USIP’s Scott Lasensky, co-author of "Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace: American Leadership in the Middle East" (with Daniel C. Kurtzer), reports from Israel on the prospects for reviving Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations and why all eyes are focused on the upcoming U.N. General Assembly.
July 7, 2011
USIP’s Scott Lasensky, co-author of "Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace: American Leadership in the Middle East" (with Daniel C. Kurtzer), reports from Israel on the prospects for reviving Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations and why all eyes are focused on the upcoming U.N. General Assembly.
- Is there a chance Israeli-Palestinian negotiations might renew ahead of the September U.N. General Assembly---and ahead of the expected Palestinian bid for recognition of statehood?
- Could the U.S. counter the Palestinian move for recognition at the U.N. with its own initiative at the world body—perhaps built around the president’s May 19th formula?
- Where do U.S.-Israeli relations stand?
Is there a chance Israeli-Palestinian negotiations might renew ahead of the September U.N. General Assembly---and ahead of the expected Palestinian bid for recognition of statehood?
There’s a chance, but it seems to depend on the willingness of both sides to resume negotiations based on certain broad parameters about the “end-game,” i.e. the outlines of a two-state solution. The negotiations launched last September in Washington had minimal terms of reference, largely in deference to Israel, which has traditionally opposed entering negotiations that require consent to principles defining key permanent status issues, particularly the questions of territory and Jerusalem.
But given how quickly those talks stalled, and also given the tremendous amount of work that already went into previous rounds of negotiations, it’s hard to imagine talks renewing without something concrete on the table to anchor a peace process.
In his May 19th speech, President Barack Obama laid out principles about territory and security, the two issues where it is believed the parties have come closest to agreement in past negotiations. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu initially reacted quite negatively to the president’s proposals, though the speech was quickly endorsed by the Quartet and other key international actors. It has since formed the basis for the current American effort to restart negotiations.
The Israeli government is looking for certain assurances, including on the question of recognition of Israel as “a Jewish state.” Palestinians are also seeking assurances. This is where the focus is right now.
The U.S. is working under a fast approaching deadline, since there is growing anxiety that a Palestinian move for recognition of statehood at the upcoming U.N. General Assembly could spark a downward spiral in relations, not to mention serious violence on the ground. The U.N. convenes in September, which is just around the corner, so there’s a sense of growing urgency—particularly given that the current calm in Gaza is tenuous and without any formal structure; security cooperation in the West Bank, although continuing, remains fragile; and recent border incursions in the north and the gas pipeline explosions in Sinai leave everyone on edge.
As is often the case, all sides seem to be playing a game of “chicken” -- waiting for the other side to make a concession first. Moreover, internal politics seem to be consuming leaders both in Israel and in the Palestinian territories, leaving few incentives to take risks for peace. On their own, the parties won’t get there. It is going to depend on the concerted effort of the United States and its international partners if a crisis in September is to be averted.
Could the U.S. counter the Palestinian move for recognition at the U.N. with its own initiative at the world body—perhaps built around the president’s May 19th formula?
Yes and no. A counter move could unlock the current stalemate, position the U.S. and its allies as putting forward an agenda that opens up new possibilities, and give the Palestinians a way to save face and pull back from their own initiative. But it could also backfire and alienate Israel. It’s also hard to imagine right now given statements the Administration has made about the proper role of the U.N. in recent months. But should the current discussions about restarting negotiations break down, this strategy--you might call it “the counter” approach—could become Washington’s “plan B.”
On the Palestinian side, there now appears to be some growing hesitation about going to the U.N., since it will likely produce little positive impact on the ground—and could even lead to escalation. There’s also a major financial crisis in the Palestinian Authority, and the recent decision to withhold 50 percent of public sector salaries does not bode well. The reconciliation process also seems stalled, with deadlock over formation of a new government. Taken together with speculation about how long President Abbas may remain in office, it just might be possible for the U.S. to seize the initiative and develop a more productive approach at the U.N.
Where do U.S.-Israeli relations stand?
During my consultations in Israel, business leaders, defense experts and political figures said security and economic ties have never been stronger. The economy here is doing quite well, and American assistance on security threats--be they on Israel’s immediate borders, or over-the-horizon threats like Iran—has never been more intensive, Israelis say.
But there’s nagging tension at the political level. The challenge for Washington is to keep reassuring Israel on the security front, in order to allay what are serious anxieties (which have only been exaggerated by the tumult now sweeping the Arab world), but also find a formula that draws Israeli leaders away from their preference for the status quo. “Life is good,” one leading Israeli told me, “the situation is stable and people can plan for the future,” though he also shared the sentiment of others I met in lamenting that the current Israeli government does not have a credible peace proposal on the table.
Explore Further
- Eye on the Middle East and North Africa
Experts from the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) are closely following developments throughout the Middle East and North Africa. In a series of reports and interviews, they cover a wide range of issues.
News Features | June 2011 - Countries and Regions: Palestinian Territories
- Countries and Regions: Israel