The activists aboard the Gaza flotilla that was raided by Israeli security forces Monday may have believed that breaking the Gaza blockade was at its core forcing Israel to address an issue the activists see as moral blindness. Yet the situation is far more complex than they would like people to believe.

The story of the flotilla crisis begins from the time Israel withdrew from Gaza in August 2005. Israelis were told that if they stopped occupying foreign land, they would be more secure.

Between their withdrawal and the Gaza war of December 2008, however, Israeli citizens absorbed 3,335 rockets aimed at their homes. Their border towns became uninhabitable, as mothers had 45 seconds to hear a siren, gather their kids, and pray they would make it to a shelter.

Some of the rockets were Iranian-made Grad rockets and others were Fajr-3s that had a 27-mile range. The range of the rockets grew with each passing month after Israeli forces left. Moreover, since Israel withdrew from Gaza, it no longer controlled the Egyptian-Gazan border, where all of the rocket smuggling was taking place.

There was never a single UN Security Council session to discuss those attacks.

That’s why Israel insisted on a naval blockade of the Gaza Strip: It was the only way to curb the Palestinian rocket attacks on its people.

While critics like to say that Israel retains forms of air and sea control, it ceded the area that counted in the withdrawal and exposed its citizens to rocket attacks. The lessons from that pullout will make a potential withdrawal from the West Bank much harder. There will be those who say, “If you didn’t like the book, why would you see the movie?”

Now, in the wake of the confrontation between the flotilla and Israeli forces, the international community is calling on Israel to lift the blockade.

Could Hamas, the radical militant organization that effectively rules Gaza, be trusted to adhere to a lifting of the blockade?

While much has been made of the fact that Israel does not talk to Hamas (both Jerusalem and Washington deem it a terrorist organization), it is also true that Hamas has no interest in talking to Israel.

Hamas does not recognize Israel at any size – even the area of a telephone booth on a Tel Aviv beach. Just last week in Damascus, Syria, PBS talk show host Charlie Rose kept asking Hamas leader Khaled Meshal if he would accept Israel if it withdrew to the pre-1967 borders; Mr. Meshal refused to answer.

He indicated that Israel should agree to the right of millions of Palestinians to relocate in Israel and not just a new Palestinian state, and then this should be put forward to a referendum of all of the world’s Palestinians (not just the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza), and then who knows. Not much hope there.

So who would ensure that a lifted blockade from Gaza would not permit more rockets to come into Gaza? No countries have volunteered to be peace enforcers on Gaza’s borders.

The European Union agreed to monitor a crossing point in Rafah, which is easier than enforcement as it requires no robust military presence but only computers – proverbial pencils – to issue reports.

Yet, even this is a pale challenge to the 12-kilometer southern border with Egypt, where smuggling has occurred. Yet, even at the Rafah crossing alone, the EU monitors repeatedly fled the scene when the going got rough during the past few years.

Complicating the situation further is the fact that reporting does not suggest that Gaza is on the verge of catastrophe. This is what the Financial Times’s Tobias Buck wrote from Rafah just last week, alluding to the tunnel smuggling: “[T]he prices of many smuggled goods have fallen in recent months, thanks to a supply glut that is on striking displays across the [Gaza] Strip.”

The tunnel smuggling, Mr. Buck writes, has “become so efficient that shops all over Gaza are bursting with goods. Branded products such as Coca-cola, Nescafe, Snickers and Heinz ketchup – long absent as a result of the Israeli blockade – are both cheap and widely available.”

This suggests that the blockade has certainly not led to Gaza being on the brink of starvation.

The unspoken argument for the blockade is that it has been effective. In the past two years, Hamas leadership continually trails the popularity of the Palestinian Authority and Fatah in the West Bank as people understand that Hamas has not been able to declare business as usual.

Moreover, Israel has a silent partner in supporting the blockade: Egypt. Though Egypt announced a lifting of the blockade today, past gestures by the Mubarak government suggest this move will be equally short-lived. Cairo was willing to withstand protests at its embassies in the Arab world during the 2008-09 Gaza war, but still refused to open up its Rafah border crossing to Hamas.

While there is probably an argument to be made that the terms of the blockade should be adjusted at least somewhat to minimize social pain and cope with the reality of the tunnels, this should not be confused with normalizing the role of Hamas itself.

The Obama administration has reiterated criteria that the United States, United Nations, EU, and Russia established as a prerequisite for Hamas to play a constructive role: disavow violence, accept Israel, and adhere to previous agreements.

President Obama had made clear that the onus is on Hamas to change its ways before it becomes a legitimate peace partner. It has accepted the logic that an unreconstructed Hamas will spoil peace talks more from the inside rather than the outside, as Obama pursues a policy of seeking success in George Mitchell’s West Bank proximity talks.

There is a reason for this view. Hamas has made clear that its condition for joining a united Palestinian government is abandoning peace talks with Israel and agreeing at best to some form of a cease-fire in return for many concessions that they know Israel cannot accept.

Like the Gaza flotilla, solving the issue of Gaza and Hamas does not look like smooth sailing.

David Makovsky is the Ziegler Distinguished Fellow of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, where he directs its project on the Middle East Peace Process. He is also the coauthor, with Dennis Ross, of “Myths, Illusions & Peace: Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East,” now in paperback with a new afterword.

Fallout from the Gaza Flotilla Tragedy
By Matthew Levitt, David Makovsky, and Jeffrey White
June 1, 2010

The Gaza flotilla tragedy has given Hamas at least a short-term political boost while undercutting the sea blockade of Gaza, fitting well with the agenda of the flotilla’s organizers, Turkey’s Humanitarian Relief Fund. At the same time, the incident — to the extent that the details are known — has shown that U.S.-Israel relations have proven resilient in the face of the first major international incident since the two parties worked to mend relations following the Jerusalem building-permit crisis in March.

