Elliott Abrams, having held senior positions in the Reagan & Bush 43 years, and with the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, applies his acute analysis to the Mideast and offers a post-Oslo path forward in pursuit of Arab-Israeli peace. The Oslo model was avidly pursued by the Clinton administration after the 1993 Accords were signed at the White House, embraced in the last two years of Bush 43 by Condi Rice, and now, tragically, embraced by President Obama and his two senior Mideast players, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton & Mideast special envoy George Mitchell (the latter was architect of the 1998 Ireland peace settlement). Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and departing PM Ehud Olmert both worship at the shrine of Oslo.
Abrams approaches the issue much like Bibi Netanyahu, who now is trying to form a coalition to govern Israel. Oslo failed because full-bore negotiations require a genuine partner for peace on both sides. The issues would long ago have been settled had such existed. Instead, Israel has traded land for lies, suicide bombers & rockets. Hamas, ruler of Gaza--Hamastan, does not even fake a desire to accept Israel's existence, let alone make peace with the Jewish state. Fatah, semi-ruler of the West Bank, is mired in corruption that embraces its jet-setting president, Mahmoud Abbas, who parleys but does not--indeed, cannot--deliver a constituency for a viable peace.
Which leaves...what? Abrams points to Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayed, and to interim steps, building on improvements on the West Bank:
A return to the realistic assessments and policies that marked Bush's first term. In practice, this suggests an intense concentration on building Palestinian institutions in the West Bank.
There is much to build on, with security force improvements well under way, the economy in decent shape, and a reliable and trustworthy leader in Prime Minister Fayyad. Neither the United States nor Israel has done nearly as much as it can to promote progress on the ground, allowing Palestinians in the West Bank freer movement and helping create more jobs and a better standard of living. After the Gaza war, Israel appears prepared to do more, and should be asked to do so; Israel has a strategic interest in the success of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and of moderate forces in Palestinian society more generally. Arab states should be pressured intensely to provide the funds needed to meet the PA payroll and undertake sensible investment projects, for example in housing and agriculture. The United States and the Quartet should take some time away from endless meetings and speeches and resolutions calling for immediate negotiations over final status issues, and turn instead to making real life in the West Bank better and more secure. If there is ever to be a Palestinian state, it will be the product of such activities, not of formulaic pronouncements about the need for Palestinian statehood now.
It is also time to rethink the recent commitment to leaping all at once to full independence for the Palestinians, and even to break the taboo and rethink that ultimate goal itself. Immediate and total independence was not the plan when the Roadmap was written in 2002 and released in 2003. Then, it was understood that "an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders and attributes of sovereignty" was a necessary way-station. Given Hamas control over Gaza, which makes a united independent Palestine impossible for now anyway, a West Bank-only state with provisional borders and only some of the attributes of sovereignty makes far more sense as a medium-term goal. It might also allow postponing compromises on Jerusalem and refugee claims that no Palestinian politician could now make, for those issues could be left aside for another day, while the delays are blamed on Hamas and its rebellion in Gaza.
A left of center perspective also sees the two-state solution as dead and proposes a 5- to 10-year period in which Palestinian institutions can be rebuilt. The author, Nathan Brown of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, believes (against all credible evidence) that Hamas can be brought into the peace process. But it still is noteworthy that a left academic finds the Oslo idea dead.
A Washington Post front-pager notes both the Abrams and Brown positions and offers as well this intriguing portrait of George Mitchell's impressions from his first visit to the region since becoming special envoy (emphasis added), though he still clings to the Oslo ideal:
Mitchell authored a plan in 2001 to reduce tensions and make progress. Israelis and Palestinians embraced the plan as fair, but it was never implemented. In a conference call with Jewish American leaders last month, Mitchell said that when he reread his report, he was struck by how much had changed in the past eight years, according to an account of the conversation published by JTA, a Jewish news service. Iran, he said, was not mentioned in the report, but every leader in the region brought up the problem of Iranian influence during his initial tour.
The Jerusalem Post notes Tony Blair's Gaza visit in which he utters the usual sentiments about humanitarian help and peace. TB represents the "Quartet" that was Colin Powell's foolish brainchild--US, EU, UN & Russia. At least, TB is a better Quartet leader choice than many who might have been chosen.
Trusteeship under Israel & Jordan would assist the incremental process. "All or nothing at all" worked for Frank Sinatra, but will not work in Palestine. Will the Netanyahu - Abrams approach work? It is at least worth a try, instead of Team 44 acting like the fanatic who, upon seeing his strategy fail, redoubles his efforts. Oslo is dead. One can only hope that Team 44 discovers this, and soon.
Comments