The Middle East and the Prospects for Peace: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and the Trump Administration Quinn Ginsberg, The Eurasia Center July 2017
Introduction:
We in America are again experiencing an Administration in its adolescence. This time is marked with both the uncertainty that comes with a new and unproved presidency, as well as the realization that this new Administration must now face problems that have plagued the office for decades. This change in power inherently elicits both fear and optimism. Americans, disregarding our political affiliation, hope that a new leader will bring about the end of longstanding issues; after all it is the president’s job to navigate through difficult political landscapes at home and abroad. Despite this, it is not difficult to be pessimistic, as long-standing issues are by their definition the hardest to solve. As citizens, Americans hold on to a quiet hope that this new unproven figure will be the one to end the conflicts that have plagued leaders past, however, Americans are equally prepared for their failure. Perhaps nothing exemplifies this paradigm more than the persistent issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
It seems as though every American president in recent memory has framed peace in the Middle East as a uniquely important goal. This call for peace has become an institution in American politics, a part of the American political ethos. Further, there are some promising signs that peace could be achieved between Israel and Palestine, but many fear that progress may be fleeting. In addressing this conflict one must ask three key questions. Firstly, is it likely that the Trump Administration will be able to make peace between the Israelis and Palestinians and what are the key cleavages that stand in the way of this goal? Second, what can the Administration do to encourage peace, and what are the costs of this strategy? Lastly, how can other Gulf States contribute and could their involvement change the climate for the better? After a careful review of the strategies and the political climate involve, it is clear that peace between these two groups is unlikely but not unachievable. The direct involvement of members of the Trump Administration is key factor, as they would need to go beyond simply acting as a moderator in this conflict. They would need to be willing to explore policy changes to incentivize peace and consider the impact that Gulf States can have on peace between Israel and Palestine, as well as in the region.
The Trump Administration and its Role in Arab-Israeli Diplomacy
The Trump Administration’s Israeli-Palestinian policy thus far has been fairly enigmatic. It is unclear what strategies the Administration plans to utilize, and more concerning is the lack of clarity in its communicating a policy. Trump told reporters before meeting the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that he is prepared to act as a “mediator, an arbitrator or a facilitator.”1 From this statement one would assume President Trump is striving for a diplomatic solution between these two groups. Trump has also stated that he supports a two state solution, which is the conventional framework leaders around the world have advocated for. However, the key problem is the Administration’s lack of consistency. For instance, shortly after making a statement that the Administration is interested in pursuing a two state solution, the President undermined his credibility by saying that a “one state formulation” was on the table.2 Naturally this statement was seen as very concerning for Palestine; yet it wasn’t long after that the President returned to his previous position of supporting a two state solution. One could spend a fair amount of time speculating as to what the president’s ultimate strategy will be, however, for the time being that line of inquiry lacks a concrete basis from which to work. Until there is greater consistency in the Administration’s actions, or until there is a declared policy, little can be addressed in any specific sense. That said it is worth delving further into the Administration’s actions and the current political climate, if only for the purpose of
1 Jeremy Diamond, “Trump Vows to work as ‘mediator’ for Israeli-Palestinian Peace”, CNN, May 3, 2017, Accessed June 13, 2017, 2 Omar Barghouti, “Donald Trump’s causal stance on the Two State Solution has got Palestine Worried”, Newsweek, February 2, 1017, Accessed June 13, 2017, understanding what is the current strategic position of this Administration to discuss how these factors impact the peacemaking process.
