The Foreign Service Journal, December 2006

No U.S. president has ever tried this, mistakenly assum- ing that groups like AIPAC speak for most American Jews. Such a strategy would also reach out to peaceminded Israeli political groups and leaders, whomWashington has ignored in recent years. Success for a new American initiative would also require strong international support, especially from the Arab world, and endorsement by the U.N. The plan might incorporate parts of President Bush’s Middle East Road Map, as a preliminary phase to precede talks to implement the plan’s larger vision for a final-status peace. The 2002 Arab League offer to make peace with Israel in return for liberation of the Palestinians should also be built in, and a distinguished, full-time envoy would be needed. The underlying strategy would be to mobilize support, over time, from the majority of Israelis and Palestinians by offering renewed hope with a bold plan that meets both peoples’ most fundamental needs. It would rest on expec- tations that Israelis and Palestinians, who are deeply weary of conflict, would ultimately support such a plan in their self-interest, and would, if necessary, oblige their leaders to do likewise or give way to others. The American message would reflect the compelling but little-understood reality that such a comprehensive plan would be pro-Israel and pro-Palestine, since the fun- damental interests of both sides — Israelis’ need for peace and security in a democratic, Jewish state, and Palestin- ians’ demand for freedom and justice in a state of their own— are absolutely interdependent. Majorities on both sides understand this equation, but have lost hope it can be achieved. With convincing American leadership, both could embrace it. The Stakes Are High Conventional political wisdom today holds that the sit- uation is not “ripe” for a bold U.S. initiative; it would col- lapse amidst a fire storm of opposition, embarrassing the U.S. and creating deeper cynicism about peace. In fact, this conflict is never “ripe” for a solution. It becomes worse as time passes, and efforts to manage it by working on its margins have always failed. Moreover, the gravity of the situation calls for an audacious change in policy. Even if the U.S. did not succeed after persistent efforts, it would win stature and respect for a wise and courageous new policy. Israel, 58 years after its founding, is still struggling to define itself and Zionism. The choices seem clear. Will Israel abandon the ill-fated adventure with occupation and settlement begun after 1967 to become a state at peace with its neighbors and the world? Or will it be a besieged, garrison state, in strategic retreat notwithstand- ing its nuclear weapons, burdened by a chronic, violent rebellion, and beset with a new anti-Semitism, especially in the Arab and Muslim worlds, that confuses Judaism with Israeli policy? Will Israel sacrifice its goal of becom- ing a peaceful state, based on universal and Jewish values, for an impossible project of defeating and colonizing its Palestinian neighbors, who in a matter of decades will out- number Israeli Jews? Israel has been unable to make this choice, and the set- tler movement — the nation’s most united, dynamic polit- ical group — although a minority, continues to prevail by default. The U.S., which proclaims its eternal support for Israel’s security and well-being, should help Israel escape from this trap, instead of indulging it in self-destructive policies. That is what friends are for. Likewise, if America is serious about democracy, human rights and its own principles of justice and free- dom, it must also help rescue the Palestinians. Like the Jews, they, too, are victims and deserve freedom and dig- nity in a state of their own. Time is short. Some analysts say that the settlements — “facts on the ground” — have already created an irre- versible Arab-Jewish entity and advocate a single secular, democratic state. But the one-state formula would likely bring further decades of communal conflict, not peace. Zionism is based on deep historical forces, and the Jewish people will not abandon it. Nor do most Palestinians wish to forgo the dream of a state of their own and face further decades of strife and misery, although today some, in despair, are reverting to the one-state concept. Most important, the U.S. owes its own citizens a new policy to resolve a conflict that endangers American na- tional security. The continuation of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle and the well-grounded perception that Washing- ton defers to Israeli policy have done more than any- thing else to inflame anti-American hostility among Arabs and Muslims. At a time when regaining the con- fidence and respect of people in those volatile regions that now breed terrorism is critical, and when nuclear proliferation poses another ominous threat, resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be an urgent strategic priority for the U.S. F O C U S 26 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 6