Israel Policy Forum Issues Report on Where We Go From Here
Today, Israel Policy Forum released a policy paper developed by 15 academics, analysts, and former government officials from the US. This paper was created in the wake of President Obama's Cairo Speech, and the Iranian elections and protests. Among the signatories: Ambassadors Sam Lewis, Robert Pelletreau, and Edward Walker, Congressman Mel Levine and Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation and Prof. Steve Spiegel of UCLA.
It is a serious paper and worth reading. Disclaimer: I work for IPF so I am not disinterested. But, even if I didn't, I would endorse most of the ideas here.
Over the years IPF has become the preeminent publisher of facts -- published roundtables, essays, monographs, reports -- about the peace process. As most TPMers know, I write IPF Friday -- IPF's hard-hitting opinion pieces -- but I leave the scholarly work to the scholars, of which IPF has many. This is one of a series, all of which can be received by contacting IPF.
Excellent link, MJ.
One quibble: The settlement issue is EVERYTHING. Incitement can end. Confidence measures can begin. But settlements are the only permanent, game-changing action taken by either side. Dubya already showed in his 2006 letter to Sharon that if Isarel builds enough it becomes "unrealistic" to remove these population centers. Without a settlement freeze, the Palestinians are merely negotiating the terms of their ultimate eviction.
Please keep up the good work at the IPF. I love getting emails from these guys.
July 16, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, my friend. I agree. It is EVERYTHING and that is why Obama is focusing on it.
July 16, 2009 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Strange bedfellows, MJ and MB. Says a lot.
July 16, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only to people who are exceptionally self-important.
July 17, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree settlements are an obstacle to peace and that they will have to be removed approximately along the lines of the Taba proposal in any peace deal. But then your argument breaks apart:
"But settlements are the only permanent, game-changing action taken by either side."
"Thanks, my friend. I agree. It is EVERYTHING and that is why Obama is focusing on it."
Settlements can be removed and have been both for peace with Egypt (the Sinai) and with out any quid pro quo from the Palestinians (Gaza).
What will not ever change is Hamas. I think that the Palestinians would have a very good case that Israel could not make peace if the following happened in Israel:
A separate Israeli government run by the most radical settler movement which, through force, defeated the IDF, expelled the Israeli government from a large part of Israel, and ruled over a million supporting Israelis. This government was shelling Palestinian population centers and its precondition for peace with the Arab world was that all Palestinians be transferred to Jordan.
This is basically what the Palestinians have in Hamas. That is why Hamas is the only “immoveable” block to peace and that is why there can not be peace until Hamas is somehow defeated and completely marginalized militarily. That is why even if all settlements beyond the green were removed, and every Palestinian demand met (except, of course, full right of return) the Palestinians could still not make peace.
Hamas refuses to make peace with its fellow Palestinians in the PA. How could you possibly think it could reach a peace deal with Israel when it refuses to make peace with the government of its own people?
July 16, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Groan. It might be that the P.A. lost an election and then tried to use military force in Gaza to reverse that lose. Hamas preempted them.
It's pretty sad when the secular forces are the ones acting like the Iranian government!
I would never support Hamas. But just because I'm a secularist doesn't mean that secularists get to steal elections after they lose them.
July 16, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: Please substitute "Fatah" for P.A. above.
July 16, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Abbas was still the head of the executive branch which controlls the millitary. It would be as if the US congress raised it's own army and took over part of the US.
July 16, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me even indulge you and say Hamas is the legitimate government of the Palestinians. That just makes my point twice as strong that Hamas is the real obstacle to peace.
July 16, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo! Hamas is the real obstacle to peace.
Bingo! The Settlers are the real obstacle to peace.
July 16, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe we can send them both to Guantanamo before it closes and they can take care of each other.
July 16, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yossi Alpher seems fair minded in this analysis of the Settlements.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/flavius/
July 16, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good link. Thanks.
July 16, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's a pretty honest take on the issue. I never liked the argument that said 'if we don't build settlements the Palestinians will not have any incentive to negotiate peace.' Without oversimplifying, I think this argument has led to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Also, giving red meat to your constituents, that's certainly the practical and easy thing to do, but I'd expect better out of democratically elected and supposedly democratically-minded leaders.
I've always said Israel should make concessions like evacuating the settlements (not only because the settlements are indefensible) because it's standing from a substantial position of strength and can afford to take certain risks. Put the burden on the Palestinians to suppress their violent extremists and take the next step. The world would see the extent of Israel and the Palestinians' willingess or lack thereof to move forward. Similarly with Syria and the Golan--I dont think anyone doubts Israel's ability to retake the Heights and march straight to Damascus if Syria started a war.
As far as collapsing governments, Netanyaha-Lieberman-other_wackjobs is not really one that I care whether it survives or not. If the U.S. forced Netanyahu's hand and it resulted in no confidence so be it. Warriors like Begin & Sadat made peace and Nixon went to China--they're remembered for their willingness to speak hard truths and their people are better for it.
July 16, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps indulging in "moral equivalence", I think neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians are "right" . Nor "wrong".
It's understandable that Bibi believes Israel has a right to be a Jewish State and that Abbas believes the displaced Palestinians have a right to return. And that Hamas fires rockets at Siderot and the IDF thinks it's enough not to intend to harm civilians as opposed to having an intention not to harm civilians.
(See the debate in the NYR between Michael Walzer and an Israeli General)
They're normal people doing what people normally do in conflicts ."The abyss calls out to the abyss."
It's circular thinking to claim the Israelis can't make peace with the Palestinians because theyve done horrible things when the reason they've done horrible thins is that they aren't at peace.
July 17, 2009 3:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is indeed a well-thought out, if somewhat general, set of prescriptions. I occasionally receive emails from IPF, including a particularly cogent report on a recent trip to the region by IPF president Bunzl(?), and am always struck by their sobriety and balanced realism, in contrast to the over-the-top invective of MJR. Makes me wonder how he maintains his position as Director of Policy.
Speaking of over-the-top, the assertion by MJ and his sidekick mythbuster, that the settlement issue is "EVERYTHING" is patently ludicrous. If the settlements were "everything," we'd be into the second decade of Palestinian independence (think about that, huh? hard to imagine). Disregard for a moment even the withdrawal from Gaza, Israel has repeatedly offered to withdraw from the vast majority. Most recently, Olmert's proposal to Abbas that would have retained only the main settlement blocks with land exchanges resulting in an area equal to 100% of the West Bank, divided sovereignty over Jerusalem and international control over the holy basin. Why then did Abbas/Erekat not take him up on this offer? See this insightful article by Aluf Benn. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1100313.html
Plainly, there are other more significant obstacles, some of which are mentioned above and some of which are in the report, most notably the right of return, Hamas control over Gaza, the dysfunctional Palestinian authority, full control over the Temple Mount, etc. Of course, the settlements are an obstacle, which is why Netanyahu is foolish to resist the freeze, giving the other side an excuse to avoid the hard decisions they must face, but to say they are everything blinkers reality.
As Benn concludes:
July 16, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes I think the Israeli's should accept Hamas's of a ten year truce. For ten years they won't be killing one another and ,who knows, the horse may talk.
July 16, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink