
18. Israel would be an excellent spring training site for Major League Baseball.
March 26, 2007 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alternative plan; The United States and Canada get together, agree to offer Israel an area of land in the Pacific Northwest comparable to what they have now. Israel becomes a free independent state nestled between us and Canada.
March 27, 2007 5:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose one could move it there if it had nothing to do with US politics, the theme of this blog.
Howard, where is "there"?
March 27, 2007 5:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Davai - What was the purpose of the South African Truth Commission? Everyone in the outside world knew what was going on also. The purpose is to give people a chance to air their grievences and get it out of their system. Both sides in the Israel/Palestine conflict need to do that. Just read the letters and talkbacks in the Israel/arab press.
Whether anyone likes it or not, Israel CANNOT continue to patrol Palestine. There is far too much IDF hatred of Palestinians. Between Hamas and the IDF they would blow up any peace within a week. The hatred that comes through my nephews e-mails (Golani Brigade - currently deployed in the Hebron area)would chill most souls. Somehow we have to make an alternative UN deployment work. It won't be perfect, but then again the IDF isn't perfect in protecting Israelis either. Right?
March 27, 2007 6:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
“ The purpose is to give people a chance to air their grievances and get it out of their system. Both sides in the Israel/Palestine conflict need to do that. Just read the letters and talkbacks in the Israel/Arab press.”
You made my point Every day their grievances are being aired the Israel/Arab press. What’s left to air?
This was not the case in South Africa.
“ Somehow we have to make an alternative UN deployment work.”
How? Do you remember Srebrenica? I don’t think UN can do this job, but I’m open to your explanations.
“It won't be perfect, but then again the IDF isn't perfect in protecting Israelis either. Right?”
Wrong, It’s a perfect as possible, and it could be much much worse for Israeli as well as Palestinians.
March 27, 2007 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
For a ridiculous proposition you have made a remarkably well-reasoned case. Kudos. And, its funny too.
UA
March 27, 2007 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Arab League summit kicks off in Riyadh tomorrow. Does anyone seriously doubt that if Arab League member nations began a serious commitment to normalize relations with Israel, including opening up of formal diplomatic channels, that Israel would warm up to peace proposals that include comprehensive disengagement from Palestinian territories?
March 27, 2007 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, despite some flippancy, I'm about 68% serious.
March 27, 2007 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton "flew into a rage", did he? I heard he tried to beat Arafat to death with his own shoe.
The "bases for negotiations" as proposed by the Americans and Israelis was that "Palestinians would have sovereignty over 91% of the West Bank, Israel would annex 9% of the West Bank and, in exchange, Palestine would have sovereignty over parts of pre-1967 Israel equivalent to 1% of the West Bank." This is according to "Camp David The Tragedy of Errors" by Malley and Agha. Neither side would commit to negotiating from this baseline.
According to Malley and Agha it was actually Barak who objected to the land swap and refused at first to negotiate that or the division of Jerusalem and was persuaded by Clinton to discuss negotiating those issues.
During those negotiations, according to these authors, who were there or had worked on the discussions and negotiations,
Clinton became irate with both parties on a few occasions; he was angry that Barak had reneged on his promise to turn over control of three villages to Palestine, and he was angry at the Palestinians failure to propose counter-proposals for discussion - "when Abu Ala' a Palestinian negotiator refused to work on a map to negotiate a possible solution, arguing that Israel had to first concede that any territorial agreement must be based on the line of June 4, 1967, the President burst out, 'Don't simply say to the Israelis that their map is no good, give me something better!'" Clinton did not "belittle and mock the Palestinians" over UNSCR 242, but he did become angry when Arafat not only refused to budge from any position but lectured Clinton on the U.N. and the resolutions, at which point Clinton told him, "to go to the U.N. and lecture them" not him. I can't find any account that states that Clinton mocked or belittled the Palestinians.
According to this account, "...the President repeatedly told Arafat during Camp David, he was not expecting him to agree to U.S. or Israeli proposals, but he was counting on him to say something he could take back to Barak...'I need something to tell him,' he implored, 'so far I have nothing.'" It also states that over and over the President tried to convince Barak to accept the principle of land swaps and at least partial Palestinian control of Jerusalem.
What did come out of this summit was the Clinton Parameters and the tentative Taba Agreement which was dropped by the Bush administration. Interestingly, this agreement to negotiate is the more popular among the Palestinians and is supported in principle by the three democratic candidates in the U.S. It isn't that the "government" doesn't buy into an understanding, it is that the Bush administration doesn't buy into it.
