Could a U.S. Regional -- Really Regional -- Plan Save the Arab-Israeli Peace Process?

It's the Iranian New Year, Nowruz, and everyone seems to be celebrating. In my neighborhood in Los Angeles, the local bakeries are offering "Happy New Year" cakes for the local Iranian residents. President Obama and even President Peres are sending greetings of hope and future peace to the Iranians still living in the home country. Those who question the accommodative spirit are complaining, especially those who believe a new attitude of diplomatic engagement will threaten Israel's -- and America's -- security. They needn't do so. The critical message is that the US in particular is trying a new approach, and it has direct relevance for the Arab-Israeli dispute.

The Iranian issue today has become integrally related to Arab-Israeli relations because the constant threat of Iranian arms helping Israel's adversaries increases the reluctance of Israelis to make concessions, which is clear in the right-wing movement of the recent elections and in both the Lebanon and Gaza wars, especially the latter. Without Iranian interference, there would have been no Gaza war. Without Iranian obstruction, the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 and from Gaza in 2005 would not have resulted in the escalated instability that we have seen.

Last month a group of Israeli academics and former diplomats, brought together by the Israel Policy Forum (IPF), developed a policy paper, "Proposal for US Engagement Following Israeli Elections," (on mideastpeacepulse.com) that stressed, among other ideas, the concept of a US Regional Plan with a special focus on the security roadblock that bothers everyone, especially all Israelis: Iran.

As the authors of the IPF Israel Roundtable proposal put it: "The Israeli government is focused on Teheran. For the last three years Israel has been forced to confront Iran by proxy through Hezbollah and Hamas. Therefore, it is important for the U.S. to address this central Israeli concern in a serious and determined way within a defined time frame and within the Palestinian-Israeli and Syrian-Israeli contexts, as part of a broad regional plan, and as a component of an Iranian-U.S. dialogue. Relevant U.S. security arrangements that strengthen Israel vis-à-vis the Iranian threat will be viewed positively by any Israeli government and will help assuage Israeli fears."

The authors recognize and clarify to American ears more directly than the point is usually made, that you cannot, in this era, have any breakthroughs or make genuine progress on the Arab-Israeli front without progress on Iran. And that plays to the Obama administration's strength. By pursuing Palestinian-Israeli progress in conjunction with exploring new opportunities with Iran, including ways to prevent its potential nuclear force, the administration is beginning a direction that may well achieve genuine progress. The Roundtable participants have made a series of critical additions to our understanding of what is to be done next on the Arab-Israeli front.

And the Obama administration's new approach is clever because otherwise it would be time to feel sorry for its new team's chances of doing anything about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Palestinians are awash in internal conflict; the latest casualty is the resignation of the highly respected Salam Fayyad as Prime Minister. Meanwhile, the Israelis seem bound to have a nightmare right-wing government that can only please the country's worst adversaries. It appears that the new government will not even accept a two-state solution. But the Obama administration's message to Iran can change this dynamic.

In the past the timing was always terrible for U.S. plans in the Middle East..The 1982 Reagan plan for "self-government by the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza in association with Jordan" was timed in the middle of the war in Lebanon with poor consultation with the parties, especially Israel. The latter lost an opportunity most Israelis would dearly love today. The Clinton Parameters of January 2002 were offered at the very end of the administration, and the Palestinians in particular thought they'd get a better deal from George W. Bush. How's that for a colossal miscalculation? And once these ideas were rejected, they seemed finished. In retrospect, both sides would have been far better off if they'd taken the American ideas and agreed to work with them over the long term.

But the Obama administration has the time, and the will, and the personnel to pull something off. The Israeli experts are right. An American proposal doesn't have to be the end of the conversation, but instead the beginning. It can, if done properly, set the stage, focus the recalcitrant parties, and develop a conversation where none exists.

Here's the key point: new Clinton parameters with progress on Iran that enhances Israeli security. No more weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas, no more wars with them, but a connection to the new US plan. That's a recipe for making regional progress on several fronts at once.

Of course, this program is far easier prescribed than achieved, and the new Iranian government of whatever stripe that emerges from the June 12 election would have to cooperate. But since half of policy-making is having the right strategy, the Israeli experts' idea shows the way of making progress on the Palestinian-Israeli and the American-Iranian fronts at once. This is a way to square lots of circles with one approach.

Steven L. Spiegel is Director of the Center for Middle East Development and Professor of Political Science at UCLA. He blogs regularly at the Mideast Peace Pulse.

Comments

[camper65]

The answer to this one's easy - NO!! DUH!!

[skialethia]

The author is trying to put the cart before the horse. Let's stop circumventing the issue. There is only one road to peace. ONLY ONE. All other roads will lead to the same place -- continuing hostility and disaster, and at best a fragile hiatus in conflict.

Unless the Palestinians are allowed a 1) sovereign state respecting pre-67 borders, with 2) a right of return and 2) East Jerusalem as the capital, then there will NEVER be peace. This is the REALITY. Everything else is fiction and implies stalling, more oppression, more violent resistance, more antagonism in the region, and more cyclical hostility and most certainly an eventual disaster.

Going through Iran to get to Palestine is just plain ridiculous. A serious peace plan will make Iranian meddling a moot point, while going through Iran will only create more resentment and delays and frankly, I don't think it will work, as the Iranians are intent on seeing good-faith actions. They don't trust America one bit and Israel not at all.

So, let's stop playing these waiting games, stop playing with semantics, stop trying to use the Palestinians like pawns on a chessboard. These are real people, with real justified demands.

[skialethia]

Continued:

Either the players get REAL and include the big 3 in the peace plan; dismantle West Bank, right of return and East Jerusalem, capital, or go down all other roads, except this one, and create a recipe for disaster. There is only ONE road-map and I KNOW Israel has neither the will nor the courage to accept this reality, therefore, therefore take my word for it; there will be blood; there will be war. Many will pay a price for Israel's inability to face reality and their ongoing lust for Palestinian land.

[messy]

The right of return means that the decendants of alleged refugees can take away the homes and businesses of Israeli Jews, that Tel Aviv, which was once Arab farm land, must be given up and dismantled so the Arabs can start farming again.

It means that millions and millions of people will be uprooted, and most of the population of Israel will be put in camps while they wait to be deported to Arab countries who don't want them.

It also means that the Jewish people are inferior to all others in the world and have no right to anything.

[GuyRC]

So give them what they had when the British left, oh wait, they weren't satisfied with that and tried to take it all. Well it is probably ok, history never repeats itself.

[zaz33]

64 percent of Israelis are opposed to the Saudi peacr plan.

Natanyahu negotiating for peace is highly unlikely. -

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/33045/israelis_remain_opposed_to_saudi_peace_plan

[arvay]

And the two-state solution is DOA -- it died with the bullet that killed Rabin. The attacks on Lebanon and Gaza have buried it deeper. That's why the Israeli government seems to back it -- because its impossible, especially with the way settlers and Arabs are intermixed on the West Bank.

take a look

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Westbankjan06.jpg

There are two choices. A single democratic state for both Arabs and Jews or continued, never-ending war. Option two will dry up the now-dwindling immigration into Israel, and encourage emigration. All the Arabs have to do is wait, Israel will provide the occasional military outburst (for internal political purposes) and Israel will grow ever more isolated.

Its future: a nation of aging kibbutzniks, those who are sure the Nazis will come back and religious fanatics.

[skialethia]

And let's not forget that Palestinians will eventually outnumber Israelis. Yes, a recipe for disaster is brewing, and Israelis have no courage to face reality. Whatever choices they make to avoid reality will end in disaster.

I advocate for the two state solution with the big 3: dismantle settlements or provide an equivalent amount of land which joins with Gaza and somehow includes East Jerusalem, right of return, capital: East Jerusalem, although I know none of this will ever happen, and neither will the one-state solution happen.

So it looks like we should all prepare for eventual war.

[moflard]

I thought the Nazis were back - they were given a free pass to immigrate into Israel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6985808.stm

Says a lot about Zionism doesn't it, they'd rather let Nazis of all people live in Israel than Muslims.

[messy]

Correction, the attacks BY Gaza and Lebanon.

[JacksonJones]

Prolly has something to with the take-it-or­-leave-it-­and-we-get­-all-of-th­e-Old-City­-of-Jerusa­lem flavor of the "plan", innit?

[johnsonc20]

Including Iran in a regional peace discussion is fine, but only if the Israelis are willing to discuss a fair solution for the Palestinians - land for peace at the green line with adjustments that give land of equal value from Israel for land occupied in Palestine, plus financial compensation for Palestinian land taken and kept in Israel, and open completely demilitarized borders with Jordan and Egypt. A truly fruitful discussion would include a trade of the permanent destruction of Israel's nuclear weapons and weapons facilities, with verification, for a permanent ban on uranium enrichment and reprocessing by Iran, with verification.

[Asean4Obama]

When I saw Peres give his Iranian New Year speech I almost puked when the head of the proganda country told the Iranian's that they had millions of viewers inside Persia.

I think if Pakistan, India and Israel would agree to destroy their nuclear arsenals only then should Iran come forward to not built a bomb. Iran has never attacked a country for hundreds of years. Iran doesn't need the West but it needs to stay close to Asia and countries such as Qatar, Bahrain and of course Iraq as soon the West pulled out.

The West is bankrupt and needs communists and muslims to pump money in to the crashing economies. What a joke..

Why the West doesn't ask Israel to pump billions in their economies.

[arvay]

Right on!

The reason the Iranians, the Syrians and maybe the Saudis want nuclear weapons is because the Israelis have 200 of them. Which violates their agreements with us. But their fifth-column lobby keeps us from forcing them to give the weapons up.

"Why the West doesn't ask Israel to pump billions in their economies."

Of course, that's OUR money the Israelis have. The fact is that this nation, which likes to think of itself as so strong, would disappear very quickly if it wasn't propped up by massive US financial and military assistance. Their neighbors and other countries in the region and beyond know this, which is why we get their hostility. In a very real sense, 9/11 originated in Israel -- not the attack but the core reason for the attack.

Absent Israel, we'd have at worst, indifference from Muslims worldwide. Instead, we have regional wars, immense expenditures and a never-ending crisis. This from a country that describes itself as our "best friend" in the region.

Yeah, because they've alienated everyone else in our name.

[JacksonJones]

"But their fifth-column lobby"

You dedule yourself if you think that the American people want any such thing.

[courtb]

Of course...that's why there has been such a strong arms race in the Middle East for the past 50 years (estimations put Israel's nuclear program at beginning in the 1950s).

According to Amir Taheri-an Iranian journalist: "The Middle East may be on the verge of a nuclear arms race triggered by the inability of the West to stop Iran's quest for a bomb. Since Tehran's nuclear ambitions hit the headlines five years ago, 25 countries -- 10 of them in the greater Middle East -- have announced plans to build nuclear power plants for the first time."

Heck, Mubarak (Egyptian President) even said "A nuclear armed Iran with hegemonic ambitions is the greatest threat to Arab nations today"

[BubbaC33]

None of the nations want nukes because Israel may have them. These nations want them for a first-strike capability, not as a deterrent to Israel using nukes, if they have them.

[Wisdo]

The only "solution" Israel is interested in regarding the Palestinians, is a "final" one.

They want them all gone. Dead if possible, but not necessarily.

There will be no two state or one state or ANY state solution for the Palestinians. The intention is to keep the jackboot on their throat until they give up the will to live. Until they exile themselves by choice from their own land.

