Tag: Israel/Palestine
Shore-up Jordan before it’s too late…
Ambassador Oded Eran (Senior Research Fellow, INSS, former Israeli ambassador to Jordan, the EU and NATO, and former head of the Israeli negotiating team with the Palestinians) and Eddie Grove (Research Assistant Intern, MEI and former Research Assistant Intern, INSS) co-authored an article entitled Threats to Stability in Jordan in the July 2015 issue of INSS Strategic Assessment. The article describes the challenges that Jordan must overcome in both the short-term and the long-term to remain stable.
Despite persistent predictions of the imminent demise of the Hashemite regime, Jordan has remained stable, buoyed by international aid from the US and the GCC. Jordan faces a growing jihadi threat, fueled largely by a poor economy and high youth unemployment. In the short-term, Jordan’s stability will be aided by low oil prices and a temporary rise in patriotism after pilot Muath al-Kasasbeh’s murder by ISIS. In the long-term, Jordan needs to address water and energy scarcity issues to remain stable and serve the needs of a growing population, including its many refugees.
Jordan has high unemployment, including a youth unemployment rate of ~30%. A few key reasons for this include:
- Jordan’s education system doesn’t provide students with necessary skills for the workforce.
- Jordanian students often choose fields of study that aren’t in high demand in the workforce.
- Syrian refugees compete for informal sector jobs.
Youth unemployment, often long in duration, leads to frustration. This frustration is compounded by a lack of avenues for political expression among Jordanian youth. Little real reform occurred during Jordan’s relatively small-scale Arab Spring protests.
Some discontented youth see jihadism as attractive. Experts estimate that there are 5,000-10,000 jihadis in Jordan, and that this number may have doubled since the Arab Spring. Jordan’s jihadis were traditionally mainly Palestinian, but growing numbers of ethnic Jordanians (East Bankers) have been joining the movement. East Bankers have traditionally been regime loyalists and comprise the majority of the military and security services. Cracks in their loyalty pose a serious threat to the regime.
The government closely watches jihadis; it arrests those who post jihadi content online and preachers who deliver extremist sermons. According to one expert, the vast majority of Jordan’s jihadis now sympathize with ISIS. ISIS has grassroots support, if not an organized presence. YouTube videos have shown pro-ISIS rallies in Ma’an and Zarqa and there is also evidence of ISIS sympathizers in Irbid. As of fall 2014, there were 1000-1500 Jordanian fighters in Syria, and 8% of Jordan’s population sympathized with ISIS. Ten percent didn’t consider ISIS a terrorist organization, and opposition to Jordan’s participation in coalition airstrikes was widespread: #ThisIsNotOurWar was a trending Twitter hashtag.
When Muath Al-Kasasbeh was murdered, it prompted an anti-ISIS backlash and a surge in patriotism. A February 2015 poll showed overwhelming support for Jordan’s participation in coalition airstrikes, and that 95% of the population now considered ISIS a terrorist organization. Confidence in PM Ensour’s government also increased. King Abdullah urged Jordanians to “hold their heads high.” This became a trending hashtag on Twitter. The surge in patriotism was not universal, however, as a Jordanian MP and a high-ranking Jordanian diplomat publicly derided this new slogan. In addition, an ISIS cell was arrested in Mafraq in March 2015, a poor city with many Syrian refugees.
The wave of patriotism will fade and energy costs will increase, so Jordan needs to address its water
and energy scarcity issues. Water scarcity may have been a contributory cause of Syria’s civil war, and Jordan is one of the world’s most water-scarce countries. Additionally, ~40% of the inputs into Jordan’s water networks become Non-revenue Water (NRW). NRW is essentially water that is not accounted for when customers are billed, due to leakage, illegal use, faulty meters, incompetent meter-readers, and poor accounting. Israel provides Jordan with water from Lake Kinneret, and this quantity may increase in the future. Jordan also plans to desalinate water at Aqaba. However, solving Jordan’s water crisis requires progress on multiple fronts, including NRW reduction (with the help of the international community). Climate change could worsen Jordan’s water woes, and comparisons between Jordan and Syria are ominous. Water scarcity drove internal migration in Syria, which combined with other factors like corruption, unemployment and inequality to ignite the crisis. Jordan displays similar risk factors.
