In FrenchIn SpanishIn Russian
Algeria
Central Africa
Somalia
Sudan
West Africa
Zimbabwe
Afghanistan & Pakistan
Burma/Myanmar
Central Asia
Indonesia
Albania
Bosnia
Kosovo
Macedonia
Montenegro
Serbia
Colombia
EU
HIV/AIDS
Terrorism
Overview
Who's on ICG's Board
Who's on ICG's Staff
What they say about ICG
Publications
Latest Annual Report
Comments/Op-Eds
Internal News
Web site of Gareth Evans
Vacancies
How to help
Donors
ICG Brussels
ICG Washington
ICG New York
ICG Paris
ICG London
Media Releases
Media Contacts
Comments/Op-Eds
Crisisweb
About ICG
Information
Contacts
Funding
Media
Projects
Africa
Asia
Balkans
Latin America
Middle East
Issues

Subscribe to ICG newsletter
 
 
Search
 
 

"Wanted: U.S. leadership"
Comment by Ken Adelman and Stephen J. Solarz in the Washington Times


With homicidal bombers continuing their gruesome campaign of terrorism against Israel and Israeli forces engaged in large-scale retaliatory attacks against Palestinians, now is the time for hard thought about how the United States can transform the cycle of violence into a stable peace.

No one can legitimately question Israel's right — indeed, its obligation — to defend itself from terrorist attacks. Yet military power alone cannot solve Israel's security problem. The only way to break the violent stalemate, which does so much to harm Israeli, Palestinian and U.S. interests, is through vigorous American leadership beyond the incremental approach that has been tried — and largely failed — before.

The United States should now prepare, and publicly present, a comprehensive peace proposal. It must combine strong security steps with a clear articulation of what a fair and final settlement should look like. Let's call it the Bush Plan.

This plan must differ from its predecessors in two ways — by setting out a clear understanding of the endgame, and by insisting that other countries share the burden of bringing about agreement.

A lasting cease-fire can only be achieved if the parties see a comprehensive political settlement laid out by the international community that, while hard to accept, meets the bottom-line concerns of each: security and acceptance for the Israelis and a viable state with a fair solution to the refugee problem for the Palestinians.

There is no denying that some Palestinian groups — Hamas and Islamic Jihad chief among them — will endeavor to continue their attacks, even with a peace plan in place. To neutralize them, we must create a context in which the Palestinian Authority and reasonable Palestinians have the incentive and ability to suppress them. This is best done by making it clear that legitimate Palestinian aspirations can realistically be achieved through a political process, while continued resort to violence and terror will render them unattainable. The offer of an interim arrangement, inherent in the Tenet and Mitchell plans, is no longer sufficient — and the Oslo Agreement has been overtaken by events.

Full implementation of the plan would be carried out in phases, contingent on both sides meeting their commitments. But the end game must be clear from the start.

The plan's building blocks — and the major concessions each side would need to make — are fairly well known, and have been laid out in a report prepared by the International Crisis Group:
• Two states, Israel and Palestine, would live side-by-side.
• Israel would withdraw to secure borders roughly along 1967 lines, with Palestinian sovereignty over Gaza and most of the West Bank. Israel would withdraw from most of its settlements, but a small area of the West Bank –—with the majority of Israeli settlers — would be annexed by Israel.
• The Palestinians would be compensated through a land swap in which Israel would give the Palestinians an equivalent amount of territory from Israel proper.
• A redefinition of Jerusalem would allow both Israel and Palestine to govern their own people in an open city. The Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would be the capital of Palestine. West Jerusalem and the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would be the capital of Israel. Palestine would govern the Temple Mount and Israel would govern the Western Wall. There would be internationally backed guarantees for these holy sites.
• Palestine would be a non-militarized state.
• A U.S.-led international force would help provide security to both states.
• The refugee issue would be resolved in a way that addresses the Palestinians' deep sense of injustice without upsetting Israel's demographic balance. The solution would include financial compensation, the choice of resettlement in Palestine or third countries, or a return to that part of today's Israel swapped for territory on the West Bank.
• The Palestinians would renounce any additional claims against Israel and, together with all — or roughly all — other Arab states, establish full diplomatic relations with Israel.

While there is no alternative to the United States playing a leading role — because of its unique leverage and its special relationship with Israel — other international actors must be more engaged in the process of moving to this final status agreement. Europe should play a productive role in providing political and security guarantees to Israel. They, as well as Arab states, will have to follow support for peace with sizeable financial commitments to the Palestinians. Most importantly, key Arab states — Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia — must provide strong and public support for the plan and stop government-sanctioned anti-Semitic polemics. By doing so, they would send a message of acceptance and reassurance to the Israeli public while furnishing some political cover for Palestinian leaders. This is the most realistic way to end the terrorist threat against Israel and free the Palestinians from occupation. Recent polls have shown that a majority of Israelis would support a peace agreement roughly along these lines. There is reason to believe that a majority of Palestinians would favor it as well. Even if the current leaders were to reject such a plan, it could nevertheless create a new political dynamic facilitating the emergence of more receptive leaderships eventually willing to embrace it.

There can be no question that this approach will require a major commitment of Bush administration effort and prestige. But we believe that the plan is the best way to safeguard key U.S. interests: a secure Israel at peace with its neighbors, and a Middle East freed from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the damage it does to U.S. interests and relationships.

Ultimately, the best way to ensure that Israel can be a secure, democratic Jewish state is to build a viable, stable, democratic, non-militarized Palestinian state willing to live in peace with Israel. The events of this spring have shown that the United States cannot afford to shrink from that challenge.

© 2002 News World Communications, Inc.



Home - About ICG - Middle East Menu - Publications - Media - Contacts - Site Guide - TOP - Credits



Back to the homepage
Latest Reports
"Wanted: U.S. leadership"
Comment by Ken Adelman and Stephen J. Solarz in the Washington Times

Comment
7 June 2002

"Rebuilding a Damaged Palestine"
Piece by Robert Malley in The New York Times

Comment
7 May 2002

"A Path to Peace, Time is Ripe for an End-of-Conflict Deal in the Middle East"
Comment by Robert Malley and Hussein Agha in The Washington Post.

Comment
28 April 2002

"The Last Negotiation: How to End the Middle East Peace Process". Piece by Robert Malley and Hussein Agha in Foreign Affairs, May/June 2002.
Comment
22 April 2002

"Get to peace by putting politics first"
Comment by Gareth Evans in the Observer OnLine.

Comment
14 April 2002