What has been consistent is the Administration’s support for the state of Israel. For decades the U.S has shown near unwavering support for the troubled state. On only a few select occasions has the United States pressed Israel to change their policies or behavior in some substantive way.3 So far many critics of the Trump Administration have pointed out that they have done little to promote policy that could lead to peace. If anything this Administration has built a non-confrontational relationship with Israel. According to Arutz Sheva, an Israeli news source, the Trump Administration has considerably increased the amount of intelligence they share with Israel.4 Besides the mutual benefit in intelligence gathering, this expansion of U.S-Israeli information sharing may also serve as an olive branch, a symbol of the United States’ continued support. This action was somewhat undermined by later reports that the Administration had leaked intelligence from Israel to a Russian Foreign Minister. This is an action that angered some in the Israeli intelligence community; however, it seems to have had minimal consequence.5
U.S. funding of Israeli defense will likely remain hearty, as Israel is one of the United States strongest ally in the region. For these reasons, many have become disheartened by the Trump Administration’s chances of ending the conflict and mitigating the losses. Some in Palestine fear President Trump may develop a kinship with the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and abandon his goal of a two state solution altogether. Critics like Omar Barghouti of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel maintain that Trump will not take steps to improve the lives of Palestinians. In an article published by Newsweek, Barghouti accused Trump of continuing to allow Israeli expansion into the West Bank and Gaza because of his sympathies with the Far Right.6 Mr. Barghouti also raised concerns that the Trump Administration will also turn a blind eye to his people’s routine displacement visa-vi “Israel’s illegal construction of settlements.”7 So far the relationship between Trump and Netanyahu has been especially positive. The previous Administration’s call for a “settlement freeze” and Obama’s creation of the Iranian Nuclear deal had soured the relationship between Obama and Netanyahu.8 In comparison the current Administration’s critique of the Iranian deal and lack of a clear position on the settlements has set the tone for a more positive relationship.
There are other reasons that some are concerned that the Administration will fail to bring peace to Israel and Palestine. A chief concern among critics seems to stem from President
3 Nathan Thrall, “Israel-Palestine, the real reason there’s still no peace”, The Guardian, May 16, 2017, Accessed June 13, 2017. 4 David Rosenburg, “’Trump expanding cooperation with Israel’”, Arutz Sheva, June 13, 2017, Accessed June 13, 2017 5 Peter Baker and Ian Fisher, “Trump Comes to Israel Citing a Palestinian Deal as Crucial”, New York Times, May 22, 2017, Accessed June 13, 2017 6 Omar Barghouti, “Donald Trumps causal stance on the Two State Solution has got Palestine Worried”, Newsweek, February 2, 1017, Accessed June 13, 2017, 7 Barghouti, “Donald Trumps causal stance”, Newsweek, February 2, 1017, Accessed June 13, 2017 8 Baker and Fisher, “Trump Comes to Israel”, New York Times, May 22, 2017, Accessed June 13, 2017 Trump’s decision to delegate the peace process to his son-in-law Jared Kushner. Initially this criticism was routed in Mr. Kushner’s inexperience and his lack of credentials. He has never served as a diplomat or in a government position, his experience in business can be described as tumultuous at best and his education at Harvard is often attributed to his families wealth rather then his own brilliance.9 Others have argued against this point claiming that his lack of experience in diplomacy may be an asset rather then a failing.10 This argument is steeped in the Presidents attitude that outsider thinking can benefit America’s interests abroad, as moving away from the establishment provides us with newer and possibly more effective approaches to problems.11 To the President’s credit, this seems true to an extent, as his unofficial nomination of Jason Greenblatt as an envoy has been met with a fair amount of bipartisan approval.12 However, for someone to be an effective diplomat they must be able to work with both sides, and Mr. Kushner seems to be in a poor position to achieve that end. The primary reason for this is his apparent wholehearted support for Israel and for its leadership. For years his family’s foundation has given tens of thousands of dollars to Israeli settlements, a fact that has endeared him to some in Israel but puts him at a disadvantage when it comes to building a relationship with the Palestinians.13 Further he has long had a close relationship with Israelis Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who even stayed at his home in New Jersey growing up.14 Whether Jared Kushner will be able to overcome these diplomatic handicaps or use them to his advantage rather then his detriment remains to be seen, but as things are his credibility as a diplomat is faltering.