Israel must be forced by military means, to withdraw from its captured land, withdraw from occupied Jerusalem and abide by international treaties and law. Israel is a military state, they understand violence only. Violence is their solution to everything, and therefore military force is the only factor which will dissuade them from their intended, slow and protracted genocide of the Palestinian people.

[shotei]

Ahmadinejad would probably kiss you on the forehead and promise you 72 virgins after this.
Just a quick History lesson: after each and every war Israel had fought, ISRAEL was the one that approached the other side seeking to establish peace. That was done in 1948 to no result. In 1967, 2 weeks after the war was over, the cabinet convened and decided it would return all lands conquered in the war in exchange for peace treaties with its neighbors. The Arabs rejected the proposal. Finally after Yom Kippur, Egypt understood peace was the only way and received the Sinai immediately back.
When Egypt and Jordan finally decided to try the peace road, Israel was swift in its positive response and there has been no escalation of violence between these countries ever since.

[Taxi]

Calm down hasbara.

[arvay]

Israel has consistently rejected Arab peace offers, and still does. Virtually all its "peace" overtures have been non-starters, guaranteed to evoke rejection, which it then plays up for pr purposes.

Rabin was the only Israeli leader who tried to reach a settlement. He was assassinated and Netenyahu refused to go through with Oslo. That killed the two-state "solution." The attacks on Lebanon and Gaza merely drove stakes through its heart.

Now that settlements and these outrages have made the two-state solution impossible, Israel is in favor. Old, old shopworn trick.

It wages aggressive wars against its neighbors, bombs civilians and kills them at close range.It has no real plan for peace. It hops from one ad hoc tactic to another, led by internal politics rather than any geopolitical plan. .

It's introduced destabilizing nuclear weapons into the region, which is the reason that Syria, Iran and possibly Saudi Arabia are developing their own. The Saudis have a missile force and IRBMs, maybe the Pakis will sell them some warheads, so that Israel can be dragged to the negotiating table.

[jerryny]

No peace is possible unless both of the two main issues are resolved.

First, no Israeli government would ever accept the return of large numbers of Palestinian refugees. Unless these refugees can be resettled in other countries in the region, there will be no possible agreement. This was part of the failure of the Clinton initiative when Arafat could not bring himself to make that concession at Camp David. I doubt that Abbas has the political strength to do this. The future seems to suggest that the secular and more moderate PLO will weaken and Hamas will grow stronger.

Second, withdrawal of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories is equally non-negotiable from the Palestinian point of view. For the Israelis, with some 60,000 armed settlers in the territories, this could mean civil war within Israel. These settlers and other ultra nationalist elements have made it very plain that there would be bloodshed if any Israel government tries to do this. With Netanyahu as prime minister and Avigdor Leiberman as foreign minister there will be no serious negotiations with the Palestinians.

What this means is more of same endless cycle of war, violence, hatred, murder and rage to yet another generation.

[JZasloff]

These two conditions are extremely sensible, and thus are generally rejected by both sides (as well as many commentators here!). The best approach is that outlined by Sari Nusseibeh, to have the electorates vote on a peace plan: http://www.samefacts.com/archives/foreign_policy_/2009/02/sari_nusseibehs_new_peace_plan_let_the_people_vote_on_it.php

[zaz33]

The ultimate dream of the occupier is to have the uccupied without any means to resist. This I suspect is what the auther is recommending.

Palistinian's should put their trust in Israel and assume the dream of "greater Israel" has been abandoned. I believe the majority of Israeli Jews are now opposed to the two state solution, and a larger majority is opposed to a one state solution. The majority of Israeli Jews are opposed to giving up the Golan Heights. The Golan Heights and Southern Lebanon have coverted water resources,

BubbaC33 at 4:58 pretty much called it from Israel's point of view. The 67 borders are non-negotiable and the right of return and compensation are on a cold back burner.

