More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
James Zogby

James Zogby

Posted: January 30, 2010 05:18 PM

Putting Middle East Peace Back on the Agenda

What's Your Reaction:

As we mark one year into the Obama era, several realities have become painfully clear.

There are limits to what a U.S. President is willing or able to do. Obama began his term in a rush to advance Israeli-Palestinian peace, which he claimed was in "America's national security interests." One year later and he appears to be no longer in a rush. In recent interviews he has analyzed the reasons for the failure to make progress and he pointedly ignored any mention of the issue in his State of the Union. What, of course, is distressing is that in addressing the other unrealized priorities he set for his first year (health care, reform of the banking industry, and energy/climate change), the President has made clear his determination to fight "the lobbyists and special interests" standing in the way of change. There are no indications he'll extend this same fighting spirit to Middle East peace. His team, headed by George Mitchell, will continue to work in the field, but for now, with a sluggish economy, still staggeringly high unemployment, and Congressional elections in November, unless an unlikely "breakthrough" is in the offing, Obama will direct his personal energies on issues upper-most on the minds of voters.

Both the Israeli and Palestinian political situations have become seriously dysfunctional. Obama has alluded to this in recent interviews and at a Town Hall session in Florida, last week. This problem is even more significant than the President suggested. Israeli hardliners and religiously fanatic settlers pose a serious threat not only to Palestinians, but to any Israeli government that tries to uproot West Bank settlements. They are a "civil war in the making" and the danger they pose must be recognized and confronted. While Israel has, at times made a show of taking them on, albeit in a limited way, I fear no coalition Israeli government is ready to wage the fight needed to defeat these elements. Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu feels that he has successfully "gamed" the U.S. Administration and has been emboldened by his "victories."

On the Palestinian side, the situation can only be described as distressed. The Palestinian Authority's leadership, already weakened by their 2006 electoral loss, and their deep internal division, has been further hurt by the "limbs" the U.S. walked them out on (a settlement freeze and the initial rejection of the Goldstone Report), only to abandon them in the end. And despite the disasters which Hamas' failed leadership has helped to bring down on their people, they don't appear ready to change direction any time soon.

Finally, there is the demonstrated weakness of the Arab States to use their collective strength to launch any "game changing" diplomatic initiatives. Arabs should not have waited, as they did, for Obama to take office. The period between the 2008 election and the Inauguration provided an excellent opportunity to put forward an Arab initiative to which the new President would have been forced to respond. Instead, it was Israel that attempted to greet the incoming Administration with what they hoped would be their disastrous "game changing" war to eliminate Hamas. And when, at the beginning of his term, Obama challenged the Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab states to make "confidence building" gestures to create an improved environment for peace-making, once again the Arabs had the opportunity to advance their own proposals. And once again, they did not.


* * *

And so here we are one year gone, the wind is out of the President's sails, the situation on the ground is more troubled and complicated, and the Israelis, though facing some international pressure, are feeling that they have regained the upper hand in the U.S. What can be done? The answer to this question is, most certainly, not to wait for "magic" from Obama or Mitchell. There are concrete steps Arabs can take during this period. First and foremost on the agenda should be to follow the Saudi lead to achieve a broader Arab consensus that will both restore some degree of Palestinian unity, pressing and helping them to rebuild their house and support an institution-building effort, like that laid down by Salam Fayyed. It will also be important for the Palestinians to lay out an agenda for confronting the occupation and activating and mobilizing their base in non-violent direct action. The demonstrations in Sheikh Jarrah and at the Wall demand attention. They can provide the basis for expanded joint Palestinian-Israeli action.

Such a program can help reenergize the Palestinian base, bring the leadership and their constituency into a closer working relationship, and draw international support creating new leverage for Palestinians in future negotiations. If this is augmented by a renewed Arab peace initiative with a strong public relations component, it may provide a constructive "game changer" that could pressure both Israel and US to respond.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 71
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
04:45 PM on 02/01/2010
Screw the middle east...Put the Middle Class back on the Agenda. I could give a rats ass about the middle east.
03:33 PM on 02/01/2010
We need a wall of US troops (maybe with a blue helmet) separating the sides for 50 years. Anything less is doomed to failure.
Thelonius
Lived in Middle East for
12:50 PM on 02/01/2010
Sooner or later, all great powers act in their own best interests and it is becoming increasingly obvious to America what its best interests are and are not. In 25 years: at least 3 billion Muslims (now 1.75 billion); 600-700 million Arabs, including 12 to 15 million Palestinians between the River Jordan and the Med. The implications for US foreign policy should be obvious to any thinking person. The handwriting is on the wall. Only the un/misinformed and/or zealots fail to comprehend what the future holds.
11:51 AM on 02/01/2010
Abbas, a master politician. Always consistent,. Always means what he says.

Dec. 2009 "If there is a total freeze of settlement activity AND recognition of 1967 borders, yes, we will go to negotiations," Abbas said."
Dec 2009- “Abbas's refuses to start new peace negotiations without a comprehensive freeze on the expansion of its settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem."
Nov. 2009:" "PA demands lifting of the Gaza blockade as a precondition to negotiations."
Aug.14th 2009. "PA is resolved not to renew peace negotiations with Israel until all Palestinian prisoners are released from Israeli jails."
Oct. 2009 Abbas-- "no negotiations unless there is settlement freeze and Israel agrees to a two-state solution. "

October 2008
Egyptian Weekly"... Mahmoud Abbas says he is prepared to resume peace talks with Israel without preconditions."

June 4, 2009
"Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Sunday laid down his conditions for renewing stalled peace negotiations with Israel. "

Jul 8, 2009
Abbas statement in Belgrade, "We do not accept any preconditions nor do we make one."

Tragicomedy in full view.
11:44 AM on 02/01/2010
Some time ago Abbas gave an interview to the leading Arab newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat.
Reminiscing about negotiations with ex-PM Olmert he confirmed that he refused.... REFUSED to accept land where Israeli Arabs live.
Quote:: "I explained from the beginning that I would not accept anyone (from the Palestinians of Israel)."
!!!
These are the same Arabs which often are proud to call themselves Palestinains and yearn to be part of Palestinian self -determination.
Except..... Palestinains, don't... want... them...!! astonishing....
The bedrock of Arabic politics is discomfort Israel at any cost.possible. At any cost, inclduing betrayal and punishment of Palestinians themselves..
This asotnishing concept is at the very center of the Israel- Arab conflict.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
messy
artist, writer, adventurer
11:33 AM on 02/01/2010
it's the Arab's job to build Israeli confindence in them. They've refused to do so, and thus we're where we are.
batguano
As Long As Grass Grow, Wind Blow & The Sky Is Blue
12:06 PM on 02/01/2010
This is obvious pro-Israel claptrap and racist in essence. If YOU were under the brutal occupation and denied any basic human rights, you would have a far different take on the reality in Palestine --perhaps. The Israelis, as the far stronger party, have the responsibility to create the climate to make peace possible and the clear record of Israeli intransigence, war and intentional provocations at times of possibility shows their commitment to continued occupation, illegal colonization, and every action in their power to make the creation of a viable Palestinian state and end to the "conflict" possible; the onus is on the occupier, not those under the Israeli yoke!
12:53 PM on 02/01/2010
Well then messy - considering that dehumanizing Palestinian Arabs is a mega part of the curriculum in Israeli schools - how do you suggest they achieve the impossible?
Jabotinsky was so right when he said that noone - not even Palestinian Arabs - wiilingly give up their land.
So what to do? Make sure conditions are such that they must never think it's worth retaliating against their plight.
You want them to provide you with absolution not confidence.
11:21 AM on 02/01/2010
Palestinian "non-violent direct action", an interesting concept. More of an oxymoron than anything else. It would be nice if it happened, but non-violence from the Palestinians is about as likely pigs flying. Hundreds of Israeli border guards have been injured by rocks thrown at the "peaceful" protests at the fence built to keep out Palestinian terrorists.

This article, actually, is heading in the right direction. Usually, when Zogby writes advice on solving the Arab's war against Israel, he usually only asks the Israelis to make compromises. His suggestion in this article that the Arab dictatorships help Obama by making some minor "confidence building" gesture to the Israelis is a breakthrough. If it ever happens, I'm sure that the Israelis would find it difficult not to respond in kind.

I'll keep watching for the gestures, and the flying pigs, with great anticipation.
11:16 AM on 02/01/2010
Middle East PEACE has not been on the Palis' Agenda. Fayyad is veying for Abbas' position, Abbas is moving to the Hamas position, and there are multiple players. The U.S. government has sent out an ARAB envoy, Mitchell, to get talks towards solutions started. The response of Abbas has been *We are NOT talking*. The response of Hamas has been *we are at war and Israel must be wiped off the map, piece by piece,* and that is not PEACE. Completely left out of the discussion are the facts about the Syrian/Hamas connection, the Hezbullah/Pali connection and the connection of both these organizations to Iran - according to a recent publication by an UAE journalist. No third party can make TWO OR MORE OTHER PARTIES enter into any Peace negotiations or treaties. I concur with many on this thread: IF Palis want PEACE let them take the initiative and negotiate and work towards peace. As it appears evident that the Palis are not gaining a thing, and Israeli society and economics are moving forward, Palis might want to take another route. After a few weeks after the Haiti disaster Haitians are already speaking of moving forward, of taking responsibility, of rebuilding their own nation.
11:03 AM on 02/01/2010
It is a pretty accurate assessment of the situation. Minus the somewhat wishful thinking prediction of Israeli civil war with settlers, of course.
The sober reality is that due to failures of Arafat at Camp David and the astonishingly misguided decision to begin a war of terrorism on Israeli people, Israel left-wing consensus simply fell apart.
IN 2010 the sober facts are such:
Israeli rightwing government is not all that enthused by Palestinains state idea.
The disjointed Palestinian governance at war with itself and Israel.
Iranian and Syrian controllers of Hamas and various other Islamicst organizations are adamantly opposed to a peace deal..
Chance for a comprehensive deal at this point --close to nil.

Having said, that events in the Middle East always have a way of confounding predictions.
No one expected the historic Sadat speech in Knesset..
Decade ago no one could predict al that Egypt and Saudi Arabia will be assisting Israel in defeating Palestinian organization ( Hamas.).
11:16 AM on 02/01/2010
Wishful thinking - LOL.
When these subsidised immigrants feel that their cosy all expenses paid idyll is terminally threatened then they'll turn into the massive problem Israel chooses to brush under the carpet.
See - there's always a problem when monsters are created - they can turn on their creators.
11:31 AM on 02/01/2010
Glad you agree with the rest of my post.
batguano
As Long As Grass Grow, Wind Blow & The Sky Is Blue
10:48 AM on 02/01/2010
To my way of thinking it is always incumbent on the stronger party (in this case Israel by many degrees) in any conflict to make peace possible -- if they want to. I agree with Prez Obama's early statement that an end to the "conflict" is in "America's national security interests." Likely reasons his initial efforts were stymied & now apparently changed, are due to the “lobbyists & special interests” & that a real Peace & end to the conflict & occupation is not deemed in their best interests. Lobbyists exert serious influence over American foreign policy through our Congress, like AIPAC especially (the most powerful pro-Israel lobby), & work to sabotage peace efforts & prolong the conflict, IMO, not work for its end. The record of their methods & agenda is clear, but still they are allowed to lobby (subvert OUR best interests) for the interests of a foreign power, something that no other nation on Earth would tolerate. Until we acknowledge the manipulation of our domestic politics & foreign policy by AIPAC et al, we will never be able to free ourselves, our President, or elected officials from their subversive influence, & work for what is in America’s best interests. WE must not remain shackled to, or fooled by the pro-Israel created myth that “what is in Israel’s best interests is also best for America” any longer.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/pg-nyt2.html
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby
http://www.muzzlewatch.com/category/aipac/page/2/
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AtlantaIconoclast
10:26 AM on 02/01/2010
Perhaps Israel would be less relucant to freeze settlements, even in East Jerusalem, if the U.S. President had the courage to use consistent financial and diplomatic leverage against Israel. This ethnocentric state has been in continuous violation of numerous UN Security Council resolutions for around 40 or more years! When will the U.S. show some concern about this?
batguano
As Long As Grass Grow, Wind Blow & The Sky Is Blue
11:11 AM on 02/01/2010
When the power of the pro-Israel lobby -- AIPAC is the most influential -- is no longer allowed to subvert our domestic politics and foreign policy. No other nation on Earth allows foreign powers to so effectively and openly lobby to their advantage and agenda as we do with the pro-Israel lobby alone.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/pg-nyt2.html
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby
http://www.muzzlewatch.com/category/aipac/page/2/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ProfessorDuh
08:57 AM on 02/01/2010
Perhaps the interminable U.S. occupation of Afghanistan would end more quickly if the U.S. military were to refrain from blowing our allies to bits. What do you think?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:31 AM on 02/01/2010
No money in that; remember we are a capitalist country.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bioluminescence
07:50 AM on 02/01/2010
Nobel prize winner Barack Obama is in a unique position to broker a significant de-escalation of the arms race in the Middle East. The deal would call for a verifiiable halt to Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions in return for a verifiable reduction in Israel's nuclear arsenal estimated to be in the range of 150 weapons.
08:25 AM on 02/01/2010
"The deal would call for a verifiiable halt to Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions"

It's already been verified that they aren't producing nuclear weapons; the only people adamant that they are making them are the US and Israeli governments.
06:54 AM on 02/01/2010
Obviously the author has a dog in the fight, but I don't believe that the U.S. does, really. Not right now, anyway. The bottom line is that none of the people who can move this issue along, either in Israel or the Palestinian areas, really care to at present. As long as that's demonstrably true why the hell would we wish this mess on another president, especially one currently dealing with a whole host of domestic issues?

Secondly, the title of 'Middle East Peace' is a complete misnomer. 'Israeli-Palestinian Peace', sure, but that won't change anything much beyond that neighborhood. The rest of the Middle East will still hate Israel, wish them out of existence, etc, etc. They'd just have to find another reason to claim to care about. I doubt it would change much of anything, in the same way that I doubt that many throughout the region really care about the plight of the Palestinians, anyway. The 'reasons' for the broader animosity will not magically go away.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:36 AM on 02/01/2010
So there cannot be peace until the entire ME stops hating Israel? You really need to look at politics in the Americas; Cuba is the prime example, but Venezuela or Columbia work as well. There are, and have been regimes that were hated but never resulted in the kind of violent behavior that we see in the ME. Cuba has never been threatening and belligerant; maybe Bibi needs to take a cue from Fidel.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AtlantaIconoclast
10:37 AM on 02/01/2010
Actually, the US certainly acts as if it has a dog in the fight, by giving Israel 4 billion annually in foreign aid, as well as billions in loan guarantees. On a year by year basis, Israel is the number one recipient of US aid, despite its violation of numerous UN Security Council resolutions and failure to fulfill its responsibilities in the Road Map for Peace.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mommadona
I paint. I blog. Therefore, I am.
01:16 AM on 02/01/2010
We've wasted enough time on a bunch of irritating old ideologues on both sides of the equation in religion and state - if the people insist on genepool elimination the male way - so be it.

The mid-east is the male mindset and completely out of touch with the real world in the 21st century.

You are all killing your own children.

Change is inevitable. Growth is optional.

Grow up.
~mom
08:31 AM on 02/01/2010
Oh come on, this has nothing to do with gender politics, and it is foolish to say so. Women are just as likely as men to kill children(actually more likely than men in this category) and end people's lives if they are put in a position where they have the authority to command/commit violence.