Israel and Palestine: What’s a Superpower to Do?

Why has there been so little progress on efforts to secure a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine?  Why, 64 years after the establishment of the state of Israel, are we still confronted with the spectacle of one people ruling another without their consent and against their will?  Why does violence remain the norm in the region, despite repeated efforts to secure peace? 

Answers to these questions are elusive and frequently controversial.  One important factor of course is the weight of history: if there is any area of the world where history matters, it is Israel-Palestine.  In a region where ties to the land are frequently divinely established, it can be hard to establish the conditions for compromise.

But while history and a sense of divine right may explain the unwillingness of the parties to deal with the most pressing issues, these explanations are partial at best.  In my view, real progress on the Israel-Palestine question will require agreement on at least the following five points:

• The establishment of an sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank, legally and constitutionally independent of Israel.
• The removal of all Israeli settlements from the West Bank.  By accepting the establishment of the Palestinian state, Israel must renounce any claim to West Bank territory.
• A recognition of the legitimacy of an independent Israel—with no guaranteed right of return to Israel for Palestinians.  The Israeli people’s desire to live safely within their own borders must be accepted.
• Both the states of Israel and Palestine must be viable and sustainable entities.  On the Israeli side, this will mean security, first and foremost.  On the Palestinian side, security is likewise required, but also considerable economic investment and support from Israel and from other parties.
• Neither party can gain sovereignty over Jerusalem, certainly over the short to medium term, perhaps over the long term. 

Each of these issues alone can provide enough controversy to keep negotiations going for years (or more likely, bring those negotiations to an end).  What can be done?  And in particular, what can be done by the United States?

As one of the few actors that has any significant leverage with Israel, the role of the United States continues to be critical.  When parties to a negotiation are unequally matched, a hands-off policy permits the stronger party to dominate the other.  And let us be clear: the parties in the Israel-Palestine conflict are unequally matched.  Palestine consistently enters into negotiations with a dramatically weaker power position.  This has any number of consequences, but chief among them is that United States cannot act as a “neutral facilitator” and hope that the negotiation process will be seen as legitimate by the Palestinian side. 

One reason this is true is that because of the power imbalance, we can only expect that any agreement that might result will favor the more powerful actor.  But in addition, we can also expect that the stronger party will be able to take advantage of its dominant position, even while negotiations are underway, to change the very environment in which the negotiations are taking place.  This Israel did even this week, establishing more “facts on the ground,” when it formally recognized three settler outposts illegally built in the West Bank.  (The United States responded by asking Israel, through its embassy in Tel Aviv, for “clarification.”).  In this situation, even the appearance of neutrality cultivated by the United States further weakens the Palestinian position, as Israel’s negotiation position improves.  The legitimacy of the peace process is thus further undermined.

The United States needs to discontinue not only its behind-the-scenes support for Israel, but also its “neutral facilitator” face that undermines the very negotiations it is trying to support.  For real progress on the Israel-Palestine question to be achieved, the United States must suspend assistance to both parties, including the suspension of military aid to Israel, unless the parties can come to an agreement on the five points listed above.  Once that basic agreement is achieved, the United States, in conjunction with the UN and with other states, can begin to recommit its resources to the two countries as they try to imagine the shape of a sustainable peace.