The author apparently believes that if the resistance is disarmed and resistance ends the Israeli Jewish population will demand their government offer the Palistinian a "deal they can't refuse"

[JacksonJones]

"The ultimate dream of the occupier is to have the uccupied without any means to resist."

Poll after poll after poll show that the dream of the Israelis, by a VAST majority, is peace and the two-state solution is what they see as the means of achieving it.

Bluster about some fictional occupier's dreams designed to ennoble the killing of innocents doesn't help anyone.

[TheRationalLeft]

It's irrelevant what poll after poll shows when the Israeli leaders don't pay much attention to it and in fact only escalate the conflict to the point that polls begin shifting in the opposite direction.

It's one thing to keep repeating this meaningless rhetoric of a 2-state solution, but it's quite another to get both sides to agree on details and then actually implement them.

Time after time Israel rejected what is essentially the international consensus and now Iran established a critical leverage over Israel by supplying Hamas and Hezbollah which resists Israeli expansionist vision. This is why Iran became so powerful - thanks to Israeli's own policies.

[nochaos]

This is a very BAD idea whose time has NOT come!!

[indyleftist]

The key to Arab-Israeli peace will come when people start talking about the Arabs and Israelis
This article doesn't discuss either but instead talks about the Persians
Persians, who unlike the Arabs and the Israelis, have not really been causing problems in the world

[JacksonJones]

So the problem is that no one is talking about Israelis and Palestinians? I am not so sure that is true. As for Iranians causing problems, its Iranians that arm and train Hizbullah and Hamas, each of which causes plenty of problems for everyone that lives near them.

[Wisdo]

And its Americans that arm and fund the Israelis, who cause problems for their neighbours all the time by killing their women and children in large numbers, concentrating fire on civilian institutions like hospitals and schools, using weapons which intentionally leave horriffic and long lasting wounds.

Like plastic shrapnel, which can never be removed since it doesnt show up on x-ray. Like cluster munitions which look like sweets. Like white phospherous which burns to the bone. Like nerve gas which kills children and leaves Adults crippled for life.

[Taxi]

But it's Israel that gives Lebanese Hisbullah reasons for needing arms. By invading their country in 1982 which caused the deaths of some twenty four thousand Lebanese.

Not forgetting of course, the 2006 Israel's lovely summer blitz that evidently Hizbollah didn't enjoy.

Both times, the Israelis lost by two own-goals.

[indyleftist]

Yes that is the problem
Iran has nothing to do with any of this
Their support for Hamas is incredibly overstated. Hamas is a radical pro-democracy Suni organization. Iran is a theocratic Shiite country. Iran's support for Hamas is rhetoric only and Hamas members don't especially like Iran

So if you want to talk about peace between Israel and Palestine, talking about Iran doesn't make any sense. People who talk about Iran in a discussion of Israel/Palestine either are trying to stall and misdirect the conversation or they are just foolish

[louisamast]

For your information Israel is not a country. A country must have a define border and a constitution. Israel has neither. If Israel with 200 nuclear warheads does not feel safe, why does she have the nuclear warheads in the first place? So far it has triggered a nuclear race in the ME. It would help to understand the situation if one looks at this issue from a different angle. It appears that the main goal is to push Iran to join the nuclear race. Iran without possible nuclear arsenals is no use to our great industrial military complex. How else future military expansions and expenditures will be justified? And convince the wealthy Persian Gulf countries to buy more pricey military hardware. Constant threat of military strike on Iran may be most effective method to push Iran to finally get into nuclear arm race and reach our objectives.

[JacksonJones]

"Truly, your logic is dizzying."

- Dread Pirate Roberts

[zaz33]

JacksonJones - The first two points made by Iouisamast are true. Israel does not have a constitution and is the only member of the UN that doesn't have a map.

The other points made are opinions. You have the right to diplomatically disagree.

