Politics are the enemy of negotiations

The discussion surrounding the Palestine/Israel conflict continues to be split between pessimists and optimists. Jane Harman, president of the Woodrow Wilson Center, sided with the optimists when introducing this week’s panel on “Getting to a Two State Solution: A Regional Perspective.” She cited Secretary Kerry’s fortitude, President Obama’s good relationship with the Israelis and a recent freeze on settlement building.

Ghaith Al-Omari of the American Task force on Palestine, does not share her optimism. The regional chaos has complicated the situation and drawn attention away from the Palestinian issue. This distraction happens every few years.  Palestinian issues currently  take a back seat to events in Syria, Egypt and Libya.  One of the major problems in the peace process is the constant fluidity and re-arrangement of regional alliances, which creates a knot of competing interests and stops progress.

Internal politics are also a crucial factor. Palestinian Authority President Abbas has no reason to come to the negotiating table right now. He currently has no real political competition and would not want to risk losing political capital to engage in talks doomed to failure. Abbas has a record of gaining political points by standing up to the United States and Prime Minister Netanyahu. Aaron David Miller of the Wilson Center reinforced this point from the American perspective. To govern, the Obama administration has to pick and choose issues. Right now, domestic politics are a heavy priority. Like Abbas, Obama would only facilitate negotiations if there is a likelihood of political gain, which seems unlikely. No one is coming to the table for fear of failure.

Marwan Muasher of the Carnegie Endowment joined al-Omari in his pessimism. Time is running out and waiting is futile. A two-state solution is optimal for Israel and Palestine, but in the current situation, there is no chance of the two sides coming to a solution on their own. The United States is the only player capable of facilitating negotiation, but can the US commit to what it takes to reach a solution? The Palestinian issue is simply not in the White House’s top priorities. The Arabs would need to be convinced once again that the peace process is serious and not heavily weighted against them. The past decade of negotiations is analogous to “two sides arguing over a slice of pizza while one side is eating it.”

What is needed to move forward is an incentive for political leaders to act. Al-Omari suggested possible political repercussions if neither side is willing to join negotiations. The process also needs a boost of credibility. Failures on a large scale not only damage the leaders involved, but the credibility of the entire process.  The Americans need to prove to the Palestinians that they can deliver Israel and put forth parameters that are specific enough to allow for quick progress.

Gilead Sher, former policy coordinator for Prime Minister Ehud Barak, emphasized the necessity of negotiations. From the Israeli perspective, a two-state solution is the only way to ensure a lasting democracy for the Jewish people.  Negotiations are the right tool to achieve lasting peace, but they are currently in need of greater sophistication. Internally, Israel needs to have a dialogue on what they want the character of their state to be for coming generations. Internally, Palestine needs to make serious steps toward reform and strengthening state institutions.  The old negotiating paradigm allowed for nothing to be agreed upon until everything was agreed upon. The new paradigm must function where anything that is agreed upon should be implemented.