Jordan must also address its energy scarcity issues. Jordan used to import natural gas from Egypt, but repeated terror attacks on the pipeline through the Sinai halted the imports and damaged Jordan economically, forcing it to import costlier petroleum products. Low oil prices provide a temporary respite. Fortunately, Jordan has plans to diversify its energy sources by 2020, with the following breakdown:
- 10% from wind and solar.
- 14% oil shale.
- 6% nuclear.
- 29% natural gas.
- 1% imported electricity.
- 40% petroleum products.
Unfortunately, this won’t happen, at least not by 2020. Israel may import gas from Israel, but this is politically challenging and Israel’s gas companies are embroiled in an anti-trust dispute with the Israeli government. Gas from Gaza is more politically palatable for Jordan, but is unlikely to come online soon for political reasons. Jordan imports LNG from Qatar, but this is costlier than gas via pipeline. Little progress has been made on the wind and solar projects, and Jordan’s nuclear ambitions may never come to fruition because of high costs and international opposition. Oil shale (not to be confused with shale oil) has never before been extracted on a commercial scale and may not be viable at oil prices below $75/barrel.
Costly energy imports damage Jordan’s economy (and therefore its stability) as follows:
- High energy prices increase the cost of living for struggling Jordanians.
- Jordan’s remaining energy subsidies are a burden on the government’s budget and divert funds from key areas.
- Energy subsidies crowd-out private sector investment.
Energy diversification (with the help of the international community) would alleviate these issues, and help counteract the poor economic conditions that contribute to the rise in jihadism.
Israel has a strong interest in preserving Jordan’s stability, as Jordan is a buffer state. Jordan used to
export goods through Syria, but Israel has allowed Jordan to use Haifa’s port for exports, and is improving the facilities there. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is always a complicating factor in Israeli-Jordanian relations; the majority of Jordan’s population is Palestinian, causing a political climate in which Jordan requires at least a semblance of progress in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations to ensure quiet domestically. Jordan’s 2014-2015 UN Security Council membership further complicates this balancing act.
To shore-up Jordan’s stability, Israel can:
- Increase bilateral cooperation (this has likely already happened).
- Expedite water and gas transfers.
- Allow for greater access of Jordanian products to Israel, but more importantly, the Palestinian market.
- Increase its use of Jordan’s port of Aqaba, which could produce mutual benefits.
In addition, the US and GCC must keep up financial assistance to Jordan, but ensure that this assistance addresses long-term issues. The immediate risk posed by ISIS is likely not a frontal attack. ISIS rather seeks to exploit pockets of poverty and unemployment within Jordan, including among East Bankers. Financial resources are needed to prevent this.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Fear of diplomacy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_pBnwyxGo8&feature=youtu.be
Sorry I can’t embed John Oliver’s commentary here at peacefare.net, but it is worth a few minutes to go enjoy it over at Youtube.
I can however offer this
from Connecticut’s Senator Chris Murphy, who is less funny but easily more interesting. His talk this morning at the Carnegie Endowment put the nuclear deal in the context of a Washington that is shies away from diplomacy–too risky–and tilts instead towards war, for which America is amply well-prepared. He also suggested that rejection of the deal would leave the US no other serious alternative, as the multilateral sanctions, constraints on Iran’s nuclear program and international inspections would evaporate.
This is the vital link in the logic that should lead to support for the deal even among those who don’t like it. Rob Satloff, whose writing I generally admire, argues that it is a false logic. The Congress can reject this deal, he suggests, and still get a satisfactory outcome. I find his argument thoroughly unpersuasive, stringing together an unlikely sequence of events that doesn’t even get us far into the future without resorting to war. Nor does he consider the reaction of the other countries that negotiated the deal.
Senator Murphy is far more realistic. He understands, I think, that rejection of this deal would be the equivalent in our time of Congress’ rejection of President Wilson’s League of Nations. It would put the US in the position of going to war as the only remaining resort rather than implementing an agreement four other permanent members of the UN Security Council find acceptable. Even Saudi Arabia and Israel, now strident opponents of the Iran nuclear deal, would not applaud the US as Iranian missiles rain down on Tel Aviv and the Kingdom’s oil fields. Instead they will be arguing for US ground forces to stop the barrage.
