The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars hosted a panel discussion on "Obama and the Two-State Solution: Israeli, Palestinian, and Egyptian Perspectives." The panelists’ expression of opposing views demonstrated the contentions of achieving what is so often described as the international consensus of a two-state settlement. Panel moderator Aaron David Miller presented his skeptical interpretation of the possibilities for a peace solution. Martin Kramer attempted to shift the discussion away from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict toward the Iranian nuclear threat. Ziad Asali and Samer Shehata felt Obama has placed the right amount of urgency on jumpstarting the peace process while remaining cognizant of the significant challenges facing a potential solution to the conflict.
Aaron David Miller, a Wilson Center Public Policy Fellow and long-time American peace broker, framed the conversation in terms of Obama’s Cairo speech, which he described as raising expectations and creating a sense of urgency. He contrasts this sense of urgency to the difficult prospects for a solution with the difficult issues of Jerusalem, refugees, and border security. Miller believed that Obama may be the last American president who can pursue a two-state solution.
Speaking from the Palestinian perspective, the first panelist, Ziad Asali of the American Task Force on Palestine, opened the debate with the status quo in the region, believing that the conflict is not at a plateau but in a downward spiral. As a result, painful compromises are necessary to attain a two-state solution. He praised the Obama approach, which sees a solution to the conflict as essential to the creation of a coalition to oppose Iran. Asali stressed the importance of the international community in fostering a united Palestinian leadership to allow Israel a negotiating partner while highlighting the contradictory messages on the inclusion of Hamas. Then, Asali called Obama’s approach the correct one, with its emphasis on a non-military solution to the conflict and in addressing Arab concerns. He described settlements as the single most important political issue Obama needs to deliver to the Arab world.
From the Israeli view, Martin Kramer, a fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, was highly critical of the Obama approach to Middle East peace. He judged it as a fixation of the administration on second-order issues, which he likened to the Bush administration’s obsession with Iraq during the war on terror. He believes that without dealing with the Iranian issue first, a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is impossible. Kramer put forward the notion that the divisions among the Palestinian people raised the question as to whether they truly constitute a “nation,” a view criticized by the two other panelists. He felt that the idea of a Palestinian state is different among Israelis, Palestinians, and the international community. Believing the Israeli state solved the Jewish question, Kramer concluded that any Palestinian state must solve the Palestinian question of identity, which he remarked was fundamentally fragmented. Kramer ended by calling for Obama to stop focusing on a two-state solution, as it is not an urgent issue.
The final panelist, Samer Shehata, a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center, spoke from the perspective of the Egyptian public, not the Mubarak government or the opposition. Shehata began by stating that a two-state solution is essential and is not a second-order issue to the containment of Iran. He refuted Kramer by citing the diversity of Israel and other nations that exist as states as examples of how there is a Palestinian identity. He called Egypt important for the peace process because of its ties with Israel, influence in the region, and its central geopolitical role. Egypt’s favor with the United States declined under President Bush because of a shifting emphasis from the conflict to promoting democracy, but it will play an important position under Obama. He called Egypt a partial mediator, as it is a direct party to the conflict. Most Egyptians feel so strongly about Palestine that it has become a domestic policy issue. However, the Mubarak regime, which has its own security concerns about terrorism, border security, refugees, and Islamist movements, favors Fateh over Hamas, creating a bias which challenges its role as an impartial mediator.
Miller ended the discussion, stating that every time America as a superpower fails in either war or peace, it comes with a price to American credibility and power. Challenges such as a divided Israeli government and a dysfunctional Palestinian leadership, which does not have a monopoly of the legitimate use of violence, make Obama’s success improbable. Finally, Miller noted that success for this administration must be defined as either a final status agreement or an Israeli-Syrian peace treaty.
While each panelist presented his own perspective on the utility of Obama’s vision for peace, all speakers failed to address what concrete steps should be taken by the Obama administration in creating a solution to the conflict. Furthermore, the conflicting opinions of the panelists highlighted the challenges of bringing together the divergent interests of each actor to the negotiating table. Miller’s perspective emphasized the American preoccupation with maintaining its strategic position as a world superpower, with his primary concern being that Obama’s actions could harm that position. Kramer’s focus on Iran and his rejection of the notion of a singular Palestinian identity exemplifies an Israeli position which seems more comfortable with the status quo than affecting a lasting solution. The measured optimism of Shehata and Asali indicates that although many Arabs see more hope with an administration which addresses their concerns, neither panelist was able to offer any concrete solutions to the very real problems of Palestinian disunity. This panel presentation offered a fascinating glimpse into the perspectives and interests of major players to the conflict, but ultimately, highlighted the need for compromise on fundamental issues.
*This summary was authored by the Palestine Center summer interns, Hania Bekdash, Holly Larsen, Daniel Magalotti, and Zachary Sideris.
Views expressed on this post or on linked web pages do not represent the Palestine Center, the educational program of the Jerusalem Fund for Education and Community Development. All content is for educational purposes only.