Impact on Hamas

In the short term, Hamas will benefit politically from its role as a supporter of the flotilla, its public calls for Israel to not interfere with the effort to break the blockade, and the burnishing of its fading “resistance” credentials. Ismail Haniyah set up the situation as a win-win for Hamas in his May 29 speech declaring that it was a victory if the flotilla got through or if Israel stopped it. The bloody outcome only increased the size of the victory for Hamas. Previously, Hamas had launched a broad media campaign to focus attention on the flotilla and warn of the possibility of an Israeli action against it. Since the incident, Hamas media organs have given extensive coverage to it, prominently depicting the role and actions of Hamas officials. Hamas’s public role in the events makes the Palestinian Authority (PA) look bad by comparison. For the most part, Hamas has considerably trailed the PA in support among Palestinians, so Hamas is hoping the incident will give it at least a temporary boost. It should be pointed out that even the sympathy boost that Hamas garnered after the 2008-2009 Gaza war evaporated in just two months.

The Gaza flotilla interdiction incident cannot be seen as other than a major victory for Hamas. The outcome, the images, and the reflexive condemnation of the action by much of the world are all of direct benefit to Hamas and to the detriment of its opponents — especially Israel, but the PA as well. Hamas will see immediate political gains as well as potential long-term practical benefits for its rule in Gaza.

Future of the Sea Blockade

Although the incident did not affect Israel’s military capability to maintain the blockade, it is going to be much more difficult for Israel to enforce controls at sea. Additional attempts to break the sea blockade are likely, and they may include increased foreign support — more ships, more people — and the potential for more violence and more embarrassment for Israel. Hamas-associated sources report that an effort to send another flotilla is already underway. In effect, this would amount to the creation of a “maritime front” against Israel.

According to the Financial Times, Gaza supermarkets are so well stocked that merchants are complaining that prices of consumer goods are being forced down. Nevertheless, the flotilla tragedy will reinforce calls to lift Israel’s sea blockade and its strict controls on land shipments to Gaza. Israel is likely to oppose humanitarian exceptions to the sea blockade, however. In the 1990s, what started out as symbolic shipments organized by politically motivated groups claiming a humanitarian agenda turned into a significant weakening of international sanctions against Libya and Iraq; in the latter case, that sanctions weakening led to significant smuggling of militarily useful items. Were uninspected ships able to unload in Gaza, it would be difficult to prevent large amounts of heavy weaponry from being imported by Hamas, which does not recognize Israel’s right to exist and has more than amply demonstrated that it will use any weapons that come into its possession.

To be sure, Hamas can already smuggle some powerful weapons through tunnels; for example, its operatives have fired a Fajr rocket with a twenty-seven-mile radius. But Israel’s ally in supporting the boycott of weapons to Hamas has been Egypt, which has done much better recently at impeding the smuggling of weapons through tunnels into Gaza. Cairo was willing to withstand protests at its embassies in other Arab countries during the 2008-2009 Gaza war, refusing to open its Rafah border crossing to Hamas. (Egypt opened the Rafah crossing today, but this might be as short-lived as the other occasions Cairo has opened it for humanitarian reasons.) Critics have yet to come forward with an alternative to the Israeli sea blockade and the strict land controls imposed by both Egypt and Israel.

If the blockade seriously erodes, Hamas’s political position in Gaza will be enhanced, its ability to rule improved, and its ability to acquire heavy arms in large quantities greatly increased. The group will have reversed the dynamic of the increasingly difficult situation it has found itself in since the December 2008-January 2009 Operation Cast Lead.

The Flotilla Organizers

Among the groups that organized the aid flotilla to Gaza is a charity headquartered in Turkey called the Humanitarian Relief Fund (“Insani Yardim Vakfi” in Turkish, or IHH). IHH was established in 1992 and officially registered in Istanbul in 1995. A French intelligence report concluded that in the mid-1990s, IHH president Bulent Yildrim was directly involved in “recruit[ing] veteran soldiers in anticipation of the coming holy war [jihad]. In particular, some men were sent into war zones in Muslim countries in order to acquire combat experience.” Foreshadowing IHH’s role in this weekend’s aid flotilla to Gaza, the French report noted that IHH provided financial support “as well as caches of firearms, knives, and pre-fabricated explosives” in an effort to obtain “political support from these countries.” IHH phone records in Istanbul reportedly included repeated telephone calls in 1996 to an al-Qaeda guesthouse in Italy and to North African terrorists active in Europe.

In addition, a 1996 CIA report on terrorist abuse of charities, declassified after the September 11 attacks, documented IHH as a charity with ties to “Iran and Algerian groups.” According to the report, the director of the IHH office in Sarajevo “has been linked to Iranian operatives.” The report described “the terrorist-related activities and linkages” of fifteen selected “Islamic NGOs,” noting that “individuals connected to some of these NGOs have plotted to kidnap or kill U.S. personnel.” And according to French court documents, IHH was the subject of a Turkish criminal investigation in late 1997 when sources revealed that leaders of the group were purchasing automatic weapons from other regional Islamist militant groups. Based on an analysis of seized IHH documents, Turkish authorities concluded that “detained members of IHH were going to fight in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Chechnya.”

IHH is a member of the “Union of Good” (Itelaf al-Khair, also known as the “Charity Coalition”). According to Palestinian intelligence, this organization “is considered — with regard to material support — one of the biggest Hamas supporters.” Israel outlawed the Union of Good in February 2002, and the United States named it a specially designated global terrorist entity in November 2008. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, the Union of Good was created by the Hamas leadership “in order to facilitate the transfer of funds to Hamas.” Intelligence underpinning the U.S. designation noted that the group “facilitates the transfer of tens of millions of dollars a year to Hamas-managed associations.” It also “acts as a broker for Hamas by facilitating financial transfers between a web of charitable organizations…and Hamas-controlled organizations in the West Bank and Gaza.”

The involvement of a Union of Good member in the aid flotilla should not come as a surprise. According to statements issued by the U.S. government, the primary purpose behind the founding of the Union of Good by Hamas leaders was “to strengthen Hamas’ political and military position in the West Bank and Gaza, including by: (i) diverting charitable donations to support Hamas members and the families of terrorist operatives; and (ii) dispensing social welfare and other charitable services on behalf of Hamas.”

This episode has severely damaged ties between Turkey and Israel for the foreseeable future. Turkish-Israeli ties have been on a downhill trajectory since the Justice and Development Party (AKP) acquired power in 2002. While some dismissed the AKP’s sharp criticism of Israeli policies as domestic politicking, its rhetoric served as the litmus test of what lay ahead. AKP officials have dubbed Israel a “pirate state,” and a “terrorist state,” adding that Turkish-Israeli relations will not be revived unless Israel recognizes Hamas and lifts the sanctions on Gaza. This means that Turkey cannot be expected to act as a mediator between Israel and its neighbors, a role some had suggested Ankara could play under the AKP.

U.S.-Israel Relations

The Obama administration’s efforts during the past couple months to reach out to the Netanyahu government were derided by many as a “charm offensive” or public relations move. Yet there is nothing like a crisis to put the U.S.-Israeli relationship to a genuine test. The fact is the administration did not rush to judgment on the flotilla tragedy, seeing it as a security-related issue. A White House statement yesterday made clear that the United States would not jump on a bandwagon condemning Israel. It called for all the facts to be known before forming any judgment. And a subsequent State Department release made clear that Israel — not, implicitly, the international community — needed to launch an investigation. The statements by both the Obama administration and the president of the UN Security Council fell short of what was wanted by Turkey and Arab states. An international investigation was not mentioned, so avoiding a repeat of the controversial Goldstone Commission. By diluting the UN statement, the Obama administration was trying to protect the current proximity talks of Middle East peace envoy George Mitchell.

The United States seems to understand the double standard at work in the UN Security Council. During the three years between Israel’s August 2005 withdrawal from Gaza and Operation Cast Lead, Hamas fired 3,335 rockets at Israeli towns and cities, but the Security Council never met once to discuss these attacks. When an international team concluded that North Korea sank a South Korean ship, the Security Council members consulted at great length about how to evaluate the reports and what response would be appropriate. Yet when Israel is accused, the Security Council rushes into action even before full information is available.

Matthew Levitt is director of The Washington Institute’s Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence. David Makovsky is the Ziegler distinguished fellow and director of the Project on the Middle East Peace Process at the Institute. Jeffrey White is a defense fellow at the Institute.

-http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=3208

The flotilla tragedy has brought fresh interest about whether the blockade of Gaza should be maintained.

Of course, the blockade can be lifted immediately if Hamas would say that it accepts what the international community — the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations — has demanded of it since 2006: Israel’s existence, a denial of violence and adherence to past agreements. These criteria have been reaffirmed repeatedly by President Obama over the last year.

Indeed, it would be useful if flotilla activists would use the same energy to press Hamas to accede to peace as it has pressed Israel. It is odd to see self-proclaimed peace activists on the same side as an organization whose signature policy for more than 20 years is exhorting teenagers to engage in homicidal suicide bombing and then adorning the public space with “martyr” portraits.

The origin of the blockade is not punitive, but defensive. It can be found in Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza and the 3,300-plus rockets that fell on Israel between then and the Gaza War in December 2008 and 2009. An unconditional lifting of the blockade now would be a windfall for an unreconstructed Hamas, which would turn a trickle of smuggled rockets from Iran into a flood.

The better question is whether it is possible to recalibrate the blockade in a way that would bar the importation of rockets and protect Israeli security, while easing conditions on the ground. This leads to the issue of dual-use items. The past has demonstrated that Hamas has no scruples about diverting select construction materials as well as other aid meant for the public good in Gaza and utilizing it to build weapons.

To ease tensions with the international community without sacrificing Israeli security, there might be an advantage for Israel to agree to a streamlined dual-use list. Instead of saying all is forbidden unless it is explicitly approved, it might be easier to say all is permitted but that which is prohibited explicitly by the dual-use list. As such, there would instantly be a rationale for everything that is disallowed.

Yet, the first approach of Hamas agreeing to live peacefully with its Israeli neighbor would be preferable and profoundly transformative.

-http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/rethinking-the-gaza-blockade/?ref=opinion

Proximity Talks: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

By David Makovsky
May 5, 2010

U.S. special envoy for Middle East peace George Mitchell is currently in Jerusalem amid wide expectation that on Saturday the Palestinians will approve proximity talks with Israel. For its part, Israel has already agreed to the talks.

Following a phone conversation this past Monday between President Obama and Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, the White House said it had urged proximity talks with the Palestinians as a means of transitioning to direct talks as quickly as possible. Indirect talks are a departure from the more direct format that has defined Israeli-Palestinian negotiations since the landmark Madrid peace conference in 1991. As late as 2009, during the final months of the Olmert government, Israeli and Palestinian leaders were meeting directly almost every week. But in 2010, it appears that U.S. envoy George Mitchell will be shuttling between Netanyahu’s office in Jerusalem and President Mahmoud Abbas’s office in Ramallah.

Although Israel has been willing to hold direct talks for months, Abbas has convinced himself and others that face-to-face meetings would leave him politically exposed if they do not prove to be serious. But while expectations on all sides are modest, the proximity approach has emerged because alternative proposals — such as a statement of U.S. principles — seem even more problematic and fraught with risk.

By David Makovsky

It is widely known that the poor relationship between U.S. President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stands at the center of U.S.-Israeli tension.

Yet, it is hard to be hopeful for a variety of reasons. They relate to differences of outlook between them in three key areas: the relationship between vision and trust, different attitudes toward timing and different approaches to the nexus between policy and politics.

First, there is a paradox between vision and trust. For cerebral Obama, who does not bond with foreign leaders instinctively, the one way to build trust is to share a common strategic vision.

This is not unique to the U.S. president. The history of American-Israeli relations illustrates that when the United States and Israel agree on a common strategic vision, as they did during the period of Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, Washington is less focused on where they differ.

The corollary is when they don’t share a common direction, the United States is hard-nosed on the differences, as it was during when George Bush Sr. was opposite Yitzhak Shamir.

Therefore, Netanyahu needs to share with Obama how he envisions a two-state solution, and a plausible strategy to attain it. Obama feels he has this with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, even if Israelis remain skeptical.

Some believe Netanyahu does not have that vision, and that this is the main problem. However, it is also possible that given how politically explosive these issues are in Israel, Netanyahu fears misplaced trust could leak and be exploited by rivals at home.

So if the absence of a shared vision has contributed to a lack of trust, the absence of trust also contributes to a lack of shared vision.

A second set of issues are differences between the two over urgency, and cannot be divorced from the issue of a shared vision. Despite recent comments by U.S. armed forces head Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, senior Administration sources sharply deny Obama only sees the issue of Israel through the prism of how it impacts American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

While the Palestinian issue is evocative in the region, there are over a dozen factors driving anti-Americanism in the region. Even if the Palestinian issue was solved, virtually all the layers of anti-Americanism would remain.

Rather, it is unclear if time is on Israel’s side. Obama believes he has Israel’s best interests at heart because he views the two-state solution as an answer to Israel’s demographic challenges. Moreover, Obama sees Hamas rejectionism waiting in the wings in the West Bank in the event the current PA leadership is defeated due to the failure of peace. Finally, while it is hard to find any shred of evidence that the Arab regimes will take any steps against Iran based on progress toward peace, Obama believes movement in the peace process could only be helpful in creating a regional public environment against the regime in Tehran.

A third profound difference in outlooks between Obama and Netanyahu is how they view the relationship between politics and policy.

It seems to be hard for Obama to believe that Netanyahu has domestic political constraints when he has the option of putting forward a set of policies regarding a two-state solution that would enable opposition leader Tzipi Livni to join his government. In other words, Obama sees these constraints by Netanyahu as self-imposed.

Obama believes he knows what it is to act against his own base. He has done so by dispatching 100,000 troops to Afghanistan and staging strikes in Pakistan and Yemen.

Of course, Netanyahu sees it differently, especially given that the Israeli system is not presidential. He sees Obama not giving him political credit as a Likud leader for declaring support for a two-state solution or lifting most West Bank checkpoints.

Given the conceptual divide outlined above, it is hard to be overly optimistic about the basis of a new relationship. Yet neither leader has the luxury of disengagement. Obama and Netanyahu have to find common ground in addressing the massive challenge of Iran’s nuclear weapon program, or else the consequences could be disastrous.

Moreover, even some European and Arab diplomats – almost all of whom have traditionally favored pressure on Israel – admit that such friction at the top of U.S.-Israel relations will not translate into progress for peace. They say an insecure Israel will not take risks for peace.

Trust needs to be built, and not as a favor to either leader, but because it is a necessity for anyone who wants to see a more stable Middle East.

While critics insist the move by Netanyahu was deliberately aimed at angering the Obama administration and doubt that Netanyahu was blindsided as he insists, such an accusation seems unlikely to be true.

It was widely known that the Biden mission was a fence-mending visit designed to improve U.S.-Israel relations after a period of friction in bilateral ties during the past year. Indeed, until the incident, Biden’s comments have been pitch perfect for Israeli ears. His trip was intended to assure Israeli concerns about U.S. commitment to their security…

…two lessons must be learned from this incident. It is the second time that the prime minister of Israel claims to have been blindsided by his own bureaucracy. The first time was last November, a week after Netanyahu had what he has called his best meeting with Obama, in which no aides were present. At the time, it was announced that 900 housing units would be built in the Gilo neighborhood of East (actually southern) Jerusalem.

Testimony of David Makovsky before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lugar, and Distinguished Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this Committee this morning to discuss a subject whose future holds great importance for U.S. foreign policy.

To date, the Israeli-Palestinian issue has not worked out as the Obama Administration had hoped. The picture is mixed. While the developments on the ground in the West Bank have shown promise and hope, the top-down political negotiations have not only made little progress, but have even regressed. We have gone from a point where Israeli Prime Minister Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas were at advanced stages of negotiations, to a point where there have been no negotiations at all between the parties for nearly a year. There may be several reasons for this, yet as President Obama himself has publicly admitted, it is due in no small measure to an early miscalculation by Washington that triggered a series of events and expectations that could not be overcome during the Administration‟s first year.

On Wednesday March 3rd, Arab foreign ministers gave their long-awaited support for Abbas to participate in proximity talks, whereby Senator Mitchell will shuttle between Israelis and Palestinians. Such talks must be a transition to direct talks between the parties themselves. In contrast, if these talks become an alternative to direct talks, they will fail. It is impossible for any party or any country to make the most vital decisions possible without the confidence of dealing directly with the other side.

The issue is where to focus on the substance of talks. My point of departure on this issue is that I think the prospect of the Israelis and Palestinians reaching a grand agreement on all the core or so-called final status issues is very unlikely at this time. The four core issues are: the rights of refugees, control of Jerusalem, security and territory/borders. The first two issues seem unlikely to be resolved anytime soon.

Refugees and Jerusalem are narrative issues, and both are tied into the historic connection of the people to this conflict. Jerusalem has both religious and nationalistic dimensions for Israelis and Palestinians and for key constituencies in and outside the region. The refugee issue taps into the self-definition of Palestinians, including many Gazans. Yet, neither Israeli nor Palestinian leaders have conditioned their respective publics to deal with these third rail issues. In the case of refugees, many of the descendents come from Gaza, which is not even under the control of the Palestinian Authority at this time, but rather is controlled by Hamas. This even further complicates the refugee issue. In short, whenever it is all or nothing in the Middle East, it is always nothing. We should not set ourselves or the parties up for failure. Too much is stake. Hamas rejectionists are waiting in the wings for pragmatists like Abbas to fail. Furthermore, Israel will be facing demographic challenges, which will threaten its goal of ensuring its future as a democratic and Jewish state. With these increasingly high stakes, it is vital that we concentrate our efforts on areas that are amenable to progress.

