2010 Must Be Showtime for Mideast Peace

As 2009 draws to a close, we are bombarded by the annual litany of commentary features recapping the year in Hollywood movies to the year in international conflict, and everything in between.

When it comes to the Middle East peace process, current conventional wisdom suggests the 2009 recap might go something like this: 

Despite committing his administration to achieve progress, appointing a special envoy in his first days in office and reaching out to the Muslim world in unprecedented fashion, President Obama has been unsuccessful in advancing the Middle East peace process. He was unable to secure a full Israeli settlement freeze or get the parties to begin negotiations, and he alienated – and angered – both Israelis and Palestinians in the process. The Arab states, led by Saudi Arabia, did not come through with confidence building measures as the president had proposed. Today, the Middle East peace process is stuck in the mud, with no clear way of getting out.

This should come as no surprise. Years of failure in achieving peace have taught us that when analyzing the Middle East peace process, pessimism is usually considered realistic, optimism naive.  

The truth usually lies somewhere in-between.

As with many of the domestic and foreign policy issues the president tackled in his first year in office, the Middle East peace process in 2009 suffered from overly inflated expectations. President Obama’s stirring election victory engendered hope that “change we can believe in” might mean sweeping ends to regional conflicts and a quick economic turnaround.

In reality, change requires perseverance and time.  

The administration demonstrated an abundance of resolve in its Mideast diplomacy in 2009.  Entering the White House, the president was dealt a very difficult hand. He inherited a conflict with fresh tensions following Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, a fiercely divided Palestinian polity and, shortly after his inauguration, a right-wing government in Israel that was skeptical of – and in some cases vocally opposed to – the idea of a two-state solution.  

Matters were made worse for the administration after it committed its share of mistakes. When the U.S. demanded nothing less than a complete Israeli settlement freeze, it raised expectations even higher and ensured that the Palestinians would demand no less before returning to the negotiating table. The September meeting the president hosted in New York between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was framed by much of the international media as a mere photo-op, or worse.

Despite the high expectations, hurdles, and missteps, the administration remained dedicated, unequivocally committed to a resolution to the conflict that it repeatedly identified as “a national security interest of the United States.” As a result, there were some significant achievements in 2009.

Firstly, Israel’s Likud Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accepted the concept of a two-state solution in his speech at Bar Ilan University on June 14. This was by no means a sweeping endorsement of “two states for two peoples,” nor was it without a host of preconditions which would seemingly make a two-state solution improbable.  But the significance of a right-wing Likud prime minister endorsing the two-state concept should not be undervalued. As the Geneva Initiative’s Gadi Baltiansky told an Israel Policy Forum (IPF) audience during a conference call shortly after the speech:  “while Netanyahu's remarks set up limitations, reservations, and conditions on a state, it created a consensus that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will end with the creation of a Palestinian state.”  This is no small feat.

Secondly, significant improvements in the West Bank, including in the areas of economy and security, have continued and, as a result, the foundation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank was strengthened in 2009. Israel has removed numerous manned checkpoints and dozens of roadblocks throughout the West Bank in the past year, easing Palestinian movement throughout the territory. The economy is projected to have 7 percent growth in 2009. Meanwhile, American-trained security forces have transformed the security environment in much of the West Bank.  Fatah, the ruling party of the P.A. in the West Bank, held its first conference in nearly twenty years in an effort to rid its reputation of corruption and cronyism, and the P.A.’s Prime Minister Salam Fayyad announced a detailed plan to build the infrastructure of a Palestinian state within the next two years. The impact of all these developments is to make a viable Palestinian state appear more realistic than ever.

Thirdly, while the moratorium on construction recently announced by Israel does not include East Jerusalem – and was coupled with numerous unhelpful comments and political maneuvers in support of the settlement movement, including Israel’s ill-timed announcement this week of new homes to be built in East Jerusalem – the limited freeze does represent a step forward.  As IPF’s Roberta Fahn Schoffman recently wrote: 

Like Netanyahu’s endorsement of two states at Bar Ilan University last June, this move is one more irrevocable step toward a two-state solution.  Yes, in ten months, should there be no progress, or should the Palestinians continue to boycott negotiations, the moratorium can be revoked. But the larger gesture is irreversible, because Bibi Netanyahu has once again crossed the ideological divide. He has poked one more hole in the Greater Land of Israel balloon, and has given momentum to the growing Israeli mindset that accepts the inevitable division of the land. For those holding firm to the belief that a peaceful, two-state resolution to the conflict is still possible, this is a very good thing.

Finally, after Israel’s Operation Cast Lead ended just prior to President Obama’s inauguration, there have been few instances of Israeli-Palestinian violence in 2009.  As long as this remains to be true, the opportunity to re-start peace talks and achieve progress toward ending the conflict is infinitely greater.  Unfortunately, the return of tit-for-tat violence this past week – in which an Israeli was shot and killed in the West Bank and Israeli forces subsequently killed three Palestinian militants deemed responsible – is a reminder that the current relative calm is extremely fragile. 

Indeed, while some significant steps were taken in 2009, the many obstacles facing a more peaceful and secure future for the region remain large and complex heading into 2010.  

The administration’s many New Year’s resolutions must include re-starting Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, addressing the situation in Gaza, engaging the Arab world to play a more constructive role, and assuring that the process on the ground for Israelis and Palestinians will be deepened and broadened. Above all, the U.S. must instill confidence in the peoples and leaders of the region that with America’s stewardship – and their own courageous leadership – a sustainable resolution to the conflict is attainable.

It will be no easy task, but one that must be achieved. The administration has shown it has the necessary determination. Its early engagement suggests the White House recognizes that it does not have a limitless amount of time. If 2009 set the stage for real change in the Middle East, then 2010 must be show-time.