What happens if we reject the deal and refuse to destroy the Iranian nuclear program? Then Iran gets nuclear weapons quickly. Anyone worried about Iranian troublemaking in the region–an entirely well-founded concern–would then have a lot more to be concerned about. A nuclear Iran would no doubt throw its weight around more rather than less.
The Senator made a few other points worth mentioning in his post-speech conversation with Karim Sadjadpour. Even with the deal in force, he thinks the US will retain the right to impose sanctions on Iran for reasons other than nuclear issues. He suggested we would do so if Iran were to execute a terrorist bombing of Israeli tourists, for example. The Senator admitted that US companies are likely to be at a disadvantage in the competition for Iranian business. He thought US anti-bribery legislation would help to protect the business Americans do from capture by regime hardliners.
The Senator was hesitant on one issue: restoring diplomatic relations with Iran. That’s a long way off he suggested. He admitted that the US will need a real presence in Iran to ensure implementation of the agreement but was unwilling to commit to an interest section, suggesting instead that the IAEA inspectors might suffice.
In my view, they won’t, because their remit is entirely technical. I served seven years abroad in US embassies working nonproliferation issues. I think we need our own people in a diplomatically protected facility in Tehran, if only on two and three week trips. But maybe the time is not yet ripe for that proposal. Let’s get the agreement through the uphill fight in Congress first.
PS: If John Oliver didn’t satiate your taste for videos, try this less funny one from Jon Stewart last night (with President Obama).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Netanyahu v Hammond
This is about as good an exchange as you are going to find on the Iran nuclear deal:
From my point of view, it is telling that Netanyahu says absolutely nothing about how multilateral sanctions, international inspections and technological constraints on Iran’s nuclear program would be maintained in the absence of a deal. He simply repeats that he wants maintenance of sanctions and a better deal, one that somehow ends burning of Israeli flags in Tehran as well as other odious Iranian behavior. I’d like a pony too.
Note also: Netanyahu suggests North Korea developed its nuclear weapons while under IAEA monitoring. That is not really true. Pyongyang ejected the inspectors and withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 2003. It first tested a nuclear weapon in 2006. Of course Iran could also withdraw from the NPT, but the agreement reached this week includes the following sentence:
Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.
You can believe it or not, but it certainly goes beyond previous commitments Iran has made in writing.
I’d score this bout a win for Hammond, but admittedly that is the direction in which I lean. There simply is no good alternative to an agreement. Whether this one is the best we could get or not, it is now the only one available. Netanyahu and other opponents will soon be screeching about the need to implement it to the letter and complaining about every conceivable Iranian deviation.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Yes, a nuclear deal means trouble
I am a proponent of a good nuclear deal with Iran. But I have taken some time this week to appreciate Israel’s perspective. Here is what I have understood and how I react.
The Israelis are concerned with the geostrategic impact of a deal with Iran that will accept and thereby legitimize its enrichment program. Other countries in the region that have in the past been constrained from pursuing enrichment will now proceed, in particular Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Whereas Turkey may be a more or less consolidated democracy, it is unpredictable who might come to power in the Kingdom or Egypt and what they might do with nuclear technology.
At the same time, Iran’s pernicious proxies in the region–until now deterred by Israel’s military capabilities–will be emboldened and enriched with resources once multilateral sanctions are lifted. Iran doesn’t much care about US sanctions. The ideology of the regime requires that the US remain an enemy. It will be sufficient for Europe, Russia and China to begin doing business with Tehran to put lots of money in its pockets. Any help the US gets from Iran and its proxies in fighting the Islamic State will be short-lived.
Everyone in the region, not just Israel, will feel less secure. An arms race will ensue. The buying spree will put advanced weapons into the hands of regimes that are not stable or reliable. No one knows where they will end up.
American reassurances are dubious. One hundred per cent access to Iranian facilities is impossible. No country has ever provided it. Iran won’t either. Nor can sanctions “snap back.” Neither the Russians nor the Chinese will agree to a mechanism that they are unable to block.