Instead, we should focus on what is attainable. The issue where the gap between the parties is narrowest is land. This might sound counter-intuitive to some because many think the conflict is only about land, but this is not the case. This is why I have advanced the idea of „borders first‟ for the past year, and was delighted to see that Senator Kerry endorsed it in a recent speech in Qatar. In a press conference in November, Senator Mitchell said, “My personal and fervent wish is that we will during this process at some point have a resolution of the issue of borders so that there will no longer be any question about settlement construction, so that Israelis will be able to build what they want in Israel and Palestinians will be able to build what they want in Palestine.”1

In negotiations between Olmert and Abbas in 2008 and 2009, their differences were over only 4.5% of the land. Olmert suggested retaining 6.4% of the West Bank in return for equivalent land inside Israel. In a November 2009 interview Olmert stated, “It might be a fraction more, it might be a fraction less, but in total it would be about 6.4 per cent.”2 Abbas thought the figure should be 1.9%. Both said any land taken by Israel could be swapped for an equal amount of land inside Israel. The narrow percentage differences coupled with the fact that both parties agreed to the idea of landswaps suggests that the differences regarding land are bridgeable. For example, 80% of all Israeli settlers, which is approximately 240,000 people, live in less than 4.5% of the territory being negotiated, largely adjacent to the pre-1967 boundaries. The remaining 60,000 settlers live in the 95.5% remainder of the West Bank. As these statistics illustrate, the so-called insurmountable obstacle of settlements is actually relatively open to resolution.

The only way to deal with the settlement issue is to render it moot by subsuming it into peacemaking efforts and heading straight into the final negotiations on territory. There are three distinct advantages to focusing the negotiations on territory now. First, this approach allows the Palestinian Authority to tell its people that it has obtained the equivalent of 100% of the land to be part of a contiguous Palestinian state. As such, negotiations and not Hamas terrorism will be vindicated. The Palestinians can say they obtained what Anwar Sadat received in peace talks with Israel – full withdrawal. Second, Israelis will have something to gain and not just to give. Until now, no Israeli leader has succeeded in legally annexing a single settler, let alone a large majority of them. This approach would give many of the settlers who live in the major blocs a stake in being part of the solution, rather than being part of the problem. They would have their legal status normalized as part of Israel and they would no longer live in legal limbo, where they have been human bargaining chips for several decades. Their status will be clarified. Finally, for the United States, after many years, the settlements issue would no longer be a thorn in U.S.-Israel relations.

This approach alone will not guarantee successful resolution of the Jerusalem and refugee issues. After success on land, these issues will have to be addressed and a timetable set. At that time, a conscious effort must be made by all parties, including Arab states, to condition public opinion to deal with the remaining contentious issues. Over time, Israel will need to make concessions on Jerusalem, and the Palestinians will need to concede that refugees can only return to the Palestinian state and not to Israel.

The prioritization of land negotiations is not without its problems. I would like to address some of the challenges to this idea. One such challenge is Jerusalem. A Palestinian may ask if by deferring Jerusalem, one is actually conceding this issue. This is a fair question. Obviously nobody wants to trade a political conflict for an incendiary religious one. Moreover, no border can be complete without dealing with Jerusalem. Yet having written a book about the origins of the Oslo accord in 1993, it is not coincidental that Article V of the Declaration of Principles signed on the White House lawn and sealed with a famous handshake listed Jerusalem as a separate category from the issues of borders and settlements.3 The municipal border should be the line until an agreement on Jerusalem is ultimately reached. To allay Palestinian concerns about the changing character of the city, there should be a baseline agreement between the parties, perhaps with the assistance of the United States, whereby it is understood that Jewish and Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem will not expand into each other. A strict freeze has shown to be impractical, but a no-expansion approach into the neighborhood of the other is something that should be attainable. An assurance that Jerusalem will be addressed in the future would be an important sign of confidence.

Another challenge will come from some Israelis who may ask whether such an approach will minimize their leverage in future talks, since they are playing their „land card‟ now, so to speak. Clearly, if a grand deal on all of the core issues could be struck it would be preferable, yet privately, many of the same hesitant Israelis are extremely dubious that a grand deal is achievable. Moreover, it is hard to escape the idea that there will be trade-offs between the narrative issues anyway. In other words, it is unlikely that playing a „territorial card‟ will obviate the need of addressing Jerusalem.

A third set of challenges will be the timetable of when a borders first approach will be implemented. This could be left to the parties. Some may say that a full agreement on the core issues is within reach and therefore, implementation should happen all at once. Others say full agreement will take considerable time, and therefore, it is best to implement the territorial dimension now. This second approach will create considerable political pain for Israel as it may mean Israel evacuating –many forcibly — at least 60,000 settlers when there is no guarantee of a peace treaty. (To give one a sense of context, this would be more than seven times the number of settlers who were withdrawn from Gaza in 2005. Moreover, the withdrawal would be taking place in the West Bank, which Jews deem as the heart of biblical patrimony.) In this context, it may be advisable to have not just a non-belligerency agreement, but also a statement by both sides that would have resonance. It would be useful for each side to agree in the borders negotiations that they recognize one other. Specifically, Israel would accept the idea of a Palestinian state as a homeland for the Palestinian people and Palestinians would accept the idea of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people. Each has a historic claim to the land, but it must be shared for the benefit of each. Neither party should be seen as prejudicing in any way the full civil rights of any citizen of either country, nor should it prejudice negotiations over refugees.

This will enable an Israeli leader who will lead such a very difficult withdrawal to tell the settlers that their mission is completed as there will be an acknowledgment of a historic Jewish connection to the land. (Some have argued that the settlers on the wrong side of the line should be allowed to stay within Palestine. This has surface appeal, but it will run into a host of problems. The government of Israel will not want to leave behind settlers whom it cannot protect with its own security forces, especially given the trauma between the Palestinians and settlers over the last four decades.)

A fourth set of challenges will be the issue of security. At the Camp David II talks in 2000 led by President Clinton, this was the most straight-forward issue that was technical in character. Much has happened subsequently. Security cooperation crashed in the second intifada between 2000 and 2004. Hamas came to power in Gaza, stand-alone rockets became a factor, and the idea of borders management after Israeli withdrawal has been undermined by the expansion of cross-border tunnels under Gaza for rocket smuggling. Many Israelis see the Gaza withdrawal in 2004 as triggering thousands of rockets which culminated in the Gaza war of 2008-2009. Therefore, as part of the growing cynicism of publics on both sides about the very enterprise of peacemaking, Israelis increasingly equate withdrawal with vulnerability and not security. (Palestinians and Israelis are equally jaded about the idea of grand peace conferences that do not yield results.) Therefore, the security dimension needs to be considered very carefully.

