Yossi Ben Ari
America, wake up
Yossi Ben Ari says two-state solution currently a pipe dream, urges US to reexamine its Mideast strategy
The American policy in respect to the diplomatic process in the Middle East, as it is being portrayed by the latest statements of President Obama and the reports ahead of Senator Mitchell’s visit, is a wrong, time-wasting policy, and most importantly – we will miss out on the essence that is worth of doing at this time. Presenting the two-state solution as a major objective for promoting Mideastern processes is truly puzzling. There is no clearer Israeli interest that this, even if this was not explicitly said by the new Israeli leadership.
In the space between the radical ideologists on the right end of the political spectrum here and the radical leftists who desire equality for all, this clearly must be the solution. Yet we must distinguish between the desire and vision to get there and the practical ability to do so at this time. If in the “Post Oslo” period there was a sense that this objective was viable, we have not been there for a while now. We were not there during the Annapolis Conference (which was in fact the West’s “knew-jerk reaction” to Hamas’ violent takeover of the Gaza Strip); in fact, we were not there when the Road Map initiative was launched – yet this could be understood only much later.
Stance
Roni Sofer
US special envoy to Middle East meets with opposition leader, Tzipi Livni after struggling to find common ground with new FM Lieberman. Livni: Peace process vital for Israel's existence, national Jewish identity
Would it be proper to seek compromises in line with the Clinton-Taba understandings, which Arafat – the father of the Palestinian nation and a very powerful leader – did not dare accept? And should Abbas surprise everyone and proceed that way, what kind of Palestinian state will we be talking about, while the Strip – also known as Hamastan – is being managed as an independent state? Does Obama truly see a chance that the new president or prime minister in the West Bank will be able to exercise his authority in Gaza as well? So maybe we are in fact talking about “three states for two peoples”? Can this really be accepted?
As “survival” is not only the name of an Israeli reality TV show, can Israel truly pin its hopes on a future government in the West Bank, pull out its security and intelligence forces from there, and put its trust in Mahmoud Abbas’ loyalists, the corrupt “old geezers” of the Fatah Movement, which has passed away a long time ago without giving rise to a replacement in the national-secular camp?
The Syrian alternative
Had Obama placed himself in Netanyahu’s shoes, would he even dare gamble like that? And besides, how long, in Obama’s view, will the leader of the new state in the West Bank survive? How many months will pass before he’s assassinated? And what will happen if a Hamas man will win the upcoming Palestinian presidential elections, a few months from now? And even if this does not materialize, in a reality whereby Israel stays away from the West Bank, how long would it take before the Hamas movement, with the support of Israel’s enemies headed by Iran, finds a way to take over the new regime in the West Bank, just like it took over Gaza within hours in June 2007?Precisely because I belong to the peace camp, as one who worked closely with the Palestinians for more than a year in an effort to promote an agreement, and as one who was condemned for it by quite a few former friends in the security establishment, I am convinced that clinging to the two-state solution as the main strategy won’t achieve a thing, while hiding what we may be able to do: Advancing the Beirut Initiative while postponing the Palestinian component to a later stage, or placing the responsibility for resolving it through compromise on the entire Arab League. It is difficult to believe that the chance for this is great.
Alternately, Obama can look into the Syrian channel. Israel will indeed have to pay a heavy price – returning the Golan Heights and the very painful evacuation of all its citizens there, yet if in exchange we will be satisfied by security arrangements, normalization, economic arrangements, water issues, and geopolitical changes in Damascus (disengagement from Iran, Hizbullah, and Palestinian terror groups hosted there,) this would also entail an opportunity to better deal with the darkening cloud of radical Islam.
This will also benefit the US, which will enjoy another achievement – adding yet another outpost to the Arab peace camp in the Middle East. It will be further boosted by an eventual withdrawal from Iraq.
The terms for such agreement must be clear: Should Assad fail to meet all of them, there would be no deal. Then, Obama (just as Israel) would be able to say he did everything he could, and the onus would shift to Syria’s president. Under such circumstances it would be possible to better digest the status quo in the Middle East over time and focus attention on resolving the main problem – Iran.
Brigadier General (Ret.) Dr. Yossi Ben Ari is a former senior figure in Israel’s intelligence establishment and a senior instructor at the National Security College
