IPF Leadership Mission, June 2009

Last week, an Israel Policy Forum Leadership group led by myself and IPF President Peter Joseph spent three intense days in high-level meetings in Jerusalem, Tel-Aviv and on the West Bank. As you can see below from our itinerary, it was a busy few days.

Itinerary

Sunday, June 28, 2009: 

9:00 AM            Meeting with MK Benny Begin (Likud)

11:00 AM          Meeting with Gadi Baltiansky, Director, Geneva Initiative

12:30 PM          Lunch with Dr. Khalil Shikaki, Director, Palestinian Center for Policy
                        and Survey Research (PCPSR)

4:45 PM            Meeting with Minister of Intelligence Dan Meridor (Likud)

6:15 PM            Meeting with Social Affairs Minister Isaac (Bougie) Herzog (Labor)

Monday, June 29, 2009: 

7:30 AM            Breakfast with Tal Becker, Head of International Law Department,
                        Ministry of Foreign Affairs

8:30 AM            Meeting with Attorney Isaac Molcho, advisor to PM Netanyahu

10:30 AM          Meeting with Saeb Erekat, Head of the Palestinian Negotiating Unit

1:00 PM            Lunch with Alon Pinkas, former Consul General of Israel in the United
                        States

4:00 PM            Meeting with MK Yuli Tamir, (Labor) former Minister of Education

5:30 PM            Meeting with MK Ophir Pines Paz, (Labor)

7:00 PM            Meeting with MK Tzippi Livni, (Kadima) Head of Opposition

Tuesday, June 30, 2009: 

8:30 AM           Breakfast with Ethan Bronner, New York Times Jerusalem Bureau Chief

11:00 AM         Meeting with Ephraim Sneh, (Yisrael Hazaka) former Deputy Defense Minister

12:15 PM          Meeting with Sameh Nabil, Consul for Egypt

1:30 PM            Lunch with Professor David Menashri, Director of Center for Iranian
                        Studies, Tel Aviv University

3:00 PM            Meeting with Major-General (Res.) Giora Eiland, former head of the
                        National Security Council

4:30 PM            Meeting with US Ambassador James Cunningham

As you would anticipate, it is difficult to convey all the nuances, intricacies and cross-currents that were reflected in these varied and wide-ranging meetings. With that said, certain themes rang consistent.

President Obama                                                                                                                                                                  

The general consensus was that he has already made a significant positive impact. His Cairo speech was particularly well received by the Arab world and the pro two state Israeli contingent, although his popularity in Israel is substantially lower than anywhere else in the world - this was also the case before the election, where Israel was one of only a literal handful of countries who favored McCain over Obama. The reasons are complicated, but a partial explanation is that the Israelis are not used to not getting preferential treatment and are off balance with this President,and everything that he represents.       

Some of the Israelis were sufficiently self-aware to note that they like being the center of attention, which they were not in the Cairo speech, but many recognize that there needed to be a 'reset' with the Arab and Muslim world, and this was a highly intelligent and effective way of achieving this. As was relayed in many meetings, now comes the hard part.

Generally, the more enlightened observers recognized that the dismantling of certain checkpoints and a major road bloc, the removal of Israeli forces from four West Bank towns and the talk of a settlement 'freeze' were all due to Obama and his administration. He needs to pursue the same course, perhaps more privately and less publically in some cases. To a certain extent, the next step is very much to obtain concessions from the other side. Not so much from the Palestinians, who have relatively little to give, but from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States - there is talk of transport, trade, and diplomatic ties, for example.  

The Peace Process      

From multiple sources, we heard that the Olmert Abbas talks had progressed far and that

the gaps were small. This was confirmed in the Olmert interview in Newsweek. However, Abbas responded that the gaps were still 'large', which was not well received in Israel.

The sense is that this response was out of frustration, the same explanation for the very strong Palestinian rejection to Bibi Netanyahu's Bar Ilan speech. The Israelis and the Palestinians each claim that they are ready to restart negotiations, although what remains to be resolved is the starting point.

What is clear is that there is a general recognition that the present timing is propitious, that there is a confluence of favorable circumstances that President Obama has recognized and is determined to exploit. The Arab Peace Initiative and the shared fear of Iran's nuclear program have also provided a potentially favorable backdrop.

The makeup of the present Israeli Government is far from ideal for a two-state solution, but Netanyahu has made a first step, and Tzippi Livni and Kadima are hovering in the background, with a possible role to play.

The single largest obstacle remains the deep divide between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, and how to bridge that gap in an acceptable way.

The Palestinian Body Politic

There is much anxiety about the fragility of the Palestinian leadership. As one observer commented 'Fayyad is good but without political power, Abbas is committed to peace but weak and Barghouti is the wild card.' And that is without even mentioning Hamas.