March 27, 2007 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan - Your 18 points would have rated a 10 if I could have done it.
March 27, 2007 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
" US soldiers would no longer be asked to spill their blood for another country, "
They never were asked to spill their blood for Israel. and they never did.
March 27, 2007 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see what you mean, but I would hesitate to pick the scabs off these wounds. Imo, the major problem is that they can't move beyond that.
March 27, 2007 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some we say they are doing it now - or that Israel's security is at least part of the reason.
March 27, 2007 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
US soldiers are being asked to spill their blood in Iraq for reasons not totally understood, so it’s possible that people who made decision to go to war considered Israel's security one of the reasons.
But it’s not the same as say that they were asked to spill their blood for Israel.
March 27, 2007 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow,
Mr Etzioni explicitly makes the point that for there to be peace between Israel and the Palestinians all sides need to set aside recriminations, finger pointing, and blame, and focus on fleshing out the framework of the two-state solution.
This is followed by a discussion thread consisting almost entirely of recriminations, finger pointing, and blame.
March 27, 2007 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Norwegian Blue version of the Oslo Accords prefers recriminations, finger pointing and blame! Remarkable symmetry, innit, squire? Lovely logic!
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
Would that I-P peace not be analogous to the problem of the Norwegian Blue Parrot: "E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!
March 27, 2007 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish that was a serious plan--I'd support it if it were.
March 27, 2007 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not what he saying.
He is saying that recriminations, finger pointing, and blame should be postponed after peace is firmly established:
"We say "for now," because once peace is firmly established, there will be time for a truth commission to look into matters of blame and justice"
And I argue that once peace is established there is no need for recriminations, finger pointing, blame or justice.
March 27, 2007 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"and focus on fleshing out the framework of the two-state solution."
Why don't Iraqi stop fighting and and focus on fleshing out the framework of a solution?
How about India and Pakistan, Afgani people, and etc?
What stop people of Sudan, Somalia from focusing on fleshing out the framework of peaceful solutions?
How about Indonesia?
Don't you think that bringing peace might be a as not as easy as it seems?
Should we all be a little more humble?
March 27, 2007 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
India and Pakistan are having cordial discussions, at high levels, about lessening peace.
In Sudan, one faction wants to kill the other, in an isolated area without cities. Even if the Fur people wanted to launch terror attacks against the Sudanese Arabs, they are not in a geographic position to do so.
Iraq, Somalia, and, to a lesser extent Afghanistan are artificially drawn states, with local leaders trying for local dominance.
India and Pakistan have a sense of national identity and the ability to work toward a goal. In your other examples, where is there a sense of national identity? Is there such a sense with either Israel or Palestine?
After hearing the IDF explanations for Lebanon, "humble" did not come to mind.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
March 27, 2007 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"India and Pakistan are having cordial discussions, at high levels, about lessening peace."
"India and Pakistan have a sense of national identity and the ability to work toward a goal"
After fighting for 50 years.
"Iraq, Somalia, and, to a lesser extent Afghanistan are artificially drawn states, with local leaders trying for local dominance."
So what, why they can't focus on fleshing out the framework of a some kind of peaceful solution?
"Is there such a sense with either Israel or Palestine?"
I-P is a hybrid case..
Israel has a sense of national identity .
Palestine is a place where local leaders are trying for local dominance with help od external forces.
"After hearing the IDF explanations for Lebanon, "humble" did not come to mind."
This has nothing to do with my point.
We should be less naive and more humble to think that we know how to resolve I-P conflict and te
March 27, 2007 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, I can't imagine any other countries that have been fighting for 50 years or so.
Because the leaders on all sides think they can get more by fighting.
And that point is that we should be less naive and more humble when thinking of criticizing Israel? One of the most potent military systems of the world, which also seems to be constantly concerned about being annihilated by light weapons and nonexistent nuclear arsenals?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
March 27, 2007 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And that point is that we should be less naive and more humble when thinking of criticizing Israel? "
No this was not my point. Lokean didn't criticize Israel.
He said:
"all sides need to set aside recriminations, finger pointing, and blame, and focus on fleshing out the framework of the two-state solution."
This sounded a little naive to me.
March 27, 2007 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think your beef, davai, is with Mr. Etzioni, not me.
Are you saying I was naive in my characterization of this discussion thread? How so? Or naive in my characterization of Mr Etzioni's argument? How so?
This discussion thread itself BTW lends at least a bit of credence to his point of view, don't you think?
March 29, 2007 4:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
My beef with you was that the way you paraphrased Etzioni's argument, it looks like that resolving Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a very simple proposition.
March 29, 2007 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink