Pathways to Peace
An Institute conference on Israeli-Palestinian relations struck a rare note: optimism
April/May 2005
David Satterfield, former deputy assistant secretary for Middle East affairs and Martin Indyk, former U.S. ambassador to Israel.
Prospects for resuming the Arab-Israeli peace process are brighter than at any time since 2000, according to participants in Pathways to Peace, a half-day research symposium convened by Scott Lasensky, of the Institute's Research and Studies program.
The meeting, held in late January at Washington's St. Regis Hotel, included presentations from Ambassador David Satterfield, a senior State Department official; Martin Indyk, director of the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution and a former U.S. ambassador to Israel; and several distinguished scholars, including current senior fellow Jacob Shamir.
Cautious Optimism on Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations
Participants expressed cautious optimism that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations could be renewed, pointing to an exceptional confluence of events, including the death of Yasser Arafat, Israel's disengagement plan, Palestinian elections and the emergence of new leadership, and the entry of Israel's Labor Party into a coalition government.
The meeting was the first installment in the Institute's expanding research efforts into the Middle East peace process. As part of the Arab-Israeli Futures research project, a number of reports to be published in 2005 will examine a variety of local, regional, and international factors shaping the peace process. The Institute has long been involved in activities to promote Arab-Israeli peace. How Israelis and Palestinians Negotiate, the latest volume in the Institute's series on cross-cultural negotiation, was published this spring. Support continues for the Alexandria Declaration and follow-on programs to promote inter-religious dialogue. The Institute is also working with the Middle East Children's Association on peace education, and has a number of grant recipients working on both academic and applied subjects related to the conflict.
"It is widely asserted that the Arab-Israeli issue is critical to America's position in the Middle East," Lasensky noted, "but what are the specific linkages? And how does the peace process impact our larger agenda?" These broad questions—as well as the narrower but vital question of what strategies and tactics the United States might employ to advance the peace process—dominated the meeting.
Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski talks with Chester Crocker and Institute Board Chair J. Robinson West prior to the symposium.
Satterfield opened the conference by making clear that the Bush administration remains actively engaged in the Middle East: "We are committed to trying to make this conflict come to an end," said Satterfield, who called the present moment "the greatest opportunity for peace in years."
But he insisted that the basis for constructive negotiations is still—as the Bush administration has long maintained—that Israel cease settlement work and the Palestinians end violence. Settlement activity must stop, said Satterfield, because it "ultimately undermines Israeli as well as Palestinian interests and futures." He was equally forceful about Palestinian options: a Palestinian state, he said, "can't be built on the foundation of terrorist violence."
Three leading experts, David Makovsky, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy; Steven Spiegel, of the University of California at Los Angeles; and Robert Malley, of the International Crisis Group, prepared detailed policy papers and debated their recommendations for U.S. policy. Makovsky argued that the best way forward is to focus on a defined, short-term agenda that can restore trust and enable both peoples to "reaffirm their faith in the very enterprise of peacemaking." He urged the United States to re-activate the first phase of the Roadmap and ensure that a complete Israeli pullout from Gaza does not leave Israel vulnerable on security. He urged greater support for economic assistance for post-withdrawal Gaza, and suggested U.S. support for a new UN resolution ratifying Gaza withdrawal. Progress on this conflict, said Makovsky, would vindicate the president's policies, which predicated U.S. engagement on the removal of Arafat and reform of Palestinian leadership.
At the same time, however, Makovsky warned against too ambitious an agenda. Final Status talks could endanger the entire process, he said, by energizing rejectionists opposed to the Abbas government, undermining the political dynamics on the Israeli side, and precipitating a crisis before either side was fully ripe to proceed to final status talks. He also rejected the notion that there is a "grand linkage" between events in Iraq and the broader Middle East and progress on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Arab resentment of the United States stems from complex historical and cultural forces unrelated to Palestinian grievances. (On the other hand, he did note a "negative linkage"—in that if U.S. forces are defeated in Iraq, this will no doubt embolden rejectionists throughout the region.)
Steven Spiegel was more critical of the Bush administration—and indeed, of previous administrations as well. Until President Bush, U.S. presidents have consistently believed that resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was the key to American success in the Middle East, he said.
Bush has made the opposite mistake: He assumed that since the Arab-Israeli conflict was not identical to resolving our problems in the Middle East, he could safely ignore the former.
The challenge, said Spiegel, is to get the balance right. And the problem with the Bush administration's policies is that the long-term promotion of democracy is doing nothing to stifle terrorism or proliferation, while the wars on terrorism and proliferation are doing nothing to promote democracy. Spiegel recommended a less ambitious agenda. The immediate task, he said, is to do what is necessary to ensure that Israel withdraws from Gaza and the northern West Bank and that President Abbas stems the violence and advances political reforms. If this mutual disengagement is successful, then the next step would be to convene an international conference by the Quartet to plot out future confidence-building reinforcing measures. As to the broader agenda of the United States—building democracy, limiting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and fighting terrorism—the jury is still out, but the likelihood is that these goals are mutually contradictory and will end by undercutting one other.
Robert Malley of the International Crisis Group, David Makovsky of the Washington Institute of Near East Policy, Steven Spiegel of UCLA, and Institute program officer and symposium organizer Scott Lasensky offered contrasting views of the most effective path to a viable peace.
Robert Malley proposed a more ambitious agenda. Putting off efforts to forge a comprehensive settlement until the Palestinian leadership can demonstrate improved governance and real security for the Israelis is the old, familiar, and failed path, he said.
Conditions today require a more aggressive posture, one that takes advantage of the unique conjunction of events. Malley recommended that the United States present the parameters for a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian agreement, in concert with forward momentum on the Syrian-Israeli track.
In the subsequent panel, Jacob Shamir and Khalil Shikaki, who have worked together under Institute grants before, presented the findings of their latest joint Palestinian-Israeli public opinion survey. Those findings pointed to a significant trend toward more dovish views among both the Palestinians and the Israelis than 12 and 18 months previously. For example, on a host of basic elements of the Israeli-Palestinian permanent status negotiations—such as the issue of borders and territorial exchange, a demilitarized Palestinian state, and a desire to end the conflict—the percentage in support rose from 47 percent to 64 percent among Israelis, and from 39 percent to 54 percent among Palestinians. In addition, there has been a significant rise in the number of Israelis and Palestinians who support a "mutual recognition of identity" proposal, in which both groups would recognize the legitimacy of each other's state after the major issues have been resolved. The overall conclusion: Palestinians and Israelis are as "ripe" as they have ever been to proceed with peace negotiations.
Ambassador Martin Indyk delivered a keynote address. He echoed prior speakers in emphasizing the present window of opportunity. For the first time, both sides seem to agree on the idea of a two-state solution. He also insisted, as prior speakers had, that the United States has an indispensable role to play in bringing about that peace. The new Palestinian leader has the will, but not the means, to achieve peace, said Indyk, and the United States should do everything reasonable to help him. On the thornier questions of refugees, Jerusalem, and Gaza and the West Bank, the U.S. must be prepared to play the role of midwife--even as it uses its clout to persuade other Arab nations to acknowledge the state of Israel.
There was intense media interest in the conference. The Associated Press ran an article that was reprinted in dozens of media outlets, including ABCNews.Com, CNN.com, and the San Francisco Chronicle. Other print media that mentioned the conference included the New York Times, the Financial Times, the Jerusalem Post, and Haaretz. In addition, C-Span aired the entire proceedings of the conference at least four times over the five days immediately following the event.
"I have always believed in two fundamental truths about the conflict," said Lasensky. "At its core, this is a local struggle over territory; and second, outside actors remain an essential element of the peace process." He added, "As the old anxieties give way to a new sense of optimism, however fragile, the United States has a major role to play in maintaining the present momentum."