A fifth set of challenges are not unique to a borders first approach, but will be present in any serious peace effort. These challenges are related to Iran‟s quest for a nuclear weapon. I recently wrote a book with Dennis Ross, who is currently a senior White House official in the Obama Administration, entitled Myths, Illusions and Peace. In this book, we deal with the issue of linkage. There are no strict linkages between the Palestinian and Iranian issues. Regardless of progress on peace, Iran will seek a nuclear weapon. Moreover, senior Arab security officials say privately that they do not see progress on peace as decisive in influencing Arab efforts to halt Iran in any way. The Arabs face many problems, including domestic challenges, in this regard. However, a change in climate could at the margins make it somewhat harder for Iran to exploit this issue. Yet, if it is clear that Iran will have a nuclear weapon, the prospects for the Middle East peace process are very bleak. Rejectionists will be emboldened and moderates will be intimidated. Alternatively, there is no doubt that if the Israelis and the Palestinian Authority did not think Iran was on its way to being a nuclear problem and a regional power in a manner that will boost Hamas, their evaluation of risk would certainly drop.

These challenges lead many to believe the current proximity talks will fail. In order for the talks to succeed, it is important that they are not pro-forma and not just a means for the Palestinians to force the US to put forward its own plan. Historically, the Arab states and the Palestinians have always hoped that the US would “deliver” Israel, but this has virtually never materialized. Last summer, the Obama Administration raised Arab expectations that it would deliver a settlement freeze, but it fell short. Obama did not even mention these negotiations in the State of the Union. The US is smarting from the fact that the Arab states were supposed to match Israeli moves on settlements with gestures towards Israel, but failed to do anything. The Arab states may say that the settlement moratorium is not 100 percent of what they would like. No negotiation is what one side wants. Yet, even if they think Netanyahu only moved 70%, they have responded with zero percent reciprocity. It is unlikely the US will go down this road again.

There is a big difference between the US imposing a solution on the parties and the US putting forward a bridging proposal after direct negotiations have brought the parties closer to a deal. It is possible to bridge over a river, but not over an ocean. A US bridging proposal may occur, but only after direct negotiations have been tried in earnest. The Palestinians need to be careful what they wish for. If the Palestinians want the US to be explicit in its views regarding the final disposition of Jerusalem, they will get a US that is every bit as explicit about the Palestinian refugees returning to Palestine, and not to Israel.

In short, the US can supplement negotiations but cannot substitute for them. Speaking at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy last Friday, Israel‟s Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that Abbas should “test” Netanyahu‟s sincerity instead of pre-supposing any outcome. Netanyahu feels he has traversed an ideological distance over the last year as he overturned his own opposition to a Palestinian state.

For all the problems of restarting peace talks during 2009, there was an important bright spot between Israelis and Palestinians. There were signs on the ground in the West Bank of economic progress, as well as heightened security cooperation between Palestinians and Israelis. Of course, economic development is not a substitute for political progress, but it is a key component that could facilitate steps forward and moderation. Economic progress enables the public to gain faith that the future can be better, and it creates political space for the leadership to gain more political capital with success. The hope is that economic improvement facilitates political moderation as people develop a stake in success. Palestinian polls consistently show that Gazans living under Hamas and West Bankers alike would prefer to live in the West Bank where there is economic progress, rather than living under the repressive hand of Hamas in Gaza.

International Monetary Fund officials report that economic growth in the West Bank is making major strides despite a world-wide recession. They say that growth could reach as much as 7-8 percent in 2010 if Israel continues its current policy of relaxing security restrictions, most notably the removal of roadblocks. It is estimated that Israel has removed all but a dozen of the 45 roadblocks that were in place to prevent suicide bombers. Among the benefits of the relaxation of restrictions is that it enables Israeli Arabs to enter the West Bank, engage in commerce and generate jobs. Unemployment in the West Bank may be high by American standards, but it has been cut by a third in the last few years.

The following examples of growth provide a glimpse of the changes occurring in the West Bank. There have been an approximately 2,000 new Palestinian small-businesses and other companies registered with PA since 2008. A second new cell phone company in the West Bank, Wataniya Palestine, was recently launched. The introduction of this second mobile phone company is expected to inject US$700 million investment into the Palestinian Territory and to generate $354 million in fiscal revenue for the PA. It will also create thousands of jobs. Another project underway is Rawabi, or “hills” in Arabic, which will be the first-ever planned Palestinian city. Located about five miles north of the Palestinian provisional capital of Ramallah, it is expected to have 40,000 residents at its formation. In Bethlehem, the rise of tourism has already yielded 6,000 new jobs, and tourists are filling up hotels in the city, marking a significant change. Previously, due to an uncertain security situation, tourists feared staying overnight in the West Bank, but the security is indeed improving. Palestinian security forces have been trained with American and European money and guidance. In 2002, it is estimated that 410 Israelis were killed in attacks emanating from the West Bank. In 2009, the figure was five.

Barak has publicly stated that a key factor in this improved situation is Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation. This dramatic drop in deaths from attacks originating in the West Bank has allowed Israel to take more risks than it would have even two years ago. The improvement in security has not just facilitated economic progress, but has meant that chaos no longer reigns in the West Bank. In a sharp departure from the past, Palestinian polls show that most Palestinians feel safe in their towns. For the first half of the decade, Israeli and Palestinian officials shot at each other, but now they are working together to prevent Hamas from expanding a foothold in the West Bank. Beyond the security establishments of both sides, there are other factors at play. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Palestinian Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad have a set an anti-violence tone. Fayyad has worked very closely with his commanders on the ground to ensure coordination with Israeli counterparts. Added special mention should be given to the excellent work of US Lt.-General Keith Dayton and his team. Dayton has spearheaded the training of over 2,000 Palestinian troops in a bid to professionalize the Palestinian security services. Netanyahu also deserves credit in prioritizing economic growth by lifting some key restrictions. Israeli military officials say that their cushion to lift such restrictions as West Bank roadblocks is a function of the Israeli security barrier, which limits the amount of suicide bombers who can penetrate into Israel.

