Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
CAP: Window of Opportunity for a Two-State Solution
The report I've been writing with Brian Katulis about the Obama administration's strategy on the Israeli-Palestinian front has just been published at the Center for American Progress under the title "Window of Opportunity for a Two-State Solution."
The report argues that the Obama administration's very well-executed build-up -- the Mitchell appointment, the Cairo speech, the battle over the settlements -- has created an unprecedented window of opportunity for serious movement. But the administration's diplomatic strategy has run well ahead of the abilities or the political conditions of either the Israeli or the Palestinian side. There is now an urgent need both to engage differently with Israeli public opinion and to transform the approach to intra-Palestinian politics and institutional development. The executive summary (reproduced immediately below) doesn't quite make clear the extent of the problems that we see with Gen. Keith Dayton's mission of training Palestinian security forces, which the report itself makes clear faces major and growing political and institutional challenges (which I previewed a few weeks ago here). We offer a series of concrete recommendations meant to help the administration's strategy succeed, while raising some major warning flags about why it might not. More discussion to follow!
Download the whole report at CAP or download the full PDF directly here. Here is the executive summary:
Window of Opportunity for a Two-State Solution
The Obama administration sees a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the cornerstone of its evolving Middle East strategy. Yet the window of opportunity for achieving a viable two-state solution is rapidly closing—at a time when Israelis and Palestinians seem incapable and unwilling to achieve a sustainable peace agreement. In the coming months, the Obama administration needs to build on its first steps on the Israeli-Palestinian front with specific actions to shore up Israeli and Palestinian political support for a possible two-state solution.
The Obama administration has taken important steps to demonstrate the seriousness of its intent. President Barack Obama appointed an experienced, high-level team including former Senator George Mitchell as special envoy for Middle East peace. As this team initiated multiple policy reviews and engaged key actors in the Middle East to gauge the openings for possible shifts in U.S. policy, President Obama repeatedly voiced his public commitment to a two-state solution. His speech in Cairo last month directly tied the creation of a Palestinian state to U.S. national security interests.
The Obama team is building on previous administrations’ efforts to boost the capabilities and professionalism of the Palestinian security forces and is working to advance economic development in the Palestinian territories. The administration has pushed for a freeze on the expansion of Israeli settlements on the West Bank, and is now pushing for Arab states to make significant gestures toward Israel.
But the deadlocked political situation on both the Israeli and the Palestinian sides trail the President’s ambitious timetable. Palestinian leaders are divided and face a crisis of legitimacy in the eyes of their people. As yet, there is no clear path forward to resolve power-sharing disputes among different Palestinian factions. Israelis are similarly divided about the way forward, with little serious internal political pressure pushing toward a two-state solution.
The Obama administration needs to win over more Israelis to its strategy for the region and consolidate a Palestinian leadership able to negotiate an enduring agreement in order to achieve a two-state solution. To address this stalemate, the Obama administration needs to take four concrete steps in the coming months:
- Plan for the possibility of Palestinian elections in the coming year.
- Develop an integrated program to strengthen Palestinian institutions in a broad range of sectors to lay the foundations for statehood.
- Take immediate action to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
- Conduct a public outreach and strategic communications effort in the Middle East outlining U.S. regional strategy, with increased attention to Israeli public opinion.
Each of these steps needs to be taken to expand the new window of opportunity created by the Obama administration’s first moves on Middle East policy.
Plan for the possibility of Palestinian elections in the coming year
A key impediment to a two-state solution is the lack of unified Palestinian institutions and leaders endowed with the support of its people. The fractured political landscape among Palestinians raises concerns among Israelis about having a viable partner who can implement a peace agreement. The deep conflicts between Hamas and Fatah, including the territorial-political divide between the West Bank and Gaza, have been compounded by growing internal problems within the Fatah movement and the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority even in the West Bank. To clear this hurdle, the Obama administration should support efforts to find a workable formula for a Palestinian national unity government and plan for the possibility of Palestinian elections in the next 12 months.
