We entreat world leaders to address big issues. You read the entreaty. You learn about the issues. World leaders address them… maybe.
Dear Soon-to-be President Obama:
Violence between Arabs and Israelis has fallen into a devastatingly predictable cycle. Step one, insurgents lob rockets into Israel. Two, Israel retaliates. Three, condemnations and recriminations shoot back and forth between international power players (as Northwestern’s Students for Justice in Palestine and other grassroots organizations send out mass e-mails calling for protests). Four, rocket, mortar and gunfire from both sides continues with increasing intensity. Five, the parties sign an internationally-brokered peace treaty to global fanfare. Six, break the truce and repeat.
The current all-out war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza has followed much the same process of violent retribution, but has found step five – a peace treaty – much harder to reach. The United States has often sought to play a central role in the peace process, but with minimal success. As I write, the attention-starved French President is trying – and failing – to secure a temporary ceasefire between the parties. Egypt, sharing a border with Gaza; Russia, seeking to increase their international diplomatic muscle; and the UN Security Council, looking to secure a peace that abides by international law — all have failed in their efforts to broker a truce. Now that the Israelis have escalated their military response from targeted airstrikes to a ground invasion, it is less clear when and how the war will end.
There is inevitably pressure on your administration to craft a quick and sustainable peace. However, it would not be beneficial to any party – except Hamas – for the current conflict to end in another superficial ceasefire. Israel and the United States label Hamas – Gaza’s governing party – a terrorist organization, refusing to engage in any economic or political relationship. Past American presidents have injected themselves into the conflict with vigor, as have European and international diplomats. Their failures have called into question the very idea of intervention in a conflict that has become absurdly complex.
Critics of Israel point to the huge disparity in civilian deaths between the two parties. While few Israelis have been killed in the fighting, over 600 Palestinian civilians have died. The gap is largely due to inaccurate Palestinian weaponry and strong Israeli civilian protections including bomb shelters and other defenses. While critics of Israel often point to tragic instances of civilian loss such as the recent bombing of a UN school in Gaza, the Israeli armed forces are not malicious and do seek to avoid civilian casualties, focusing on known militant targets. However, it is common for insurgents to hide behind civilians. Of course, Hamas’s detestable tactics do not excuse civilian casualties, but they do put the difficulty of the war that Israel is fighting into context.
Any resolution to the current crisis must consider both short-term and long-term implications: the humanitarian implications for the Palestinian population and the lasting security threat to Israel. A sustainable peace that favors international human rights norms requires a two-state solution. With Hamas in power, a sustainable two-state solution is near impossible. Your administration should arrange – but not direct – two-part negotiations that work toward a quick ceasefire for the current crisis and an internationally-recognized two-state solution.
While the United States should take a leadership role in putting these dual-purpose negotiations together, your administration should not act on its own. Instead, after the United States receives commitments from regional and international actors to take part in the peace efforts, American diplomats should take a step back and express their voice primarily through the UN Security Council. Using the UN as a vehicle will strengthen and moderate the UN’s position in securing peace. It will also serve to quell international criticisms of the United States as a partisan broker on the Arab-Israeli conflict. The United States must make it clear through public statements and actions that a friend to Israel need not be an enemy to the Palestinians.
Any resolution to the immediate crisis must eliminate the ability for Hamas to launch rockets from outposts in Gaza. It must provide for – and secure the delivery of – humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in Gaza, particularly children. The resolution should also set forth a timetable for the Israeli withdrawal of ground troops contingent upon specific benchmarks for the government in Gaza. For example, the government in Gaza must recognize the right of Israel to exist and undergo a verified, internationally-monitored disarmament before Israel withdraws. Other prerequisites for an Israeli troop withdrawal may include open parliamentary elections within Gaza and a peace agreement between Hamas and Fatah.
If Gaza adheres to these terms and others set in the negotiations, Israel should not only commit to withdraw, but also provide economic incentives. If Israel links the destiny of the short-term negotiations to the overarching concerns of the Palestinians, it has a better chance of seeing sustained peace. Israel should consider a timetable for opening up Gaza’s border that hinges upon the Gazan government’s ability to abstain from firing rockets. The United States and the European Union can also offer the government in Gaza aid and trade for keeping the peace. While the government in Gaza would receive carrots for adhering to the proposed peace plan, Israel is offered a temporary reprieve from international law. The proposed plan would sanction Israel’s temporary occupation of Palestine as long as the Israeli government allows the UN to investigate, report on, and respond to the humanitarian circumstances throughout the Gaza Strip.
Whether or not this would improve things at all, let alone bring about a lasting peace, is unclear. One of the biggest question marks is Hamas. I have used “the government in Gaza” because I hope that these negotiations will occur in a post-Hamas era. I do not believe that any peace will occur as long as Hamas bears political clout in the Gaza Strip. However, Israel can use political leverage to promote a transition to more moderate government.
In order to do so, it must convince Arab states interested in a two-state solution that the goal will not be met under a Hamas regime. Stratfor — a private intelligence provider — has reported that Arab states have begun to consider Hamas as more of a threat than an ally. In order to achieve a more economically fluid, politically peaceful Middle East with a Palestinian state, Hamas must go – and powerful Arab states can make this happen. Increased support for Fatah – coupled with a rhetorical campaign labeling Hamas as enemies of peace – could put Hamas even further on its heels. While I do not insist that your administration get involved in regime change, it must maintain that Hamas is not a friend to Palestinians seeking peace.
Moreover, the prospect of a two-state solution seemed impossible during peacetime. It would be crazy to look for a lasting solution when the two parties cannot even agree to stop bombing each other. While it may be tempting to focus solely on the most recent conflict, a temporary ceasefire would do nothing other than provide a time-out for both sides to regroup and plan more devastating attacks. When the sides come together to discuss how and when to stop their most recent explosive escapades, it will be a fitting opportunity to confront the more pressing underlying regional problems that the parties face.
On both sides, many close to the conflict have become divided and partisan. The parties’ interests seem so sharply opposed that peace is only possible in a matter of decades. Many programs today focus on the next generation. They seek to feed tolerance and teach reconciliation. But need we give up on the current generation of fighters? These are the times and the people that shape the perspectives of today’s youth. Your administration must make it clear that its desire for peace is stronger than its commitment to protect Israeli interests.
Happy New Year,
Ben Armstrong