Perhaps the most exciting idea that emerged from the West Bank in 2009 is Fayyad‟s idea of state-building or creating institutions as a precursor to Palestinian statehood. Fayyad has won over the international community during the last few years with his focus on transparency and his opposition to corruption. He has a doctorate in economics, and excelled at the World Bank/International Monetary Fund before first becoming
Palestinian finance minister and now prime minister. The US Congress, which was reluctant during the Arafat period to give any money to the PA, no longer worries that its financial assistance will go to private coffers. This is a tribute to the stature of Fayyad.

Fayyad‟s idea of state-building is a departure from the approach favored by his predecessor Yasser Arafat. Fayyad‟s approach is nothing short of a new paradigm for Palestinian nationalism. Arafat always defined Palestinian nationalism in revolutionary terms – physical defiance, armed resistance, while Fayyad seems to be identifying institution building as the ticket to statehood.

There are profound implications to these very different approaches. Arafat viewed the Palestinian condition as guaranteeing a sense of victimhood and entitlement – Palestinians were responsible for nothing. The world owed them. In contrast, Fayyad seems to see institution building as a way of creating a culture of accountability among Palestinians. In the Arafat era, airports, railroads and sea ports seemed like adornments of a sovereign state, not central vehicles to achieving statehood. In contrast, Fayyad has said that building the PA institutions is important “to gain the international community‟s respect and pass its unjust test of building these institutions under occupation.” While Fayyad has yet to fully elaborate about how state-building would be accomplished beyond using donor aid from around the world to assist the formation of legal, economic and security institutions, he wants to maintain the momentum of his previous economic plans until a political breakthrough occurs. This way he can keep his security plans in place during a time of political void that might devolve into unpredictable violence.

It is said that after George Bush visited Israel for its 60th anniversary in May 2008, Fayyad told him that he should look to the example of the Zionists, meaning to point out that the Israelis built the institutions of their state for 30 years before they declared it. While Fayyad certainly would not accept that timetable, he accepts the principle that statehood should be earned. In general, these economic and security developments provide hope of a brighter future for both peoples in 2010.

While my remarks make abundantly clear that I have a favorable view of Prime Minister Fayyad for the important new elements that he has introduced to the political equation, I would be remiss if I did not voice caution about two sets of relationships that will be important to focus on in the future. One is the Abbas-Fayyad relationship. On one hand, Abbas‟s veteran credentials in the Fatah party provide cover for Fayyad as he pursues his course. Yet, there have been clear differences between the two over appointment of personnel and even a sense that Abbas may be somewhat envious at times of the international attention showered on Fayyad.

The second set of relations that merits attention is Fayyad‟s relations with Israel, which have cooled somewhat of late. Specifically, Israel is unsure if Fayyad‟s focus on non-violent protest will spillover in an unintended violent direction. Moreover, in a bid to cool episodic tensions on the ground, Fayyad has on several occasions in the last few months visited families of Palestinians whose sons have been involved in fatal violent actions against Israel. Israelis see this behavior as sending the wrong signal to the Palestinian people especially because it is coming from someone identified with non-violence. At least, in one of the two incidents Palestinians claim the violence was not premeditated. Finally, the third source of concern in the Fayyad-Israel relationship is his sense that institution building is a unilateral enterprise that is part of a two year sprint towards statehood. Israelis suspect that this bottom-up state-building is a unilateral move coming at their expense. The irony is that the only way for Fayyad to deliver on institution-building is by working with Israel, given the security dimension of proposed projects and Israel‟s control over West Bank land. A good working relationship is key for the Fayyad plan to succeed. In short, there are no substitutes for negotiations.

This is precisely why the bottom-up approach cannot substitute for top-down negotiations. The two must go together. Without a top-down approach, the bottom-up approach will be unsustainable over time. Palestinian soldiers will think security cooperation is designed to make Israeli control more palatable, and Israelis will harbor doubts about Palestinian state-building intentions.

While there have been important signs of progress on the ground in the last few years, one must be careful not to extrapolate too much in looking ahead. Much is at stake. If moderates on the Palestinian and Israeli sides do not come together, it will not be surprising if the extremists discredit the moderates and exploit time for their own benefit.

1 From Senator Mitchell‟s press conference on Nov. 25th, 2009; found at: http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2009/November/20091125160029ihecuor0.3026021.html.
2 From Ehud Olmert‟s interview with The Australian, published November 28th, 2009; found at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/ehud-olmert-still-dreams-of-peace/story-e6frg76f-1225804745744.
3 The Oslo Declaration of Principles, Article V, Provision 3 states: “It is understood that [permanent status] negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.” Full text can be found at: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/Declaration+of+Principles.htm.

Here’s an excerpt from the review:

The scope of American power, in the Middle East or anywhere else, depends on circumstances and local conditions. Yet Washington policy wonks all too often tend to overlook this uncomfortable fact, viewing situations exclusively from inside the Beltway.

Throughout the many decades of US involvement in the Middle East, there is a pattern of success as well as failure, and it is this pattern that constitutes the backdrop to the knowledgeable and timely new book by Dennis Ross and David Makovsky—the one a veteran of Mideast peace negotiations under several American presidents, the other a seasoned journalist and analyst.

The United States has been and can be extremely powerful and helpful when either of the following scenarios unfolds: 1) a shooting war erupts and threatens to unleash dire regional or even global consequences or 2) the contending parties have already made, on their own, significant steps towards reaching an agreement but still need a helpful push from the outside. In the first case, the US can function as an effective firefighter and bring about a cessation of hostilities. In the second, it can act as a midwife and help clinch the deal.

Prospects for the Resumption of Israeli-Palestinian Peace Talks

By David Makovsky
January 15, 2010

U.S. Middle East peace envoy George Mitchell will return to the region next week in a bid to restart talks that have been stalled since the beginning of the Obama administration. In a television interview earlier this month, Mitchell declared that he would like to complete peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians within two years, if not sooner. Senior U.S. officials, including President Obama, have called for an unconditional return to the negotiating table. The official position of Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas is that talks cannot resume until Israel extends its settlement moratorium to east Jerusalem. He also wants the pre-1967 boundaries to serve as the baseline for negotiations. At the same time, he has made a statement indicating that he regrets how he reached his current position, hinting that the current impasse does not serve the Palestinian people’s interests. Is there more convergence between the two sides than is readily apparent?

Context of the Current Impasse

Peace talks have remained elusive since the first day of the Obama administration due in large part to the handling of the settlements issue. For much of 2009, the U.S. position was that Israel should not only avoid expanding settlement activity, but also freeze construction within existing settlements. Although the Obama administration insists that it never wanted a freeze to be a formal precondition for peace talks, its preferences became a de facto requirement from the Palestinian perspective. In short, Abbas felt boxed in when the administration stated its maximalist position but then sought to negotiate a ten-month, limited moratorium with Israel. He explained the problem in a little-noticed December 22, 2009, interview with the London-based pan-Arab daily al-Sharq al-Awsat, where he blamed Washington for putting forward the freeze idea and then asking him to compromise. He recalled telling U.S. officials during a September meeting at the UN, “You put me on top of a tree, and now you ask me for a solution, and to climb down.” Abbas continued, “Obama laid down the condition of halting the settlements completely. What could I say to him? Should I say this is too much?”

Meanwhile, Israel has also backed off from several positions unfavorable to the resumption of talks. For example, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu originally held that there should be no further talks until the United States found a way to halt the Iranian nuclear program. He also opposed the creation of a Palestinian state. Over the past few months, however, he has adjusted his stance, endorsing statehood, abandoning the Iranian requirement, and insisting to Washington that no Israeli leader has supported a settlement moratorium to the extent he has.

Getting Back to the Table

Currently, Mitchell is exploring whether it is possible to return to the peace table after what might be called a lost year. So far, the two sides have quietly agreed to a text that could serve as a foundation for renewed talks. The subject of months of negotiations, the text was made public on November 25, immediately after Netanyahu’s announcement of a settlement moratorium. Despite the text’s release under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s name and her subsequent reiteration, it avoids staking out a new American policy position. Instead, it encapsulates Israeli and Palestinian aspirations, stating: “We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.” In effect, the text allowed Washington to say that the goals of the two sides are reconcilable, without committing itself or Israel to the 1967 lines or to land swaps that would counterbalance settlement blocs.

Discussions with officials of both sides suggest that there are more convergences than divergences between Israelis and Palestinians. To enable the successful resumption of talks, all parties will need to recognize and pursue these convergences, many of which center on avoiding past pitfalls such as those described below.

No Letter of U.S. Assurances

Some European and Arab states would like the United States to go further than the Clinton declaration and issue a letter of assurance restating U.S. support for the 1967 borders with minor modifications. This idea has several problems, however, and was publicly rejected this week by Abbas as superfluous. First, with the exception of Egypt (which has sought to restart talks), the Arab states have done virtually nothing to realize Mitchell’s hope that they would reciprocate an Israeli settlement moratorium even if it were less than the full freeze envisioned a year ago. Second, the process of drafting any letter of assurance would require its own arduous negotiations. Third, prominent Palestinians have said privately that a U.S. letter to Abbas would inevitably be matched by a similar letter to the Israelis. This letter would in turn be made public and could therefore be exploited by hardline Palestinian critics of the Abbas government.

No Annapolis II

Both Israeli and Palestinian publics tend to be jaded, having heard many speeches with meager results. Therefore, neither wants a repeat of the 2007 Annapolis peace conference, where peace talks were launched in the glare of klieg lights. Moreover, Annapolis represents an effort to resolve all the core issues dividing Israelis and Palestinians. There is too much risk of high expectations going unfulfilled, with potentially disastrous consequences. Such public peace talks could raise domestic issues for both parties, leading them to stake out positions that might lead to a breakdown.

A Discreet Channel

The past practice of holding regular executive-level meetings, such as those between Abbas and former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, does not seem to be a useful model at this stage. Currently, Abbas seems to enjoy earning political capital without making decisions. To this end, he is assisted by Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, who echoes Abbas’s indecision. In Washington, however, many are concerned that Erekat has misrepresented U.S. positions. For example, in a recent report to the Fatah Central Committee, he stated that Washington endorses the idea of picking up where the Abbas-Olmert talks left off, which is not the case. He has also long enjoyed being defiant toward Israel, apparently believing that it bolsters his domestic standing. Therefore, he does not fear that he will have to pay a political price for failing to establish any semblance of trust or working relations with Israel. In fact, he seems to believe that he is completely indispensable to Abbas due to his institutional memory of negotiations.

Erekat notwithstanding, there is more convergence than divergence among U.S., Israeli, and Palestinian officials, most of whom agree that peace talks need to be restarted because the current impasse serves no one except Hamas. To be sure, Israelis and Palestinians have different points of emphasis, but their respective formats for negotiations actually seem to go well together. Key Palestinians favor Mitchell engaging in proximity talks, believing that U.S. mediation in the substance of the discussions is crucial. Israelis, however, favor direct (though discreet) working-level negotiations. These approaches seem compatible: under the umbrella of Mitchell’s occasional visits, Israelis and Palestinians can meet discreetly at the working level to discuss the issues. In fact, this discreet-and-direct channel has been the key to all agreements between the two sides since 1993.

Focus on Territory First

On the same day the Clinton statement was released, Mitchell publicly declared his wish to focus on a borders agreement. The Palestinians have indicated that they concur. Although the Israelis say they reject the idea of a standalone borders agreement per se, they increasingly acknowledge the logic in making the issue of territory first on a wider agenda.

Conclusion

These convergences may bring the parties to the table, but they cannot guarantee the success of any talks. Procedural success will be matched by divergences on the substance of the talks relating to territory, not to mention highly charged issues like Jerusalem and refugees. Mitchell will likely find that all these differences sorely test the notion that all outstanding issues will be wrapped up in two years.

This Policy Watch can be found at its original location at the Washington Institute’s website, reached by clicking here.

David’s interview with BBC yesterday, commenting on PM Netanyahu’s announcement of a 10 month settlement freeze in the West Bank and the U.S. response to that announcement by George Mitchell, can be watched at:

http://mms.tveyes.com/MediaCenter/20230/390287.6233/BBC24_11-25-2009_20.33.44.wmv.