In the 2006 elections, through fragmentation Hamas won 44% of the vote, but 58% of the members of the Palestinian Parliament.  Fatah hopes to address this issue at a meeting of delegates slated for August 4^th in Bethlehem. Elections are due in January, 2010 and both Hamas and the PA need and require them for political legitimacy.

There is no certainty that Hamas will lose, and for the PA to do well, the facts on the ground must improve. This has been happening, the General Dayton trained Palestinian gendarmerie have taken over security in four West Bank towns - including Jericho which we visited - a major roadblock has been dismantled, and today we heard that the Allenby Bridge will now be open 24 hours a day for commercial activities. This is a definite improvement of the facts on the ground, and more needs to continue to be done.

Barghouti is in an Israeli prison and is potentially part of a prisoner exchange for Gilad Shalit, but there is no certainty, just rumors.

As regards the Palestinian Unity Government talks, which the Egyptians were mediating, the seventh round just broke down yesterday. There are two distinct and incompatible schools of thought on this issue - one sees Hamas as purely a terrorist group, an extension

of radical Iran that must be marginalized and, if not destroyed, reduced to the fringes. The other sees it as necessarily being part of

the peace process with Israel, where professional bureaucrats represent Hamas in the unity government, with which Israel negotiates. Any agreement is supported by Hamas, who at the same time relinquishes violence.

Unfortunately, there is no middle ground here, but under either scenario, the moderates must be supported, the West Bank must benefit from substantial investment and reconstruction and the facts on the ground must quickly and materially improve - there is not much time, firstly, before the upcoming election and also in general.

The Settlements

Almost every conversation on this trip included and covered this issue. It is both symbolic and real, a sign of Israeli sincerity and a daily reminder to the Palestinians that their prospective state is being eroded. As the US maintained its position for a freeze, reinforced by Secretary of State Clinton and then by French President Sarkozy and Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi during Netanyahu's European trip, various Israelis were flying to meet their US counterparts. Dan Meridor met with George Mitchell in London, Ehud Barak and Isaac Molcho were leaving on Tuesday for New York, and so on.

A settlement freeze was described by one Israeli politician as 'reasonable but not practical.' The 'natural growth' debate was termed by some a deliberate obfuscation, and there was talk of compromise - a moratorium of at least 3 months, although the US was rumored to want longer and no new construction, among other items. This is a very big issue for a significant portion of Israel, much less so for American Jews, for example.

The outlines of any agreement already provide for detailed maps, not just for the settlements, but also East Jerusalem. The large blocs - which are basically cities - would revert to Israel - Ma'aleh Adumim, Betar Illit, Modin Illit and Ariel and the Palestinians would be compensated by a land swap. The issue is the large and growing numbers that will need to move back to Israel as part of an agreement, a number that dwarves the 8,000 who were removed from Gaza.

The Regional Players                                                                           

As presented by Obama in his Cairo speech, the approach is now very much regional. The issues are inter-related and broad regional peace- with two peoples living in two states in peace and security as the basis -  is in the US strategic interest.

The Egyptians are playing an extremely positive role - blocking the smuggling of weapons into Gaza as best they can (and the US Mexico border was mentioned as an analogy), mediating the Palestinian Unity Government talks, leading the prisoner exchange discussions, meeting with the Israelis and coordinating strategy. They are very much part of the moderate camp fighting extremism.

King Abdullah of Jordan is actively supporting the Arab Peace Initiative and is urging the resumption of peace talks.

Syria continues to play their cards close to their chest, even as the US has agreed to send an Ambassador to Damascus. Syria continues to support Hezbollah and Hamas, but at the same time there is talk of unofficial outreach to the Israelis to restart the peace negotiations that had made progress last year under Turkish auspices.

The Arab Peace Initiative is still out there, embraced by Obama and reaffirmed twice by the Arabs. To date, the Israelis have basically ignored it.

Iran continues to be a major focus. The current civil unrest complicates the formerly mono-dimensional view of a radical Islamic regime determined to produce nuclear weapons which they will inevitably use on Israel. President Obama's outreach efforts have also been impacted, and one of our speakers was confident that with a uniquely empowered civil society and their history, the regime was under serious threat. The problem is that the timing is entirely unpredictable, and meanwhile, official Iranian government policy continues, seemingly unchanged. Iran is a threat, but not just to Israel - it is also an opportunity.

This piece by Peter Joseph summarizes the current state of play:

For close observers of long-standing efforts to resolve the issues between Israel and its Palestinian neighbors, the last few weeks have been nothing short of remarkable.  This impression was reinforced during an intense three-day trip last week to Israel and the West Bank sponsored by the Israel Policy Forum. The group met with high-level Israeli, Palestinian and American officials as well as a broad array of journalists and regional experts.  As always, the conversations brought home the complexity of resolving the host of territorial, security, economic, political, religious and cultural differences; the difficulties cannot be underestimated and one should maintain realistic expectations.  However, it is generally accepted that the United States has the pivotal role to play. The determination, focus, patience, and perseverance demonstrated by the Obama Administration appear already to be having a significant impact.

President Obama's speech in Cairo has been widely lauded as a watershed event in Arab-US relations for the tone he adopted in reaching out to the Arab world.  In addressing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, President Obama went after the two issues which are absolutes for each of the parties: the renunciation of violence by the Palestinians and the halting of settlement expansion by the Israelis.  The President's statements were noteworthy not because he set a new policy direction, since  both resorting to violence and settlement expansion are inconsistent with long-standing official American policy.  What was new was that the thrust of the President's position is founded on this Administration's firm belief that the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in America's national interest. For the Israelis, the message on settlements was made very clear: the U.S. will no longer ignore attempts to impede the pursuit of this interest.

The moderate elements in the Arab world have long spoken of the settlement issue as a fundamental obstacle to progress in the negotiations.  The continued changing of the "facts on the ground" in the West Bank has undermined the political credibility of the Palestinian Authority leadership with its constituency while decreasing the possibility of a practical territorial accord.  Hence, the moderate Palestinians, confronted with the "wink and nod" approach by prior American administrations toward Israeli settlement activity, have been unwilling to take significant political risks in this process.  Obama seems to understand this dynamic very well and is changing the unstated American policy with the hope that he will be more successful in bringing key Arab leaders into a wider and more engaged regional process. His goal is to gain the confidence of all parties such that the US can play a robust facilitative role with real goals for progress within the next two years.

Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech at Bar Ilan University is but one indication that the President's new direction is having an impact.  Despite the greater part of the speech being devoted to predictable rhetoric by the nimble orator, for the first time Netanyahu actually referred to the possibility of a "Palestinian state."  Even though many would consider the statement to be a rather belated recognition of what is widely viewed as the only solution that can provide peace and security to both peoples, we must still appreciate its significance within the context of the current Israeli government coalition  which includes several parties with far right positions.  Furthermore, Netanyahu's own Likud party contains leading figures whose foundational political philosophy is grounded on the concept of a Greater Israel consisting of the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.  Hence, the Prime Minister's  ability to maintain his political leadership hinges on managing the strong counter-vailing forces within both his coalition and his party.  The major constraint to these political forces is the urgent necessity, indeed a fundamental Israeli national interest, to maintain the "unbreakable" relationship with the United States.

It is important to note that reports of the recent Mitchell/Barak meetings have focused on the rather technical points of where to draw definitional lines around concepts such as "natural growth," and suggest an effort to find a workable arrangement for the two governments.  The issue of actually expanding settlements, as urged by the politically important adherents of the settler movement, seems to have been conceded, and the negotiators are now dealing with commercial practicalities in an effort to find a politically acceptable solution.  When viewed together with the pivotal shift of Netanyahu in adopting the two-state language, it is clear that Israel could only have gotten this far with a firm guiding hand from Washington.

In addition to the political dynamic within the Israeli government, it is important to point out other equally important developments.  Security in the West Bank continues to improve through the American-led efforts of General Keith Dayton; this is reflected in the recent willingness of the Israelis to remove some of the checkpoints that have diminished the quality of life and the self-esteem of Palestinians for years. And, significantly, Israel recently turned over internal security in four West Bank cities to Palestinian forces. 

As President Obama attempts to put all of the pieces in place for a regional plan, the actions of Egypt in negotiating with Hamas for the release of Gilad Shalit and in enhancing its security efforts on its border with Gaza is undoubtedly appreciated by the US Administration. That same level of engagement is being sought with Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other moderate regimes to provide gestures and actions that would underscore their commitment to seeking a peaceful resolution to this protracted conflict.

There is little doubt that President Obama has a complex challenge before him as he continues to uphold the long-held American position that views Israel's security as a central tenet of US foreign policy in the Middle East, while pressing Israel and others in the region to take decisive and bold steps forward.  However, his unswerving commitment to infusing the peace process with new terms and renewed energy is already making a unique difference and allowing some in the region to reassess how they might be part of a solution.

--Peter Joseph, IPF President

As such, this is a moment fraught with risk, but also ripe with opportunity. There is an urgency to move forward , for multiple reasons - the demographic issues , the frustration level of the Palestinians, the need for peace and security in the region, the necessity to end the loss of life on all sides - and President Obama has already changed the dynamics, had a major impact and enjoys sufficient goodwill to play the role that the United States must and needs to play. Israel Policy Forum is proud to support him in these endeavors.

Thank you for your ongoing support, it is appreciated and needed.

Nick Bunzl

Executive Director