How the U.S. Can Reshape the Israeli-Palestinian Negotiating Framework
Table of Contents
Author(s)
Edward P. Djerejian
Founding Director, Baker Institute for Public Policy | Baker Institute Board of Advisors, Life MemberYair Hirschfeld
Issac and Milfred Brochstein Fellow in Middle East Peace and Security in Honor of Yitzhak RabinSamih Al-Abid
Diana Tamari Sabbagh Fellow in Middle Eastern StudiesTo access the full paper, download the PDF on the left-hand sidebar.
Introduction
Following the end of direct negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians in April 2014 and the destructive cycle of events in the region since, the Obama administration faces difficult choices for pursuing its stated policy of a sustainable two-state solution to the conflict. Setting aside the Israeli-Palestinian situation would allow policymakers to focus on other, perhaps more pressing, priorities such as the signing and implementation of a nuclear deal with Iran as well as counterterrorism operations in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. However, under present conditions, this approach could contribute to the potential collapse of the Palestinian Authority and greater violence. American allies in the Middle East would view such a policy as “walking away,” adding to the perception of the U.S. as a half-hearted world power and an unreliable advocate and protector of its interests in the Middle East.
Following the demands of the Palestinians and some European states, the U.S. administration could initiate or support a substantive United Nations Security Council resolution for a two-state solution that defines the parameters for solving the core issues of conflict. While action at the U.N. this coming September would send a clear signal of the U.S. position, passing a resolution—even one supported by European and Arab states—would, however, be mostly symbolic. Such a move would likely reinforce Israeli and Palestinian positions and diminish, at least for the short term, the prospects for compromises on either side.
Attempting to restart direct negotiations from the positions reached in the last round of talks would demonstrate American leadership on the issue, but would ignore important developments since 2013. Both the Palestinian Authority leadership and the new Israeli coalition have pushed their negotiating positions away from each other, widening the already considerable gaps.
Given the problematic prospects under current circumstances to move forward on direct negotiations between the parties, this report recommends that the U.S. administration continue to demonstrate strong U.S. support for the two-state model, test the willingness of the parties to compromise, and adopt a more comprehensive approach to resolving the conflict with the support of the international community. This approach follows three concrete steps. First, the U.S. administration should present clear final status parameters for a two-state solution. Second, the administration should communicate this position and set expectations with the negotiating parties and regional governments regarding the minimum preconditions necessary for the renewal of peace negotiations. Third, if these preconditions are met, the United States should reshape the Israeli-Palestinian negotiating framework to first reach an understanding on the territorial issue before pursuing other final status issues, economic development, and regional engagement.
The approach would require consistent involvement by the U.S. administration in a complex political context. The proposed path also requires a comprehensive public diplomacy effort to address the Israeli and Palestinian public directly. Such a policy will have to be supported by an in-depth policy dialogue with Israeli and Palestinian groups to gain support for a variety of bottom-up and middle-out initiatives.
The recommendations in this report are based in part on the findings of previous Baker Institute reports, including the 2010 policy report on the territorial components of a two-state solution; the 2013 paper outlining a suggested negotiating structure; and the 2014 report on strategies to promote effective public diplomacy that produces change on the ground.
This report first presents a brief summary of the challenges facing the Obama administration and the Israeli and Palestinian perspectives of the current state of the conflict. Second, the paper outlines recommendations for short-term action and setting clear expectations with the Israelis, Palestinians, and other regional stakeholders. The report concludes by presenting a potential reshaping of negotiations using a “territory first” approach.
This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The views expressed herein are those of the individual author(s), and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.