Right Web

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

To Peace Plan or Not to Peace Plan?

Reports earlier this month that President Barack Obama may present a comprehensive U.S. peace plan for resolving the longstanding Israeli-Palestinian conflict have spurred a growing public debate over its wisdom and timing.

Print Friendly

Inter Press Service

Reports earlier this month that President Barack Obama may present a comprehensive U.S. peace plan for resolving the longstanding Israeli-Palestinian conflict have spurred a growing public debate over its wisdom and timing.

While relatively few voices are calling for Washington to table such a plan immediately, some experts argue that Washington should be preparing the ground now, if it is not doing so already, for unveiling possibly as early as the end of the year.

“I do think there is a point where it’s very important to lay out a plan,” according to Martin Indyk, former President Bill Clinton’s top Mideast adviser and currently vice president of the Brookings Institution. He stressed that such a step should, however, be preceded by close consultation with both parties, preferably in the context of their own negotiations.

Others, most of them closely associated with the so-called “Israel Lobby” clustered around the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), strongly oppose the idea. They argue that any peace accord covering key final-status issues, including security arrangements, borders, the Palestinian “right of return”, and, perhaps most controversially, the fate of Jerusalem, can and should be resolved as part of an incremental process of confidence building between the parties themselves.

These voices, as well as others, also argue that Washington should be focused far more on Iran and stopping its alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons than on resolving what has proved to be the chimera of Israeli-Palestinian peace.

“A protracted disagreement over … the contours of a final settlement is a distraction that would benefit neither the U.S. nor Israel, given an Iranian threat that is close at hand and a promise of peace that is distant,” wrote Richard Haass, president of the influential Council of Foreign Relations in Monday’s edition of the Wall Street Journal, whose editorial views on the Middle East are closely aligned to those of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party.

The controversy over a possible U.S. peace plan comes as both the Obama administration and Netanyahu appear to have worked out a “gentleman’s agreement” to resolve last month’s contretemps over Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem that effectively prevented the launch of U.S.-mediated “proximity talks” between the PA and Israel.

Although he will publicly deny it, Netanyahu has reportedly pledged to enforce a de facto freeze on new construction in the city and prevent other provocations that Abbas has cited as sabotaging a credible peace process and his own political position.

Washington is hoping that that understanding, as well as additional Israeli steps – among them, the release of some long-held Palestinian prisoners, easing the blockade on Hamas-controlled Gaza, expanding the area under PA control on the West Bank, and including future borders and the status of Jerusalem on the agenda of direct or indirect discussions – will be sufficient to induce Abbas to join the proximity talks.

The deal is expected to be sealed after Abbas consults with other Arab League leaders later this week, followed by a visit by Obama’s special envoy for Mideast peace, Sen. George Mitchell, to the region a few days later.

Assuming the proximity talks do indeed get underway, the Obama administration, which since its first days in office has pledged to make a final peace settlement a top priority, is expected to press both sides to quickly engage in direct negotiations on final-status issues. It has already suggested that it will offer “bridging proposals” in the event of an impasse.

Even with bridging proposals, however, many analysts here believe that the two sides will prove unable to agree on the most sensitive issues, notably the “right of return” and Jerusalem’s status. They argue that the articulation of a U.S. plan, largely based on the so-called “Clinton parameters” that were worked out in U.S.-mediated talks between July 2000 and January 2001, will be necessary sooner rather than later if Obama is to realise his ambition of ending the conflict.

The urgency of that goal has been underlined in recent weeks both by Obama, who last week referred to the resolution of the conflict as “a vital national interest of the United States”, and other top U.S. officials. They include the chief of the U.S. Central Command, Gen. David Petraeus, who stated explicitly that the perpetuation of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle has made his work, including weakening Islamist groups like al Qaeda and isolating Iran, much more difficult.

“Enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its Arab neighbours present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the area of responsibility,” he told Congress last month. “Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples.”

Such assertions have been strongly rejected by AIPAC and its allies. They have argued that Israeli policies toward Palestinians have little or nothing to do with ongoing wars in Iraq or Afghanistan and that achieving a peace accord would, in Haass’s words, fail both to resolve questions of political stability in the “largely authoritarian Arab world” and “weaken Iran’s nuclear aspirations”.

They also argue current circumstances – including the division on the Palestinian side between Fatah and Hamas, the strong rightward shift in Israeli public opinion since the Gaza withdrawal, and the loss of U.S. influence in the region – make prospects for success particularly dim and that failure could be catastrophic to what remains of Washington’s credibility on the issue.

“To say conditions are not ripe for a U.S. initiative does not mean waiting for them to ripen,” according to Robert Malley, Middle East director for the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG), which first called for Washington to present its own plan eight years ago. “It means taking deliberate, sustained steps to make them so.”

In a new report, Malley, who worked on the Middle East for Clinton and advised Obama early in his presidential campaign, calls for Obama to repair strained relations with Tel Aviv without backing down from core U.S. principles; engage key constituencies, including Palestinian refugees and Israeli settlers, that have been ignored in previous peace efforts; adopt a more flexible policy on reconciliation between Abbas and Hamas; and encourage the resumption of peace talks between Syria and Israel.

Once such a plan is articulated, according to the report, Washington will need to marshal strong international support, particularly among Arab states that can provide political backing to the Palestinians and regional recognition to Israel.

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a contributor to IPS Right Web (http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/). He blogs at http://www.lobelog.com/.

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