---

By : Dr. Ziad J. Asali

---

:: Since the end of World War II and Israel’s establishment in 1948, the US has played a dominant role in decision-making and management of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The Oslo Accords were signed in Washington. The Madrid peace conference was organized and dominated by the US. The entire American landscape, beyond the White House, is sprinkled with venues that hosted the peace process.

Through war and peace, the US has provided support and increasing authority to Israel throughout its history. This support has been bipartisan and popular for decades, but it is not impervious to today’s aggressively partisan American politics. The US has kept the peace process alive and left both sides eager for its support. Speculation that American dominance over the peace process might wane is, charitably speaking, idle at best.

The long-standing US position in support of a two-state solution has not officially changed, but the reality on the ground, in the air and in cyberspace has. The prospect of a Palestinian state has steadily diminished, but no substitute solution has emerged or been publicly adopted. Israel has not agreed on strategic answers to fundamental questions about land, demography or citizenship, all of which have a profound impact on final-status negotiations.

The US has not laid down its own vision or proposals regarding these issues or where they fit in a shared regional security regime. Palestinian official policy continues to demand an end to the occupation and the creation of a state. But the reality is that Palestinian politics is deeply fractured, and more starkly, the issue of Palestine does not top the Arab agenda as it once did. Israel’s polity is nowhere close to supporting two states.

So regardless of US engagement, Israeli and Palestinian political realities, and the fissures within them, are at present incompatible with conflict-ending negotiations that would yield meaningful final-status results. While there is no military solution to the conflict, it is crucial to note that decades-old negotiations have also failed to produce a solution despite several spectacular, high-profile attempts.

It is time to be modest and to search for a less ambitious goal. At a time when both Palestinian and Israeli politics are fractured, the polarizing narratives on both sides have become the dominant ones (as evidenced by the persistence of the zero-sum mindset) and the power disparity of the antagonists deepens, the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Israel’s government cannot agree on a negotiated solution.

The world and the US will not impose one. But the absence of a negotiated conflict-ending solution does not mean negotiations should not occur. The opposite is true. There is an urgency to negotiate issues that can open an indispensable path to peace and stability. The time has come to seek a policy focused on removing the impediments to reaching a deal. This policy is not about an interim agreement, and must not preclude any future options.

The long-standing US position in support of a two-state solution has not officially changed, but the reality on the ground, in the air and in cyberspace has. The prospect of a Palestinian state has steadily diminished, but no substitute solution has emerged or been publicly adopted.

Dr. Ziad J. Asali

Let us call this the “managing-the-transition phase.” The two parties cannot do this part by themselves, even if they wanted to. They both require American partnership. The US has the qualifications and wherewithal needed for this phase. It has convened, facilitated and helped implement all agreements about the peace process, including those negotiated outside the US, such as Oslo and Madrid.

Once the hard decision to postpone final-status negotiations is made, all talks during this phase must focus on managing the transition. This means negotiators need to identify, detoxify, ameliorate and adjust the present negative realities and mindsets that perpetuate the conflict. This means reassessing policies and practices that impact Palestinians’ quality of life. Beautifying the occupation is an odious concept.

But providing security, safety and better living conditions is a noble objective and a rational strategy. The objective of this phase would be to prioritize and implement the rule of law, good governance and accountable institutions, economic and trade cooperation and enhanced mobility. Palestinian good governance requires diligence, transparency and oversight. It would enhance Palestinians’ empowerment, a prerequisite for future stability.

All this would have a significant impact on Palestinian lives and politics on both sides. The most effective weapon against terrorism is good governance. The sooner it is achieved, the better. The occupation is incompatible with long-term stability. Normalization, which is much reviled by many Palestinians and considered surrender to beautifying the occupation, is a two-way street. To put it mildly, Palestinians do not lead normal lives under occupation.

Ending the coercive and humiliating contacts between Israel’s government and the Palestinians is a normalization that few of the latter would object to. Working to establish a constituency for coexistence, including one for a more civil public discourse, would help discredit violence and its advocates.

Having better health and educational institutions is not a peripheral issue to be resolved after final-status issues are agreed upon. These objectives must be negotiated at the transition phase, because Israel has an enormous impact on helping or hindering their outcome. It can steer the process toward peace and justice by allowing the paradigm to shift.

The Arab Spring has dramatically changed the region, and we must recognize the new regional realities and their impact on this issue. Past assumptions and policies might cloud the view to identifying and seeking new solutions demanded by new regional realities. Conflicts and problems of all states in the region are interconnected, because everyone plays in everybody else’s court. Political terrorism will wreak more havoc before it is defeated.

Strategic solutions, including a Middle East equivalent of NATO and a regionally funded Marshall Plan, remain as visions to be realized. But the vision of a Middle East open for all its peoples is less of a dream limited to idealists, and more of an arena of discussion by policymakers and security experts.

The region will continue on its present tragic trajectory unless it belongs to a security regime that stabilizes it and paves the way to its development and prosperity. Statesmen of vision must find their way to build an international alliance to make this possible. Europe post-World War II provides such an example. All member states, including Israel and the future Palestine, will share the benefits of such a regime

Resolving this issue is about leadership. Our times call for global and regional statesmen and stateswomen to lead, inspire and achieve an epoch-ending and epoch-making compromise. Our times call for building a permanent structure for peace. All permanent structures begin with a solid foundation.

---

Dr. Ziad J. Asali is the founder and president of the American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP), a non-profit, non-partisan organization based in Washington. After retiring from practicing medicine in Illinois in 2000, he moved to Washington to advocate for peace in the Middle East through the two-state solution.

---

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in the Column section are their own and do not reflect RiyadhVision’s point-of-view.

---

---

Related articles across the web

• Tillerson: The Palestinian Authority will stop payments to families of prisoners who attack Israelis
• Tillerson claims Palestinians to change policy that pays families of terrorists
• Israel begins cutting electricity to Gaza as Palestinian factions feud
• Israel approves Palestinian move to pressure Hamas with electricity cuts
• Kushner heading to Mideast for peace talks
• 'He's obsessed with me' Sadiq Khan bashes Donald Trump for hounding him over London attack
• Kushner kicks off Mideast peace push with first solo visit
• Trump touts ultimate peace, but same obstacles remain
• Georgia 6th: Handel, Ossoff sharpen foreign policy stance
• Trump Says He Has New Reasons To Hope For Middle East Peace