The U.S. has been failing to broker peace
Why!
FP 22. Aug. 2013

Haaretz Aug. 18, 2013

Why the U.S. has been failing to broker peace for 40 years
By Yehuda Bauer

Washington has made two mistakes: assuming both sides want peace and that it can't force its will on them.

Excerpts:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared this week that peace will happen only as a result of negotiations between the sides and not due to external pressure. The truth is the exact opposite: Only external pressure can bring peace, as was once said by Shlomo Ben-Ami, foreign minister in the government of former prime minister Ehud Barak more than a decade ago. For roughly 40 years, the Americans have been trying to broker a compromise between the sides based upon two mistaken views: The first is the assumption that both sides are interested in peace. The second is that American domestic policy does not enable pressure to be applied to the sides against their will – in practice, against the will of Israeli governments.

The first assumption is flawed because the peace that each side wants is very different from the peace for which the other side strives. The Palestinians want Israel to recognize the right of return, the division of Jerusalem and true Palestinian independence. They want '67 borders with minimal exchange of territories. The Israeli government wants Jerusalem under its control, a maximal annexation of the territory of the West Bank, an Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley, complete demilitarization of the Palestinian state and a state that de facto will be entirely dependent on Israel – if it arises altogether. The right, led by the prime minister, is also not confident in its Jewish identity and, therefore, needs Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to recognize it. Compromise will not be created by direct talks unless a miracle happens, although the talks may go on for months.

With respect to domestic American problems, the Democratic administration mistakenly believes that AIPAC, the Jewish group that lobbies on behalf of Israel in Washington, represents the Jewish public in the United States. In practice, it represents 15,000-20,000 well-off Jews, a large majority of whom are conservative and Republican supporters, while the vast majority of American Jews support the Democrats and President Barack Obama. Israel is important to American Jews, but the economy and social issues are more important. There won't be any Jewish opposition to pressure on Israel, if its end result is assuring and strengthening Israel's security through achieving peace.

Looking at these two points, it is clear that the policy of the U.S. under Obama, which is fundamentally opposed to applying pressure to both sides, is flawed at its core. Moreover, Russia, the European Union, China, Saudi Arabia and Turkey care about the continued conflict because it negatively affects their own policies toward the region.

Full article:
The talks between Israel and the Palestinians are being conducted under pressure from the Americans. The chances for success are miniscule, because the maximum possible concessions from one side don't meet the minimum demands of the other.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared this week that peace will happen only as a result of negotiations between the sides and not due to external pressure. The truth is the exact opposite: Only external pressure can bring peace, as was once said by Shlomo Ben-Ami, foreign minister in the government of former prime minister Ehud Barak more than a decade ago. For roughly 40 years, the Americans have been trying to broker a compromise between the sides based upon two mistaken views: The first is the assumption that both sides are interested in peace. The second is that American domestic policy does not enable pressure to be applied to the sides against their will – in practice, against the will of Israeli governments.

The first assumption is flawed because the peace that each side wants is very different from the peace for which the other side strives. The Palestinians want Israel to recognize the right of return, the division of Jerusalem and true Palestinian independence. They want '67 borders with minimal exchange of territories. The Israeli government wants Jerusalem under its control, a maximal annexation of the territory of the West Bank, an Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley, complete demilitarization of the Palestinian state and a state that de facto will be entirely dependent on Israel – if it arises altogether. The right, led by the prime minister, is also not confident in its Jewish identity and, therefore, needs Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to recognize it. Compromise will not be created by direct talks unless a miracle happens, although the talks may go on for months.

With respect to domestic American problems, the Democratic administration mistakenly believes that AIPAC, the Jewish group that lobbies on behalf of Israel in Washington, represents the Jewish public in the United States. In practice, it represents 15,000-20,000 well-off Jews, a large majority of whom are conservative and Republican supporters, while the vast majority of American Jews support the Democrats and President Barack Obama. Israel is important to American Jews, but the economy and social issues are more important. There won't be any Jewish opposition to pressure on Israel, if its end result is assuring and strengthening Israel's security through achieving peace.

Regarding non-Jewish pressure on the Israel issue, it comes primarily from extremist Protestant groups to which tens of millions of Americans belong. However, these people vote for the Republicans anyway.

Looking at these two points, it is clear that the policy of the U.S. under Obama, which is fundamentally opposed to applying pressure to both sides, is flawed at its core. Moreover, Russia, the European Union, China, Saudi Arabia and Turkey care about the continued conflict because it negatively affects their own policies toward the region.

In theory, therefore, there exists the possibility of creating the appropriate degree of pressure that may facilitate progress through the stages of talks. Such pressure would use simple enough means to equally pressure both sides to sit down and make mutual concessions but would not write out the details to the solution. And, if not, economic pressure could be applied to force the sides to return to serious negotiations. The thing preventing this kind of development is, first and foremost, U.S. policy, which has tried for more than 40 years “to help” the sides reach an agreement. This policy has no basis and it is hard to understand why the U.S. persists in this approach, as it necessarily leads to failure.

The writer is a professor emeritus at the Avraham Harman Institute of Contemporary Jewry at Hebrew University.
Link→