Earlier this month, PA President Mahmoud Abbas called for Palestinian elections to be held under international and Arab supervision. Abbas said the election results should be respected, even if Hamas wins. Holding such elections will be risky and complicated, but elections may be the only way to translate improvements in security, economy, and institutional capacity into real political legitimacy for Palestinian governing institutions—the paramount strategic objective of the current efforts. While January 2010 should not be a sacred date, the elections should be held on a reasonable time frame and their results respected. These elections, however, must not be used as an excuse to delay a rapid movement towards final status negotiations. An impending election could generate a sense of urgency among Palestinian leaders that could create positive incentives to make progress in negotiations.
Develop an integrated program to strengthen Palestinian institutions in a broad range of sectors to lay the foundation for statehood
Neither elections nor stronger Palestinian security forces will be sufficient to produce a capable and legitimate Palestinian government if other Palestinian Authority institutions are not developed in tandem. The United States and other countries should continue to promote a “sustainable security” program in Palestine—developing a judicial system, strengthening the rule of law, advancing economic prosperity and democratic mechanisms— to create a favorable environment toward a peace resolution. Considerable U.S. investment and efforts to build Palestinian security forces should be matched by robust efforts to strengthen Palestinian Authority ministries in a wider range of sectors.
This may require a far more direct presence in the West Bank than is currently possible. At present, U.S. Agency for International Development officials can only travel even to Ramallah under heavy security, with each visit costing thousands of dollars according to many estimates, and to the great dismay of Palestinian officials. The United States should strongly consider opening a diplomatic presence in Ramallah.
This would send an extremely strong signal of U.S. support for an emerging Palestinian state, and would facilitate a much more effective engagement across all sectors of Palestinian institutional development. In opening such a presence, the United States should make clear that the move is not making a policy statement prejudging the outcome of final status negotiations. International development assistance should be tightly integrated into a coherent strategy aimed at producing a capable, legitimate set of Palestinian institutions which can win public support for and effectively implement a two-state final status agreement.
Take immediate action to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza
Since unilateral ceasefires in January by Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, the 1.5 million Palestinians living there have suffered from severe shortages—including basic medicines, food and building materials—after combat destroyed many homes and key infrastructure. The Obama administration is now engaged in quiet diplomatic efforts to ease the restrictions on border crossings in order to advance reconstruction efforts in the Gaza Strip. But far too little has been done, and reconstruction efforts remain stymied.
The United States should work directly and openly with Israeli officials to establish a clear list and transparent criteria and rationale for allowing the import of food, medicines, and reconstruction material. In addition, the Obama administration should review regulations and procedures to ensure it is striking the right balance between facilitating the timely and efficient delivery of humanitarian assistance and guaranteeing that U.S. taxpayer assistance does not benefit groups designated as foreign terrorist organizations.
Launch a strategic communications effort in the Middle East outlining U.S. regional strategy, with increased attention to Israeli public opinion
The Obama administration’s diplomatic efforts over the settlements are not yet concluded and must be continued in order to revive U.S. credibility in Palestine and the Arab world. But the settlements themselves are only a small portion of the problem. The time has come to pivot to the next step—a broader public outreach and strategic communications effort in the Middle East that builds on the first steps of the Obama administration. This should be supplemented by a tightly focused strategic communications effort directed toward building support for a two-state solution among Palestinians and the broader Arab world. Such a campaign cannot wait for an actual negotiated agreement that can then be “sold.” It must begin now to build the foundations of public support and to prepare public opinion for the likely concessions involved in the likely deal.
The communications campaign cannot only be directed toward the Arabs and Palestinians. The Obama administration will achieve its goal of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict only if its actions are not viewed by Israelis as hostile to their interests. Washington needs to reassure Israel that it will continue to support its security and work to maintain a close bilateral relationship while also pushing forcefully for a two-state solution which it sees as in the best interests of the region. Israel and the United States cannot afford to surprise each other with unexpected, uncoordinated initiatives that collide with each other’s strategic position.
