Articles
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Pages 49-50
Waging Peace
Jerusalem Fund Explores “Clashing Visions” for Peace
On July 16, the Jerusalem Fund hosted Amjad Atallah and Dr. Michael Hudson in the final event of its summer speaker series to discuss the clashing approaches and interests of the different actors in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Atallah, currently co-director of the New America Foundation’s Middle East task force, described the American approach, pointing out the unique positives in the Obama approach. “For the first time, the United States has decided at the beginning of the administration that it’s going to resolve the conflict,” he noted, contrasting this with the attempts of both former Presidents Bush and Clinton to achieve peace near the end of their presidencies.
“The different element here is that the American president believes that this conflict needs to be resolved for American national interests,” Atallah stated. The Obama administration has linked the establishment of a two-state solution for Israel-Palestine to achieving peace in the region. Such an understanding, he argued, has made it easier for European nations to join U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and combat extremist violence.
Atallah also saw weaknesses in the American approach, however. On the settlement issue, he believes the U.S. “shouldn’t have fallen into the trap of entering into the negotiations...with the Israelis on this issue simply because this is a no-win issue.” Because negotiations on settlements can impinge on final status issues, he argued, “we do need negotiations on the final status and the borders.”
Overall, Atallah felt the American position displays sincere “intent” to reach the goal of two states, and that “if the tactics don’t work, they will be changed.”
On the Arabs’ approach to peace, Georgetown Universityprofessor Dr. Michael Hudson remarked that there are clashing visions within that camp. Even within a single Arab state, he said, there may be competing interests. On one hand there is “an interest in promoting the Palestinian cause...and thus assuaging or improving regime legitimacy,” Hudson noted, while on the other there are “larger strategic interests—and the largest of those involves the connection with the United States.”
Another interesting point Hudson raised was the difference in “time horizons” for many Arab regimes compared to the Americans and Israelis. “They can wait forever and they don’t have to wait for an election,” he said, while Israeli and American administrations must contend with legislative bodies and re-election. Another unique issue for Arab states Hudson cited is the fact that “non-state actors play a disproportionate role, positive or negative.”
Two other problems arise with the Arab states, Hudson continued. The first is an apparent unwillingness to take further steps beyond the Arab Peace Initiative, to which Washington’s counterargument is “terrific, that’s a good first step but the Arabs need to do more.” Hudson did point to the recent softening of Syria and Hamas’ stance, but good faith gestures have not been forthcoming, he said, citing Saudi Arabian King Abdullah’s rumored rebuff of a request by President Obama to step up with new offers for Israel.
The final, and perhaps most serious, problem is specific to the Palestinians. Hudson reminded the audience that even if the new U.S. administration was taking a tougher stance on an Israeli settlement freeze, it was “nitpicking” at the larger issue.
Describing an event he attended with former President Jimmy Carter in which someone offered the same praise for Obama’s stance on halting new settlements, Hudson recalled that Carter “piped right up and said, ”˜Well yeah, but that’s not the point. The point is dismantling settlements.’”
A transcript of this event can be found on the Jerusalem Fund’s Web site, <www.thejerusalemfund.org>. The panel’s third speaker, Daniel Levy, discussed the Israeli position, but asked to speak off the record.
—National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations Intern
