Click here for Newsletter in pdf format

Peace Talks Continue Despite Obstacles

Domestic Israeli & Palestinian Political Divides

Deep political divisions on both sides make it difficult for leaders to mobilize their constituencies. Some believe that left to their own devices, neither Israeli nor Palestinian leadership can withstand forces determined to maintain the status quo.

The unsuccessful 2006 war with Hezbollah in Lebanon undermined Olmert's ability to lead his government coalition when he embraced the peace process. The pain of giving up hundreds of settlements; relocating thousands of settlers; ceding control of most of the West Bank; returning the Golan Heights to Syria; and sharing Jerusalem threatens important political, economic and ideological interests and endangers careers. Israel's political cycles have at various times bedeviled the desired timelines of peace efforts, and this fall promises to have its share of commotion in the Knesset.

On the Palestinian side, Hamas and Fatah are deeply divided politically and geographically. Fatah continues to engage in peacemaking with Israel but holds no sway over Gaza and is competing with Hamas in the West Bank, while Hamas has suspended rocket attacks into southern Israel but remains wary of the peace process. There is uncertainty about the degree to which Palestinians will be able to enforce any agreement they may sign.

A Not-so-Honest Broker

A Self-Limiting American Role

A year ago this newsletter posed rhetorical questions about the American role in facilitating negotiations on the so-called final status issues: Would the Bush Administration make progress on ending settlement expansion? Would it make clear there can only be a peace agreement if it includes the sharing of Jerusalem?

The answer to these questions unfortunately is "no". Instead of taking issues head on, the American approach has been mostly low key, seeking to provide time for the two parties to negotiate and come up with solutions themselves. The U.S. has emphasized capacity building efforts with the Palestinian Authority to help it enforce West Bank security, government administration, and economic development. These are laudable and necessary but far from sufficient to bring about an agreement.

Key opportunities to provide peacemaking leadership have also been missed. In a speech to the Knesset in May, President Bush made almost no mention of the need to make progress on the peace process. The President has also chosen not to engage on the issue of Jerusalem, leaving the unfortunate impression it can be solved later or separately from other final status issues. During a visit in January 2008 the President said only that Jerusalem is a "tough" issue.

The reality is that a durable peace agreement will require serious compromises and a great deal of hands-on American advocacy to push and pull the two parties, albeit in different ways. The United States Institute of Peace (USIP) has observed that one of the key reasons the United States is so essential in Arab-Israeli negotiations is because the "dramatic asymmetries - of power, and of negotiating tactics - demand a robust third-party role."   

The Unsustainable Status Quo

The continuation of the status quo is clearly terrible for all sides. Iranian backed Hamas and Hezbollah remain on Israel's borders and reject Israel's legitimacy. The occupation continues with its daily hardships, including countless barriers and checkpoints that restrict Palestinian travel, and economic activity. The blockade of Gaza largely remains in effect with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) reporting that over half of the Gazan population is living below the poverty line. Jerusalem's fragile coexistence has been broken with three ominous attacks this year on Israelis by Palestinian East Jerusalemites. Tensions in Jerusalem are being fueled by the failure of the municipality to improve the welfare of Arab residents combined with Israel's policies of revoking residency rights, expanding settlements and demolishing homes deemed to not have legal standing.

Conflict management, rather than resolution, has long been the default position of many American politicians. The failure to improve the status quo can appear risk-less from this side of the Atlantic and there is a perception that it is politically dangerous to question it. Yet support for the prevailing situation of unresolved conflict clearly contributes to Israel's insecurity and undermines American interests in the Middle East.

The more time goes on without visible political progress, the greater the danger hope will be lost and what remains of the peace process will break down. It has almost become a mantra of Middle East policy hands that the deadline for the two-state solution is nearing and that this may in fact be the "last chance". As we know from past administrations, the transition time between election-day and the inauguration provides a unique opening for peacemaking, along with serious risks and challenges. In his inaugural address on January 20, 2009, President McCain or President Obama should make the unprecedented statement that he will make resolution of this conflict a top priority during his first 12 months in office.

CMEP's non-partisan election 2008 resources help guide church advocates in making Holy Land peace a top priority of U.S. political candidates and policymakers. For more, go online to: www.cmep.org/elections08/Resources.htm.