5/23/11

Recognizing that the status quo is unsustainable, President Obama sought last week to revive the long-stalled Middle East peace process. He reiterated his case yesterday at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Policy Conference, saying "[W]e can't afford to wait another decade, or another two decades, or another three decades to achieve peace. The world is moving too fast." Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to speak to the AIPAC conference today as well as to address a joint session of Congress tomorrow. While it will be a long and difficult process, going forward experts agree that lasting peace is in the interest of both U.S. and Israeli security.

"Status quo is Israel's worst enemy." Helene Cooper of the New York Times reports that "Mr. Obama, speaking before a conference of the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee, offered familiar assurances that the United States' commitment to Israel's long-term security was ‘ironclad.' But citing the rising political upheaval near Israel's borders, he presented his peace plan as the best chance Israel has to avoid growing isolation." As President Obama stated yesterday, "The extraordinary challenges facing Israel will only grow. Delay will undermine Israel's security and the peace that the Israeli people deserve." As longtime Middle East analyst M.J. Rosenberg writes, "The President strongly endorsed ‘two states for two peoples' and explained to a skeptical crowd that the status quo is Israel's worst enemy." This will be a long a difficult process, but as Les Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations explains, "Nothing will be worthy or lasting in a Palestinian-Israeli accord unless the peace is not illusory."

Peter Beinart explains President Obama's strategy within the context of the Palestinian drive for internationally recognized statehood: "In a few months, the U.N. General Assembly will vote, probably overwhelmingly, to recognize a Palestinian state along Israel's 1967 borders. No one knows exactly what will happen after that, but from the Israeli government's point of view, it won't be good... Last week, Obama threw Netanyahu a lifeline. He outlined the parameters that should guide Israeli-Palestinian negotiations: the 1967 border, plus land swaps. Obama's strategy was clear: He promised to veto the Palestinians' bid for statehood at the U.N. Security Council, but also hoped that by getting the Israeli government to endorse a contiguous Palestinian state in almost all of the West Bank, he could persuade the Palestinians to abandon their United Nations strategy in favor of a return to negotiations. And even if the Palestinians wouldn't budge, Israel's acceptance of Obama's guidelines would make it easier to persuade European governments to oppose the Palestinians at the U.N." [NY Times, 5/22/11. Barack Obama, 5/22/11. M.J. Rosenberg, 5/22/11. Les Gelb, 5/23/11. Peter Beinart, 5/23/11]

"A well known formula":  The 1967 borders have long been the basis for negotiations.  Speaking yesterday at the AIPAC conference, President Obama explained, "There was nothing particularly original in my proposal; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. administrations.  Since questions have been raised, let me repeat what I actually said on Thursday - not what I was reported to have said. I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state... By definition, it means that the parties themselves - Israelis and Palestinians - will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. That's what mutually agreed-upon swaps means. It is a well-known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation.  It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years.  It allows the parties themselves to take account of those changes, including the new demographic realities on the ground, and the needs of both sides." Jeffrey Goldberg notes, "This has been the basic idea for at least 12 years. This is what Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat were talking about at Camp David, and later, at Taba. This is what George W. Bush was talking about with Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert. So what's the huge deal here?"

Leading Israelis across the Israeli political spectrum have long assumed that the 1967 borders would be the basis for peace negotiations with the Palestinians.  As the Washington Post reports, "But Israeli commentators pointed out Sunday that the 1967 lines have for years been considered the basis for any future border between Israel and a Palestinian state, noting that Obama had mentioned land swaps that could leave large settlements inside Israel, as Netanyahu has demanded. "‘What did Obama say?' wrote Ofer Shelah, a columnist in the Maariv newspaper. ‘That any agreement with the Palestinians, if and when it is signed, must be based on the 1967 lines with border adjustments. Is there any Israeli or Palestinian who doesn't know that this is what will happen? It's the only game in town.' Dov Weisglass, who was chief of staff to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, said in a radio interview that ‘anyone here deluding himself . . . that the drawing of the new map will be based on any reference point other than the 1967 boundaries is simply disconnected from reality.'"

Robert Wexler, president of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace and a former member of Congress, and Zvika Krieger, senior vice president of the center, write today in the Wall Street Journal, "The concept of land swaps has served as the basis for every serious attempt to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the past decade. For every piece of land beyond the 1967 lines that Israel wants to annex, it would give a piece of land to the Palestinians from within Israel proper. President George W. Bush's 2004 letter to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, which current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is now insisting that Mr. Obama reaffirm, is based on this premise. Mr. Obama's Thursday speech formalizes into official U.S. policy the working assumption of every U.S. president and secretary of state since the 2000 Camp David negotiations, as well as former Israeli Prime Ministers Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak, Israel's most decorated soldier... By insisting that the 1967 lines be modified, Mr. Obama showed his paramount concern for Israel's security." Similarly, Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA), ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee recently stated that: "It has been my expectation for many years... that the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would involve a border that is close to that of 1967 but with agreed upon land swaps. That is fully consistent with Israel's right to have defensible borders and to retain its settlement blocs, positions for which there is overwhelming support in Washington." [Barack Obama, 5/22/11. Jeffrey Goldberg, 5/19/11. Washington Post, 5/23/11. Robert Wexler and Zvika Krieger, 5/23/11. Howard Berman, 5/19/11]

Bipartisan experts agree: achieving Middle East peace is vital to American national security interests.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor to President Jimmy Carter: "The issue in the Middle East is not just security for Israel, or rights for the Palestinians - it's also fundamental American national interest - and that has to guide American policy." [Zbigniew Brzezinski, 5/20/11]

Brent Scowcroft, national security advisor to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush: "The US has more direct interests at stake in ensuring a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine than it does in the outcome in most other countries in the region. Remaining silent on deadlocked negotiations over a two state solution, while encouraging greater democratisation in other countries, suggests a double standard that damages America's image in the Middle East and the broader Muslim world. This is particularly true because the Palestinian issue stands out as the one issue in the Middle East where nothing can be accomplished without active American leadership, including that of President Barack Obama. No other country can convince Israeli and Palestinian leaders to reach a binding compromise that results in two states living side by side in peace and security, ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and all claims related to it. Such an outcome would significantly increase Israel's security, while resolving an issue that adversely affects America's national security interests in the region." [Brent Scowcroft, Financial Times, 4/13/11]

General David Petraeus, former CENTCOM Commander: "The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR [CENTCOM Area of Responsibility]. Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas." [David Petraeus, 3/16/10]

Dennis Ross, Middle East advisor to President Obama and former president of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy: "In this region, pursuing peace is instrumental to shaping a new regional context... Pursuing peace is not a substitute for dealing with the other challenges... It is also not a panacea. But especially as it relates to resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict, if one could do that, it would deny state and non-state actors a tool they use to exploit anger and grievances." [Dennis Ross, 5/6/10]