There are immense and tectonic shifts underway on the Arab/Israel dispute. Nothing is confirmed, but the signs are growing of a new US policy that is remarkable in its scale and ambition: nothing less than a comprehensive solution to all "tracks" (as they have hitherto been known) of the peace process. In other words, the administration may, at a stroke, be seeking to solve all aspects of the many-faceted problem of Israel's relations with its Arab neighbors: that means Palestinians, Lebanon, Syria, all at once.
One straw in the wind is a remarkably candid interview by King Abdullah of Jordan given to Richard Beeston of The Times (of London) on May 11, in which the King suggests just that - that the US is aiming not for piecemeal progress separately with the Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians etc, but at a "global solution" - or, in his words, not a 2-state solution (ie a state for Israel and the Palestinians) but a 57-state solution - ie all the Arab states, and others, who today do not recognise Israel, at last recognising and accepting Israel's existence.
To those, like me, who have followed and worked on the issue for many years, this approach has a compelling logic. The "peace process" approach, if one may call it that, has simply not worked. Treating Israel's relationships with its neighbors as separate discrete issues has produced no real or lasting progress in any of them. There are too many spoilers both within Israel and without who use problems on one track to derail progress on another. But above all, the holistic approach provides at last not only for the necessity of a Palestinian state but for something that the Palestinians alone cannot provide let alone guarantee - a comprehensive answer to Israel's security and thus an end to the perpetual insecurity and conflict that has plagued Israel since its establishment as a state.
What would such a deal look like? Something not a million miles from the Arab peace initiative, first proposed in 2002. Its rough outlines might comprise:
Achieving this supremely-ambitious result would require, at a minimum, three things. First, highly-energetic international diplomacy, led by the US, the only country that has the ability, political firepower and the credibility even to begin to attempt to persuade Israel to accept it. Secondly, it will require a long-term and sustained international military involvement to provide credible security to guarantee all the above, in Palestine, southern Lebanon and the Golan Heights. Credible to the Israelis may mean American. Finally, all of this would have to be lubricated by vast amounts of international aid money (this is where the Europeans will be called upon, as before), not least to provide a lot of money to compensate the Palestinians who will not be granted the "right of return" to their homes within Israel's post-settlement boundaries and to fund the establishment, at last, of a proper sovereign and economically-independent Palestinian state.
There are dozens of uncertainties in all this. How to bring Hamas to accept a deal of this kind. Who talks to Hamas, in the first place? (I have little doubt that the US, through intermediaries of some sort, is communicating in some way with Hamas today.) Persuading a right-wing Israeli government (and a nervous people) poses no less of a challenge. A list of all that might go wrong would fill many books. But the big potential fly in the ointment is of course Iran, which through its support for Hamas and Hezbollah, has the potential to scupper progress. This is at least one reason why the forthcoming presidential elections in Iran, where Ahmadinejad's hold on power is under threat, are so important.
Given the immense challenges and complications of all this, it would be easier, as the Bush administration did, to wash one's hands and say, let's leave it to the parties. But this would be a profound irresponsibility and would lead, as Abdullah bluntly but correctly warns in The Times interview, inevitably to renewed war between Israel and its neighbors, whether in Gaza or Lebanon. The scale and ambition of such an approach, if this is indeed what the US is planning, are breathtaking. Doubtless speculation, like this blog, will be pooh-poohed in spades by those involved (I would do the same in their shoes). But I hope they will allow me nevertheless a small moment to say, hooray.
you are trying to sell Netanyahoo and his bouncer buddy Lieberman are saints just like their predecessors is not going to sell....
1. AIPAC should be tamed, it is causing too much friction in the Congress to derail the peace movement
2. Is.rael will have to agree what US says, otherwise they can expect check with lot of fewer Zeroes annually, enough of this violence and illegal land grab
Israel and it's hardliners FREAKED OUT but there has only been a softening of the statement, and not a retraction of any kind.
Also, Clinton took Netanyahus "threat" about needing to get tough with Iran before there was any movement in the settlements situation, and threw it right back in his face, saying that if he expected the sort of US support that he is suggesting that we give regarding Iran (and possibly ANY US support, her statement was a little open ended), that he had better get moving on kicking the 2 state solution into high gear NOW.
God willing, this administration will have the will to see the settlements razed to the ground, putting an end to 4 decades of needless blowback terror in Israel and the US.
There will be peace after this war.
Won't look anything like what the article suggests.