MARYLAND: Direct Israeli-Palestinian high level negotiations are welcome news but success will all depend on the work of the third party, the United States, and the way it approaches the inter-related problems of the region.
Zalman Shoval, former Israel Ambassador to the United States, and close to the power circles in Jerusalem, highlights the difference in approach between Jerusalem and Washington — “the Obama administration felt that progress on the peace process would set the stage for an effective regional coalition against Tehran. The Israeli approach was the exact opposite, stressing that if Iran’s nuclear program was neutralized, then that would set the stage for a real peace process, since it would weaken the most radicalized elements in the Arab world who sought to actively undermine any prospects for peace, especially Hamas, Hizbullah and Syria.”
We — an Israeli and Palestinian — believe there’s a way out of this tangle. As the risks grow, so do the benefits of bold thinking. We teach our students at the University of Maryland: “The Israelis and Palestinians are doomed to live together.” This summer, we added, “…or are doomed to die together”. This state of affairs demands a striking paradigm shift in which all the parties — Israelis, Palestinians, Americans and Iranians — can “win.”
Bold thinking involves Palestinians taking the lead — and Israelis helping them do so. With a peace agreement in hand, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas could then address his Iranian counterpart and pointedly say: “Mr. Ahmedinajad, don’t develop a nuclear weapons capability on our behalf, to stand against Israel in solidarity with the Palestinian people”. And then he could add, “I am the President of the Palestinians and I say to you now, ‘No thanks!’ We have made peace with our neighbors and need to move on to a new constructive stage.”
The international community understands that Iran provides extended weaponry and monetary support to non-state organizations such as Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, that has undermined progress towards regional peace. If Mr. Abbas can offer a credible alternative, it may trump the rejectionists’ appeal.
Historic Jewish fears of another Holocaust have been aggravated by the rhetoric of the Iranian government, the sense of a growing nuclear threat, by years of suicide bombings, and the new long-range rockets that move the front from the borders to homes throughout Israel. These realities make the price of trading territory for a peaceful future a goal that many Jews in Israel still find worthwhile.
At the same time, the Palestinians have come to appreciate that a militarized uprising cannot guarantee their independence or put an end to their own traumatic experience of occupation. The Palestinian Authority has slowly, but progressively, supported the concept and practice of non-violent action
A two-state solution is supported not only by the 22 members of the Arab League through their endorsement of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, but also by all 57 Muslim countries that have endorsed the plan. Notably, Iran is still among those signatories.
Concluding a regional peace with Israel would minimally allow for the long-term possibility of making the Middle East a nuclear-free zone, Israel included. We believe this approach is congruent with President Obama’s, as set forth when he won the Nobel Peace Prize, and can deliver its expected fruits. Perhaps, then, we could coin a new phrase for our class: “Israelis and Palestinians are blessed to be neighbors.”
Edy Kaufman and Manuel Hassassian teach at the University of Maryland and are senior researcher associates at its Center for International Development and Conflict Management. Kaufman formerly directed the Truman Peace Research Institute at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Hassassian, former rector of Bethlehem University, currently serves as the Palestinian ambassador to the United Kingdom. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
