POMED Notes: “An Israeli-Palestinian Agreement? What’s Possible and What Isn’t”

On Tuesday, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars hosted a panel titled “An Israeli-Palestinian Agreement? What’s Possible and What Isn’t.” Haleh Esfandiari, the director of the Middle East Program at the Wilson Center, introduced the panel, which was moderated by Washington Post deputy editorial page editor Jackson Diehl. Panelists included Brandeis University professor Shai Feldman, author and Wilson Center Public Policy Scholar Aaron David Miller, and Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine.

For full notes, continue below. Or click here for the pdf version.

Shai Feldman started the panel by describing his general outlook on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. He described himself as “usually the optimist,” but said that currently, “nothing is moving—and not because of a shortage of ideas.” Rather, various sides are pursuing conflicting strategies. The Palestinian leadership is rushing towards seeking United Nations recognition of a Palestinian state in September. Meanwhile, Israel is seeking to maintain the status quo, including an exceptionally stable political coalition and a strong economy. The United States, distracted by other events, seems to be on the sidelines. Feldman maintained that unless the “September issue” is pre-empted or resolved, it could result in an eruption of violence, which would jeopardize recent Palestinian gains and would be seen as a “green light” for the delegitimization of Israel.

Hussein Ibish argued that on all sides of this issue, matters of national interest conflict with day-to-day political considerations. On the Israeli side, it is in Israel’s national interest to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, but Netanyahu’s government prefers the status quo. Rather than moving negotiations forward, Netanyahu has only added another impediment by insisting that Palestinians recognize Israel’s Jewish character as a precondition for talks.

For Palestinians, the highest priority should be a Fatah-Hamas unity government, but Ibish argued “there is no unity agreement—only an agreement to make an agreement.” He described the Palestinian strategy at the UN in September as “picking a losing battle” with the United States, which is sure to veto Palestinian UN membership. For the United States, while resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is “essential” to the national interest, the upcoming 2012 elections and Obama’s limited political capital make a major U.S. push for a settlement unlikely.

Ibish added that the Palestinian strategy at the UN is unclear; rather than face a confrontation with the U.S., Palestinian negotiators may settle for upgraded observer status, or may call off the unilateral declaration of independence if meaningful negotiations begin. Ibish estimated a “50-50 chance” of negotiations resuming.

Aaron David Miller conceded that he holds a largely pessimistic outlook. The events of the Arab Spring have destabilized the region, and Israel will not make existential decisions in the face of uncertainty. Moreover, there does not seem to be a sense of urgency to resolve the conflict. Miller cautioned against restarting negotiations unless there was a clear path forward, as another failed round of negotiations would be catastrophic. He also pointed out that the recognition of a Palestinian state at the UN may only raise expectations, resulting in further disillusionment if no change actually occurs.