In my view, these preoccupations all have their validity. The trouble is the outcomes feared are likely whether there is an agreement or not. Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are already under no legal restraint from enriching uranium whenever they please. Multilateral sanctions are unlikely to survive much longer, due to Chinese and European hunger for oil and gas as well as their interest in exporting to Iran. Arms have been pouring into the Gulf countries as well as Egypt and Jordan for years. There is already no lack of advanced equipment in hands that may or may not be reliable.
On top of all that, no agreement means no inspections and no constraints on the Iranian nuclear program. That is worse than the ample access to Iran’s nuclear program, and serious constraints, that an agreement will have to provide.
It is hard not to see the Israeli preoccupations as nostalgia for a region that they dominated for decades. Iran was marginalized, the Arabs were under America’s thumb, and Israel could do, and did, as it liked.
But that is not the eternal order in the Middle East. There is no way to keep Iran in its diminished position, much as we might like to try. Nor are the Arabs inclined to remain under American control. The prospect of a nuclear deal is ironically inclining them more than ever before to make common cause with Israel against Iran, whatever the Americans think. Just think what would happen if the Israelis were to settle with the Palestinians!
The bottom line: Israel wanted Iran to be forced to give up enrichment and will be satisfied with nothing less. But that was unlikely at best and impossible at worst.
Provided the verification mechanisms in any nuclear deal reached in the next few days are robust, including accounting for past military dimensions, all of us will need to learn to live with a still non-nuclear-armed Iran that is less constrained and more flush with cash than in the recent past. We’ll also need to be prepared to deter and counter its troublemaking, at least until someone who doesn’t see America as an enemy governs in Tehran.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks July 6-10
1. A Conversation with French Minister of Defense Jean-Yves Le Drian| Monday, July 6th | 4:00 | German Marshall Fund | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) invites you to a conversation with French Minister of Defense Jean-Yves Le Drian. The focus of the discussion will center on France’s defense priorities, as well as the future of U.S.-French cooperation in meeting the spectrum of challenges currently facing Europe and the United States. Jean-Yves Le Drian is the French minister of defense. He was appointed in 2012, serving in this position through two governments. Le Drian has overseen French intervention in Mali in
2013, France’s Operation Barkhane in the Sahel, a counter terrorism mission conducted in partnership with Mali, Chad, Burkina Faso, Mauritania, and Niger, and operation Chammal in support of the Iraqi forces again Daesh. As minister of defense, Le Drian also directed the publication of the French White Book on Defense and National Security in 2-13. Prior to this, Le Drian was the president of the Brittany Regional Council from 2004 to 2012. Until 2007, Le Drian was deputy of Morbihan to the National Assembly, having first been elected in 1978. In this position, he sat on the National Defense Committee. Previously, Le Drian held the position of mayor of Lorient from 1981-1998, during which time he also served as France’s secretary of state of the sea.
2. EnCourage Pt. II: Voices From the Middle East| Tuesday, July 7th | 9:00 | Johns Hopkins SAIS – Nitze Building | REGISTER TO ATTEND | After a successful EnCourage conference in Jerusalem this year, New Story Leadership (NSL) returns to Washington with our 2015 Team of five Israeli and five Palestinian students aged 20 – 32 to host EnCourage Pt. II: Voices from the Middle East in partnership with the Johns Hopkins University Conflict Management Program. This second EnCourage conference comes at time when the conversation about Israel and Palestine has been
dominated by hopelessness. In the face of stalemate, NSL has reached out to young activists in Israel and Palestine to tell stories of courage and hope for the Middle East. The conference will include keynote speeches by four NSL Team members, a panel discussion, and a question-and-answer session between the Team, academic panel, and the audience. Keynote speakers include: Abeer Shehadeh, University of Haifa, Israel, Shay Ater, Tel Aviv University, Israel, Mohammad Al-Hroub, Al Quds University, Palestine, and Yaara Elazari, Integrated Program for the Hebrew University and the Jerusalem Academy for Music and Dance, Israel. Panelists include: Professor Marc Gopin, James H. Laue Professor of Religion, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution, and the Director of the Center on Religion, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution, George Mason University, Professor Stef Woods, American Studies Program, American University, Dr. Manana Gnolidze-Swanson, George Mason University, and Dr. Boaz Atzili, Director of the SIS Doctoral Program, American University. Additional panelists TBA!
3. The New Containment: Changing America’s Approach to Middle East Security| Tuesday, July 7th | 12:00-1:30 | Atlantic Council| REGISTER TO ATTEND | Securing the Middle East after an Iran nuclear deal is the region and the world’s next big challenge. The United States and its allies have engaged in tireless diplomacy with Iran over the past few years to produce an agreement that would limit Tehran’s nuclear program for the next decade and a half. But the hard work does not stop here, and in fact, it may have just begun. To protect the deal and take full advantage of its potential benefits – which include the drastic reduction of the risk of nuclear weapons proliferating in the region – the United States needs a comprehensive strategy for regional security in the Middle East. After all, the ultimate prize and broader objective is and has always been to secure and stabilize the region, and a nuclear deal with Iran – as strategically significant as it is – is only one piece of the Middle East security puzzle. Please join the Atlantic Council for a launch of a report by Brent Scowcroft Center Senior Fellow for Middle East Security Bilal Saab entitled The New Containment: Changing America’s Approach to Middle East Security and a debate on the future role of the United States in the Middle East following a nuclear deal with Iran. Additional speakers include: Barry Posen, Director, Security Studies Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Richard Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations. Moderated by: Barbara Starr, Pentagon Correspondent CNN
4. Two Unforeseen Wars: A Military Analysis of the Conflict in Ukraine and the Campaign against ISIS | Tuesday, July 7th | 2:00-3:00 | International Institute for Strategic Studies | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The unexpected Russian occupation of Crimea, the subsequent insurgency in eastern Ukraine and the rapid conquest of much of northern and western Iraq by ISIS were all strategic shocks. But there is now enough reporting on the conflicts to allow a preliminary analysis of their military contours, including the similarities and differences between the two wars. Brigadier Ben Barry will present the military dynamics of both the Ukrainian conflict and the ISIS insurgency, while examining the emerging military lessons of the conflicts and the military challenges that the pose for the US, NATO and their allies. Speakers include: Ben Barry, Senior Fellow for Land Warfare, IISS and Samuel Charap, Senior Fellow for Russia and Eurasia, IISS.
5. The Iran Negotiations: Is this Really the End Game? |Wednesday, July 8th | 11:00-12:15 | Wilson Center |REGISTER TO ATTEND | Despite the uncertainties, the United States and Iran seem to be in the final stages of what promises to be a comprehensive accord on the nuclear issue. Join us as analysts and observers of Iran, Middle Eastern politics, and U.S. foreign policy assess the state of the current negotiations, the implications of an accord and the consequences for the region without one. Speakers include: Robert S. Litwak, Vice President for Scholars and Academic Relations and Director, International Security Studies, Aaron David Miller, Vice President for New Initiatives and Distinguished Scholar; Historian, analyst, negotiator, and former advisor to Republican and Democratic Secretaries of State on Arab-Israeli negotiations, 1978-2003, Jane Harman, Director, President and CEO, Wilson Center, Henri J. Barkey, Director, Middle East Program, Danielle Pletka, Senior Vice President for Foreign Policy Studies, AEI and former Senate Committee on Foreign Relations senior professional staff member, Robin Wright, USIP-Wilson Center Distinguished Scholar; Journalist and Author/Editor of eight books, most recently editor of “The Islamists Are Coming: Who They Really Are.”
6. Hearing: Implications of a Nuclear Agreement with Iran | Thursday, July 9th | 10:00-1:00 | Rayburn House Office Building | Chairman Royce on the hearing: “As we anticipate a congressional review of the Administration’s possible nuclear agreement with Iran, we’ll be looking to see how the Administration has done on Congress’ red lines. Did we get anywhere, anytime inspections? Full Iranian transparency regarding its past nuclear activities? No large-scale, immediate sanctions relief; but guaranteed, workable sanctions snap-backs? Meaningful restraints on Iran’s nuclear program that last decades? This hearing will be the first in a series the Committee will hold should the Administration strike what might be one of the most significant agreements in decades. As I have said, no deal is far better than a bad deal.” Witnesses include: The Honorable Stephen G. Rademaker, Foreign Policy Project Advisor, Bipartisan Policy Center, (Former Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Arms Control & Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, U.S. Department of State), Michael Doran, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Michael Makovsky, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer, JINSA Germunder Center Iran Task Force.