[hulka37]

It's not about Iran, it's about Israel.

[JacksonJones]

Exactly. It's not like Iran has to be worried about being wipped off the map by Israel. It's Israel that has the reasons to worry.

[louisamast]

The last time I checked Israel had >200 nuclear warheads and Iran had none! I know there some people in this world who are scared of their shadows!

[Ergon]

Right. The Palestinians 'should have accepted American ideas', and the 'Israeli experts were right'.
Perhaps one solution might be to have a new UN mandate for Palestine including the 1967 borders and a tough NATO force to protect the poor Israelis from the boys with slingshots.

[BubbaC33]

Arabists continue to demand a return by Israel to the pre-67 war borders in order to have peace in the region. All a return to those borders will do is to encourage Arab adventurism and decrease the safety of Israel. I am at a loss to understand why the pre-67 war borders are so magical. There was no peace prior to 1967. There was plenty of Arab terrorism prior to 1967. And remember, the Arab armies were massed on the Israeli border in June, 1967 ready for a war.
Here is a peace plan that would work. Israel accepts the borders it currently holds, including the West Bank and the Golan, with an assurance that Muslim religious sites in Jerusalem would always be open to Muslims. This was denied to Jews from 1948 to 1967.Israel agrees to allow any Arabs living on the West Bank the right to leave and go to the homeland created for Arabs in 1922, Jordan. All the Arab nations need do is to accept the right of Israel to exist.

[Manchurian]

So, would you give up your right to return to your home if it had been stolen from you, even decades ago? Of course not. All refugees have the internationally recognized inalienable right of return. This includes all Palestinians who were forced from their homes and lands. They don't want to go to Jordan; they want to go home - and the have every right to do so. It's called justice, and it's part of what we as Americans believe in.

[ZenJu]

The '1967 borders' to which you refer are a fallacy. They were ARMISTICE lines, like the one between North and South Korea. As the Hashimite Kingdom of Jordan did not recognize Israel until the mid-1990s, those line were not 'borders' in the sense used in international law. Those armistice lines, negotiated in Rhodes in 1949, were merely cease-fire lines and, by nature, impermanent. Any negotiations for a final settlement must recognize this fact.
By the way, the Israeli government offered to yield the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 in exchange for recognition and peace; it was the ARAB world that rejected peace, negotiations and peace with Israel in response at the conference in Khartoum.

[moflard]

So why didn't Israel offer the vote to those people in the Occupied Territories?

[Becka]

Zenju they did not. That is the most blatant stupidity I have ever read. Israel had the plan in motion for nearly a year before they took the West Bank and Gaza along with Jeruslam and they kicked out 200,000 Palestinians in the process and never let them back.

Don't believe me? Get the book 1967 by Tom Segev and read all about it.

[Wozzeck]

Would it not be more logical to bring about changes in Israel's rightwing positions by directly negotiating with Israel than by negotiating with Iran and hoping for side benefits in Israel?

Or is negotiating with Israel impossible?

How about "Clean up your act or forget about American aid"?

[Eclectic Radical]

Israel's current right wing government is in power because of the average Israeli's cynicism in the wake of the failed peace engagements of previous governments. Now one can say whatever one wants, using pro-Israel or anti-Israel talking points, about those engagements and their substance. The point is, the average Israeli wants peace, feels that the average Palestinian doesn't want peace, and feels that the Arabs have no respect for 'soft' governments. So they feel that to regain Arab respect they need the Netanyahus and Liebermans running things.

Make serious progress toward regional peace and the Israeli people will force their government to re-engage or replace their government with one that will re-engage. They did not vote for Netanyahu and Lieberman because they are in love with Netanyahu and Lieberman. Address their cynicism, and they will vote the bastards out. They have to believe peace is possible to vote for it, however.

[JacksonJones]

Exactly right.

[TJCole]

Steven; "They suffer least, who suffer what they choose..!"