Five myths about Middle East peace

[azurnoir]

Yet again, Israelis and Palestinians are negotiating (or trying to), and yet again, a U.S. administration is in the middle of the muddle. We've seen this movie many times before, and I've watched it up close as a negotiator and adviser for both Democratic and Republican secretaries of state. Is there any reason to believe that this time around, there will be a happy ending? Mutual suspicions, domestic political constraints and substantive differences between the parties are hampering the talks. Meanwhile, myths about Arab-Israeli peacemaking cause the Obama administration's mediating role to be even more difficult.

1. Direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians are the key to reaching an accord.
History argues strongly to the contrary. With the exception of the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty of October 1994, every negotiation that has resulted in an enduring Mideast agreement was brokered by the United States.

The Oslo Accords of the 1990s -- the poster child for direct negotiations -- ended in disaster, as broken commitments, terror and violence, and unmet expectations overwhelmed Palestinians and Israelis.

Still, the power of direct negotiations is compelling. I'll never forget chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat telling me in a moment of great frustration in 1995 that he could get more from the Israelis directly than he ever could from us.

In the current phase of the peace process, direct talks that build trust between Israelis and Palestinians are vital, of course, but they are not sufficient to reach an agreement. Sooner rather than later, the United States will need to invest itself more heavily in the negotiations in order to bridge gaps on core issues such as borders and the status of Jerusalem; will need to marshal the billions of dollars required to support an agreement; and probably will need to deploy U.S. forces to the Jordan Valley to monitor security arrangements. Without active U.S. involvement, it is unlikely that an agreement can be reached and implemented.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/01/AR2010100103144.html

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

an interesting piece and not as one sided as I expected

[Violet_Crumble]

1. I agreed with #2 ...

It has been before and can be again. But in the past 16 years, under both Democratic and Republican presidents, we have failed to be as tough, fair and reassuring as we need to be to broker a solution. Our relationship with the Israelis is special -- and it has to be because of Israel's unique security position and the values that bind us -- but if we intend to be a credible mediator, it cannot become exclusive.

We cannot advocate for one side over another or clear our positions with one party in advance; our client must be the agreement itself. And we need to adopt negotiating positions that reflect the balance of interests between the two sides, not use Israel's position as the point of departure for U.S. policy. The challenge for the Obama administration is to find this balance, one that neither Bill Clinton nor George W. Bush achieved.

[oberliner]

2. But not the others presumably?

As the poster of the OP pointed out - this article is surprisingly balanced.

Choosing only one of the five points pretty much defeats that.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. Denial of #4 is the biggest single obstacle to peace.

American pressure on Israel is certainly necessary for peace, and if enough pressure were applied it would also be sufficient.

In theory that pressure could consist of carrots as well as sticks, but the US is already providing Israel with a great many very large carrots without achieving anything (although, obviously, conditional carrots will achieve more than unconditional ones).

America is not going to be able to simultaneously get Israel to trust it and make peace, because most Israelis view trying to get them to give up territory as a betrayal.

[Violet_Crumble]

5. US pressure on Israel is definately necessary, imo...

Israel has no incentive to change the status-quo that it's shown it's more than willing to live with and would prefer over peace.

But there's absolutely no logical reason why Israel would resist for long if the US put genuine pressure on, or why anyone would believe that Israel is in a stronger position than the US. Israel is the weak one in that relationship though I suspect sometimes Israel and its supporters need to be reminded of that fact. I think there's a fair few carrots that are available to be waved at Israel, and if Israel doesn't get the hint, then the big stick should come out and after that it wouldn't take long for Israel to fall into line..

[Donald Ian Rankin]

9. Remember, Israelis are humans, not animals.

If you hurt an animal, it is likely to go away and stop bothering you and look for easier prey. If you hurt a human badly, you're likely to make them hate you more.

This is the mistake Israelis always make dealing with Palestinians.

I don't think that the absence of logical reasons means that Israel wouldn't resist pressure to end the occupation tooth and nail, purely for reasons of "national pride".

[oberliner]

6. What kind of pressure?

What would you recommend?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. I'd look at Cuba and South Africa as models.

Thinks that might help might include:

:-End of US aid
:-Embargos/tariffs/other restrictions on trade with the US and the EU
:-Ban on sale of weapons etc.
:-Travel restrictions on employees of the Israeli state (I don't think "travel restrictions on all Israelis" is entirely legitimate)
:-End of US support at the UN
:-Symbolic gestures against cultural, sporting etc cooperation with Israel.
:-Armed US/EU flotillas supplying banned non-military goods to Gaza, preferably under PA auspices.

[txaslftist]

4. Myth #6: The Government of Israel is Interested in Peace.

Netanyahoo has made it abundantly clear that he supports the expansion of settlements during all of his political career until about 2009 when suddenly he has this "revelation"?

Gimme a break.

The idea that the settlement issue is even on the table is a myth. So is the whole notion that Israel will settle for some kind of compromise or 2 state solution. The conflict will be over when the Palestinians are evicted or killed. The rest of this "process" is just Yankees making treaties with Indians, breaking them, making more treaties, and breaking them.

Pre-1967 borders... what a joke.

[oberliner]

7. The conflict will be over when the Palestinians are evicted or killed?

Scary thought.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. And, of course, it wouldn't be, even if that happened.

Every Palestinian evicted or killed just makes more people angrier.

I think that even "the conflict will be over when Israel and Palestine are just names in history lessons, like the Ottoman and Byzantine empires" may be overoptimistic - I suspect that lingering hatred may still live on.