At the same time, both nations must meet their commitments in the full spirit of cooperation and common purpose. To do this, the Obama administration should consider ways to shape Israel’s strategic calculations, such as a package of additional financial assistance to help Israel with the costs of moving settlements and military bases in the West Bank, both of which might be the result of a deal with Israel on permanent borders or a more comprehensive agreement.









You said, "the settlements
You said, "the settlements themselves are only a small part of the problem"
B.S. The settlements necessitate the occupation. The occupation, violence of the settlers, and growth of the settlements embody the Palestinians plight.
Remove the IDF, replace them with a well funded, firmly mandated UN Arab peace keeping force, and most of the problem is solved, as long as we work hard to build up Palestinian infrastructure and troops, while making sure the Israelis are kept out altogether, under all circumstances.
A large UN Peace Keeping force is keeping the peace in Lebanon, preventing either side from further antagonizing each other.
The settlements are morally indefensible, as they involve both apartheid and ethnic cleansing to achieve their goals. As such, there is not a single other nation in the world that runs a violently enforced colonial settlement movement like Israel's, because it is either repellent to them, or they fear reprisal from other law abiding nations.The settlements are an affront to any peace loving nation, and need to be razed to the ground completely and quickly. I hope they start with Avigdor Liebermans house first.
Balanced View; While I agree
Balanced View;
While I agree with the removal of the settlements, there is no apartheid or ethnic cleansing going on. For about 20 years after the 1967 war, the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza were free to come and go in Israel as they pleased. No checkpoints, no barriers. Those came only after a steady stream of murderous attacks on Israeli civilians. In addition, the one million or so Arabs living in Israel are not behind any physical barriers, and large numbers of them interact peacefully with Israeli Jews on a daily basis.
Regarding violently enforced settlements, you might want to google on 'Tibet'.
Your analysis of the situation is a bit simplistic.
Israel settlements modeled on the Red Chinese Principles.
The situation in Tibet is quite a bit different that that of The one in Israel, and in any case, I would hope that you are not holding it up as an acceptable model of behavior. Whatever else is happening there, the plan is NOT to remove Tibetan people from the region and replace them with another people, in order eventually wipe out Tibet and its people, while forcing the remaining people to live in sub human, rightless, stateless limbo in crippled bantustans, as is ACTIVELY and CURRENTLY happening in the occupied territories.
There are land disputes in many places in the world, but only in Israel does the military violently insert foreign citizens into an area with the express purpose of stealing that land while simultaneously and violently forcing the indigenous inhabitants from their homes to make way for the growing tides of new settlers.
Israel runs the worlds only violently enforced colonial settler movement, one designed to remove the indigenous inhabitants from their and, and replace them with Jewish settlers on as much land as they can possibly grab.
I would say that your analysis is no analysis at all, but rather a broad attempt to equivocate the situation into moral meaninglessness. Israel IS using apartheid and ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories. For instance, they plan to tear down about 800 homes in East Jerusalem to make way for a park, and the Palestinians who live there are given no new accommodations, and no compensation. They are just expected to live elsewhere, knowing that where ever they go, a similar fate will eventually befall them if the settlers are not stopped.
On a REGULAR basis, Farmland is burned or co opted and houses are out and out stolen or put into continual legal dispute by settlers. The Settlers are PROTECTED by the IDF as they do these things.
Israel settlements modeled on the Red Chinese Principles.
The situation in Tibet is quite a bit different that that of The one in Israel, and in any case, I would hope that you are not holding it up as an acceptable model of behavior. Whatever else is happening there, the plan is NOT to remove Tibetan people from the region and replace them with another people, in order eventually wipe out Tibet and its people, while forcing the remaining people to live in sub human, rightless, stateless limbo in crippled bantustans, as is ACTIVELY and CURRENTLY happening in the occupied territories.