7. Middle East Energy: Beyond an Iran Nuclear Deal |Thursday, July 9th | 10:30-12:00 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Iran hopes that the pending nuclear framework agreement will lead to much needed foreign investment in its oil and gas sector. Insofar as eased sanctions permit, billions of dollars will be needed to reverse production declines and re-establish production growth. How realistic are Iran’s aspirations to attract such investment, and what increased production and exports can be reasonably expected over the near to medium term? In turn, what will be the impact
of increased Iranian exports on its neighbors, notably Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and their desire to secure a larger share of the global market? How will the Saudis and other Gulf monarchies react to Iranian moves? What are the implications of changes in Saudi national and energy leadership and of Kurdish moves to produce and export separately from Baghdad? What is the effect of these regional changes on the global energy balance? Energy experts will explore these issues in this eighth event in the Wilson Center’s Regional and Global Energy Series. Speakers include: David L. Goldwyn, President, Goldwyn Global Strategies LLC, David Gordon, Senior Advisor, Eurasia Group, Julia Nanay, Principal, Energy Ventures LLC, Jean-Francois Seznec, Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council. Moderator: Jan H. Kalicki, Wilson Center Public Policy Fellow and Energy Lead.
8. The Iran Deal and its Consequences | Thursday, July 9th | 2:00-3:30 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany (P5+1) are expected to reach a ground-breaking comprehensive nuclear agreement by the end of June or shortly thereafter. The panelists will analyze the agreement in terms of its impact on nonproliferation, regional dynamics, US-Iran relations, and trade and investment in Iran. They will also discuss the potential obstacles to implementation both in Iran and in the United States. Panelists include: Kelsey Davenport, Director for Nonproliferation Policy, Arms Control Association, Kenneth Katzman, Middle East Specialist, Congressional Research Service, Clifford Kupchan, Chairman, Eurasia Group, John Limbert, Professor of Middle Eastern Studies, US Naval Academy. Moderated by: Barbara Slavin, Senior Fellow, South Asia Center, Atlantic Council.
9. Washington D.C. Launch: Report of the Commission on Global Security, Justice & Governance | Thursday, July 9th | 2:00-3:30 | Stimson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | In the face of growing mass violence in fragile states, the threat of runaway climate change, and fears of devastating cross-border economic shocks and cyber attacks, the world needs a new kind of leadership, combined with new tools, networks, and institutions. The Hague Institute for Global Justice and the Stimson Center, in collaboration with the One Earth Future Foundation and UN Foundation, invite you to the Washington, D.C. launch of Confronting the Crisis of Global Governance, the new report of the Commission on Global Security, Justice & Governance. The report offers a vision for just security, to ensure that neither justice nor security imperatives are neglected by critical international policy debates in 2015 and beyond. It further presents a bold, yet practical action plan for innovating global governance, and ways to mobilize diverse actors to advance reform to better respond to 21st century threats, challenges, and opportunities. Co-chair of the Commission on Global Security, Justice & Governance Madeleine K. Albright and Commissioner Jane Holl Lute will discuss the report.
10. A View from the Frontlines of Islamist Insurgency: Perspectives on Terrorism in the Middle East and South Asia | Friday, July 10th | 12:00-1:30 | Heritage Foundation | REGISTER TO ATTEND | What do ISIS’s rise in Iraq and Syria and Iran’s new-found power and growing sphere of influence in the region portend for the broader Middle East? What is being done to counter Islamist
extremist forces in the region and what is the current state of play? How do the current regional dynamics impact the threat from al-Qaeda, especially in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Join us at The Heritage Foundation as a panel of experts discuss the evolving regional dynamics and trends pertaining to the threat of Islamist extremism and share with us various perspectives on the struggle against the threat. Speakers include: Sara Carter, Senior Reporter, American Media Institute, Sebastian Gorka, Ph.D., Major General Matthew C. Horner Distinguished Chair of Military Theory, Marine Corps University, and Katherine Zimmerman, Research Fellow, American Enterprise Institute.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace for sale
Monday the Wilson Center hosted Calculating the Costs of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, which was a presentation of a RAND Corporation study. Here is a link to the study. Ambassador Charles Ries (Vice President, International, RAND Corporation) and C. Ross Anthony (Senior Economist, RAND Corporation and Director, RAND Israeli-Palestinian Initiative) explained the methodology and key findings of the study. Lucy Kurtzer-Ellenbogen (Director, Arab-Israeli Programs U.S. Institute of Peace) and Aaron David Miller (Vice President for New Initiatives, the Wilson Center) provided their assessments of the significance and potential impact of the study.
