Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Regional Players Key to Salvaging Peace Process

Some experts think the Obama administration may be the last chance the Middle East has for achieving a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Print Friendly

(Inter Press Service)

One of the biggest foreign policy challenges facing the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama will be reinvigorating what looks like a completely stalled Palestinian-Israeli peace process.

Repeated failures in the struggle for peace make clear that a change in direction is needed. And many observers think that taking advantage of the Arab Peace Initiative put forward by the Arab League in 2002 is just the ticket to jump-starting the process.

A push by President George W. Bush in the final year of his two-term presidency yielded the Annapolis process which, though it made minimal procedural gains and brought in regional players, largely ignored the existing Arab proposal spearheaded by then-crown prince and now King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

The Annapolis track ended up failing to meet its own goals of having an agreement signed by the end of Bush’s time in office.

The failure leaves Obama and the United States with the task of jump-starting the oft-troubled process. Many close observers of the conflict see some hope for the peace process, but even the optimists think that Obama’s tenure in the Oval Office may be the last chance for a two-state solution.

"This next administration may well be the last administration that could realistically pursue a two-state solution," said Daniel Levy, a former Israeli negotiator, at a conference at the New America Foundation. He was encouraged that Obama had mentioned the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a top-three foreign policy priority when announcing his national security and foreign policy team.

If Obama truly looks to tackle the long-burning Middle East conflict early in his term, he appears to have the support of the Arab League to use the proposal.

"I don’t think the new president has to invent anything new," said Prince Turki Al Faisal Al Saud, a member of the Saudi royal family and former ambassador to Washington, on December 2. Al Saud laid out a number of positive steps from previous peace plans that could be selectively farmed, among them, the Arab Initiative.

"The Arab Peace Initiative created in 2002 is also on the table," he said. "It’s up to the next president to do what is necessary. And he has raised a lot of expectations, particularly in our part of the world."

Al Saud isn’t the only player in the Middle East who supports the initiative.

"There are more and more voices from the region making the case for the Arab Initiative as an organizing principle," Levy told the Inter Press Service (IPS), saying that one of the reasons that Bush’s Annapolis plan had failed was that it ignored the Arab League’s proposal.

The Arab Initiative is an appealing proposal to many proponents of the peace process because it represents the idea of resolving regional tensions with other Arab nations at the same time as creating a viable Palestinian state.

"I see the Arab League Initiative as incorporating all the other [peace processes]," M.J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum told IPS. "Under its auspices you still have negotiations and [U.N. resolutions]."

But precisely because the initiative comes from the Arab League and is signed by 22 Arab countries, it offers special incentives.

"It’s more like a symbolic rubric to achieve peace with the whole Arab world in one swoop," said Rosenberg. "The thing that makes the initiative unique is that it’s not just offering peace, it’s offering normalization [of relations with Arab neighbors]. That’s something that the most idealistic Israeli never dreamed of."

Another reason that Obama may turn to the initiative is exactly because so many other attempts at peace have stalled or failed.

"[The Arab Initiative] is the only game in town," said Naomi Chazan, a longtime Israeli peace activist and former deputy speaker of the Knesset, at the New America Foundation. Chazan pointed out that the Oslo Accords had failed, been retooled, and failed again, and that the half-hearted and late Annapolis process had never really taken off to begin with.

She said the initiative provides "an element of hope" and that as an Israeli, she, too, was particularly excited at the prospect of normalization.

And the initiative could bear other fruits as well. Levy said it could provide an avenue for Western interests like Israel and the United States to approach and deal with Iran. Chazan, an activist, mentioned that the initiative would open up the doors of the process to civil society to deal with, for example, the issue of Palestinian refugees in neighboring Arab countries.

Another and perhaps more important element of working through the Arab Initiative could be the reunification of the Palestinian territories—currently divided after armed hostilities between Palestinian factions.

"Building on a divided Palestinian house," Levy has said many times, is not a good recipe for creating a Palestinian state.

Egypt, an Arab league heavyweight, is already moderating discussions between the Fatah and Hamas factions, but using the initiative to put the full weight of the Arab world behind Palestinian unity would facilitate this important step, said Levy.

Doing so would "regionalize the solution," he said, a mantra he borrowed from Chazan’s presentation that both speakers on repeated often at the conference.

But the unique opportunity to utilize broad-based Arab support for a peace process, like the two-state goal of the process itself, may be fleeting.

"The first and second time they put it on the table, the Israelis and Americans ignored it," Rosenberg told IPS, referring to the "amazing offer" of normalization.

"I think if Obama doesn’t do something and push the Israelis to act on it, the moment will be lost forever," he said. "It’s hard to imagine some president after Obama will pursue this if Obama doesn’t."

Rosenberg, for his part, thinks it’s likely that Obama will take up the Arab League on its offer.

"He approves of the initiatives, but that doesn’t say anything," said Rosenberg, noting that nothing is certain until Obama takes office and starts making official decisions. "My feeling is he’s going to go with it."

Ali Gharib writes for the Inter Press Service and PRA’s Right Web (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/).

Citations

Ali Gharib , "Regional Players Key to Salvaging Peace Process" Right Web with permission from Inter Press Service (Somerville, MA: PRA, 2008). Web location:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/4970.html Production Information:
Author(s): Right Web
Editor(s): Right Web
Production: Political Research Associates   IRC logo 1310 Broadway, #201, Somerville, MA   02144 | pra@publiceye.org

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share