There are land disputes in many places in the world, but only in Israel does the military violently insert foreign citizens into an area with the express purpose of stealing that land while simultaneously and violently forcing the indigenous inhabitants from their homes to make way for the growing tides of new settlers.
Israel runs the worlds only violently enforced colonial settler movement, one designed to remove the indigenous inhabitants from their and, and replace them with Jewish settlers on as much land as they can possibly grab.
I would say that your analysis is no analysis at all, but rather a broad attempt to equivocate the situation into moral meaninglessness. Israel IS using apartheid and ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories. For instance, they plan to tear down about 800 homes in East Jerusalem to make way for a park, and the Palestinians who live there are given no new accommodations, and no compensation. They are just expected to live elsewhere, knowing that where ever they go, a similar fate will eventually befall them if the settlers are not stopped.
On a REGULAR basis, Farmland is burned or co opted and houses are out and out stolen or put into continual legal dispute by settlers. The Settlers are PROTECTED by the IDF as they do these things.
A, Remove the IDF, replace
A,
"Remove the IDF, replace them with a well funded, firmly mandated UN Arab peace keeping force"
A UN peacekeeping force must be seen as neutral by both parties, or it isn't a peacekeeping force at all. Since the only Arab countries that have peace with Israel are Jordan and Egypt, and even they cannot be considered neutral, your suggestion for a UN force made up of Arab soldiers is silly.
"and most of the problem is solved, as long as we work hard to build up Palestinian infrastructure and troops, while making sure the Israelis are kept out altogether, under all circumstances."
Under all circumstances? Including violent attacks cross into Israeli areas? You seem to be completely bypassing the part where Israelis and Palestinians are supposed to agree to peace. You seem to think that peace can just be imposed, like it or not. That may work in some environments (although that is highly debatable) but not in this one.
"A large UN Peace Keeping force is keeping the peace in Lebanon, preventing either side from further antagonizing each other."
Yeah. Right.
"The settlements are morally indefensible..."
I agree with this part.
"as they involve both apartheid and ethnic cleansing to achieve their goals."
But not that part. They are indefensible, because they are illegal. That's all that needs to be said.
Snipping the rest of your ranting on the basis that it is biased... I'll let somebody else take that up if they want to.
PS-Marc, the password requirement for this website is just silly. I have no desire to create "secure" passwords for every blog I want to comment on, and neither do I wish to use one of the actual for real passwords that I use for my important real life stuff. Let people use garbage easy to remember passwords... it's not like if somebody hacks an Abu Aardvark user account it's going to be the end of life as we know it, eh?
PPS- Great, no standard HTML tags allowed here! Way to make things difficult lol.
"Yeah, right," does not constitute an argument or an answer.
Pick whatever blend of UN peace keepers you like, but the forces that would be most effective and neutral to the people they are occupying would be Arab, however, a mix would probably be fine as well.
The UN peacekeeping force IS keeping both sides out of trouble in Lebanon, and IT is working a great deal better than the pointless, ineffectual, brutal Israeli assault that crippled the nation, collectively punished the people, and nearly resulted in bringing Hezbollah to significant national power. If you have some other actual FACTUAL observation that counters that fact, I'd like to hear it, but "yeah, Right" in not sufficient.
Regarding Apartheid and Ethnic Cleansing in the occupied territories. You say that is not happening. Well, lets break it down shall we? In East Jerusalem, one of many current plans are to raze 800 Palestinian homes without consent of sale, and take the land they stand on and turn it into a park. The people who own them are given no legal recourse, no compenstation, and are simply expected to move, knowing that where ever they go, a similar fate will eventually befall them.