The study examined the economic impact of five different trajectories for the conflict over a ten-year period:
- A two-state solution based on the Clinton parameters.
- A unilateral Israeli withdrawal from much of the West Bank coordinated with the Palestinians and the international community.
- An uncoordinated unilateral Israeli withdrawal from part of the West Bank.
- Nonviolent Palestinian resistance, through the internationalization of the conflict and nonviolent demonstrations.
- A violent Palestinian uprising.
The study compared each of these trajectories to the status quo, in which current trends continue for the next 10 years, and considered the impact of each scenario on direct costs to both parties, as well as on missed economic opportunities because of the perpetuation of the conflict. The study did not model a one-state solution because of the uncertainty regarding the character of such a state.
A two-state solution would provide the greatest economic benefit to both sides. Conversely, a violent Palestinian uprising would be most harmful to both sides. Neither unilateral withdrawal scenario would have a significant economic impact on either side. Nonviolent Palestinian resistance would harm both sides economically, though not as much as a violent uprising.
A two-state solution would provide a greater benefit to Israel in absolute terms, but a greater proportional benefit to the Palestinians. Israel’s GDP would be $23 billion larger in 10 years over what it would have been if present trends continued. The GDP of the West Bank and Gaza would be $9.7 billion larger in 10 years over what it would have been if present trends continued. This translates to a 5% increase in Israel’s GDP but a nearly 50% increase in the GDP of the West Bank and Gaza. The study assumed that Israel’s security costs would not change in a two state solution, but that a decrease in uncertainty, an increase in trade with the Arab world and the Palestinians, an influx of Palestinian labor into Israel, and increased tourism would boost the economy. On the Palestinian side, increased tourism, freedom of movement, Palestinian labor in Israel, and trade are among the factors that would boost the economy.
By contrast, a violent uprising would pose heavy costs on Israel through an increase in instability, increased security costs as well as decreased trade, Palestinian labor in Israel, and tourism. Palestinians would suffer from decreased Palestinian labor in Israel, destruction of property, greater restrictions on movement, more prisoners in Israel, more barriers to trade and the dissolution of the Palestinian Authority. Israel’s GDP would be reduced by 10% relative to the baseline scenario and the GDP of the West Bank and Gaza would be reduced by approximately 45% relative to the baseline scenario.
The study’s authors did not recommend a path forward for Israelis and Palestinians and noted that the various intangible factors (conflicting national narratives, lack of leadership, lack of urgency, etc.) that have led to the current impasse in the conflict fall outside the purview of this study.
Lucy Kurtzer-Ellenbogen noted that this study presents the conflict as opportunity-based rather than rights-based, and allows groups advocating for a solution to the conflict to use data to support their case. Nonetheless, the impasse in the peace process is likely to persist because of mutual distrust. The recent election of a right wing, nationalist government in Israeli reinforces the Palestinian perception that the Israelis have not been negotiating in good faith. Operation Protective Edge reinforced the Israeli view that no Palestinian leader can guarantee an end to Palestinian land claims inside pre-1967 Israel.
Aaron David Miller noted that if it were possible to buy a solution to the conflict through economic inducements, this would have happened already. The issues of security, competing narratives, broken trust, and psychological trauma must be addressed before the two parties can look rationally at the opportunity costs. In addition, the leadership, urgency, and effective third-party mediator required to solve the conflict are missing. The good news is that the study got a lot of publicity and interest. The bad news is that nobody knows what to do about it.
RSS - Posts