It is the stated intention of the settlers to take all of that land, claim it as Israel, and to deny the current Palestinian residents citizenship or autonomy. They expect them to leave, or to live in the low quality, waterless bantustans that are left them, which will still, in effect remain under Israeli control. Those Bantustans will be crisscrossed, as they currently are, with Settler only roads.
Let me put it in perspective. "White only roads". Does that make it seem more real for you? Palestinians are being systematically removed from their land and replaced with Israeli settlers, and they are stressed daily by the settlers and military on their current lands, in preparation for THEIR theft as well. That is Ethnic Cleansing. While the government extends all Israeli Rights and protections to the settlers, the Palestinians are given few right and no protections, rather the army guards settlers as they terrorize palestinian men, women and children.
Your reply? I hope it is not another "yeah, right".
Pick whatever blend of UN
"Pick whatever blend of UN peace keepers you like, but the forces that would be most effective and neutral to the people they are occupying would be Arab, however, a mix would probably be fine as well."
You really don't get the whole "peacekeeper" thing, do you? Do you at least understand the "peace" part? Because I have trouble understanding how you want me to reply to you. Do you expect me to give you a class or something?
"...but "yeah, Right" in not sufficient."
Again, do you want me to give you a class on Lebanon's - and HA's specifically - history with peacekeepers? You can start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_R._Higgins
When you are ready for your next assignment, let me know.
"You say that is not happening."
No, actually I didn't. I said that the arguments you were making were irrelevant and unnecessary. I will further say now that such pejorative statements serve no purpose but to crank up the levels of hostility on both sides of the issue. Is that your intent? Maybe you should ask Marc for a class on Public Diplomacy?
"Let me put it in perspective. "White only roads". Does that make it seem more real for you?"
No, but if the US was at war with Canada and there were "American only" roads in border areas, that might. Particularly if there was a history of American citizens who were trying to use those roads being victimized by passing Canadians.
Same argument for the wall. If the US built a wall between us and Canada due to a large number of cross border attacks against our citizens in our residential neighborhoods, there is no valid argument that such a wall would be morally wrong. If we built it on Canadian land, there would be a valid argument that the wall was illegal for that reason.
So bottom line: do you prefer to be morally and legally in the right, or do you prefer to insult and enrage the people you are supposedly trying to engage by making dubious and pejorative claims about them?
The current peace keepers in
The current peace keepers in Lebanon ARE working. I dont need any history lesson from you, specifically because we are talking about what is working NOW in Lebanon. Don't try to obfuscate or sidestep this OBVIOUS fact.
The same thing will work in the occupied territories, and while I realize that you are obviously not happy about that, it is nonetheless true. That is why it has been brought up in the UN numerous times, and vetoed by the US only.
Regarding the racist aspect of this situation, well, one need only listen to the settlers themselves as they discuss their plans for total subjugation of the Palestinians, and their desire to take all of the the occupied territories and remove the plaestinians from them to know that this is state sanctioned apartheid and ethnic cleansing, plain and simple. Thats what Carter called it, Desmond Tutu called it, thats what the vast majority of nations on earth have called it.
This observation is the KEY to the reasons that the settlements must go completely. They are immoral, unjust, and a impediment to peace and the security of Israel and the US, they needlessly inspire terror in both nations and are an albatross around the necks of BOTH nations.
Make all road signs Hebrew only
Gee, this will sure help the 2-state solution: Israeli Transportation Minister Israël Katz is going to change all road signs (West Bank and elsewhere) to Hebrew Only. Do you think the message to tourists and Arabs alike is "Get lost!"?
Dunno!
Was your message to Americans when you were making fun of Christians and white folks on your blog "Get Lost"? I have trouble believing you really think you are part of the solution, when you work so hard at being part of the problem.
tesekkur
Porno
sikis izle
Porno izle
Porno
Porno izle
kral oyun
Kral oyunlar oyunlar
kral oyun
Oyunlar
oyun -
oyun oyna
kral oyun
kral oyun
kral oyun
kral oyun
kral oyun kral oyun