This past May, President Trump’s visit to the region left many feeling uncertain about the Administration’s vow to end the conflict. The President did not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, as many Israelis would have liked, while also not publicly pressing Israel to curb settlement construction in the West Bank.15 This seeming acceptance of the status quo in his visit likely did little to endear the President to either group. It is possible that this was a strategic calculation. However, if the President wishes to help negotiate peace in the region, then addressing these two issues will be inevitable. To his credit the Trump Administration has had some significant diplomatic success recently, as envoy Jason Greenblatt was able to facilitate a water deal that will benefit many Palestinians.16 Fundamentally the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is over land. Any diplomatic solution would involve changes in territory. The Palestinians would
9 David Graham, “Trump: Middle East Peace is ‘Not as Difficult as People Have Thought”, The Atlantic, May 3, 2017, Accessed July 22, 2017 10 Graham, “Trump: Middle East Peace”, The Atlantic, May 3, 2017, Accessed July 22, 2017 11 Armin Rosen, “Trumps Israel Palestine Negotiator is Perfectly Unqualified”, Foreign Policy, May 1, 2017, Accessed July 22, 2017 12 Rosen, “Trumps Israel Palestine Negotiator”, Foreign Policy, May 1, 2017, Accessed July 22, 2017 13 Maayan Lubell, “For hard line West Bank settlers, Jared Kushner is their man”, Reuter, February 1, 2017, Accessed July 22, 2017 14 Jodi, Kantor, “For Kushner, Israel Policy May Be Shaped by the Personal”, New York Times, February 11, 2017, Accessed July 22, 2017 15 Baker and Fisher, “Trump Comes to Israel ”, New York Times, May 22, 2017, Accessed June 13, 2017 16 Herb Keinon, “Trump Envoy Greenblatt Facilitates Historic Israeli-Palestinian Water Deal”, Jerusalem Post, July 13, 2017, Accessed July 13, 2017 necessarily want to curb and completely rollback the Israeli settlements in Gaza, as well as the return of further land in Israeli territory. Finding a stable solution that would be fairly satisfactory to both groups is almost a Sisyphean task by its very definition. The conflict is not bereft of hope, but if peace is the goal then the parties involved must take steps that they have not been willing to in the past.
What Strategies are Available, and What Means are A cceptable for Peace?
If the Administration chooses to make Israeli and Palestinian peace their priority in the region, then the first step that they must take is to develop a strategy that they believe will be effective in bringing the two sides to the table. That is to say, the goal should be bringing the two powers together in a neutral setting to discuss the conditions they need for a sustainable peace. The second and more challenging step is to determine what the Administration is willing to do to incentivize both groups to take the deal. The key challenge to any peace agreement is finding a way to make signing the agreement advantageous for both parties and to make certain that both groups will comply with the agreement. Since the inception of the conflict there have been a number of failed attempts at a peaceful conclusion. Making a deal that is actually advantageous for both groups has proven difficult. If the Trump Administration truly wants to end the conflict then it must be willing to strain its relationship with Israel, while also making certain that enough pressure is applied to Palestine for the leadership to accept a deal.
The first question one must ask is how the Trump Administration could go about making Israel more willing to take a peace deal? As stated already, the cost of peace must be less than the cost of continued conflict. Israel is most likely to be saddled with the greatest costs, so the key is to create a desirable deal which reduces comparative losses and maximizing the potential benefits. In any arraignment, Israel would have to evacuate the West Bank amid violence, they would lose resources gathered in their former territories, which would include the loss of intelligence sources and control of their boarders in the region, and by the end of the process the costs would have outweighed the benefits.17 Arranging a peace agreement would likely lead to swift economic and political normalization in the region, and increased benefits from Europe and the U.S. Despite
17 Thrall, “Israel-Palestine”, The Guardian, May 16, 2017, Accessed June 13, 2017. these improvements, Nathan Thrall, a political analyst, argues that this arrangement would still not be as attractive as the status quo.18 As things stand Israelites receive a massive amount of military aid from the U.S, they have rising standards of living, and its population have some of the world’s highest levels of subjective wellbeing.19 Israel will continue to support its settlements, ignore the rising number of countries supporting Palestine by recognizing it as a state, be subjected to boycotts of settlement goods and survive the violence that has long been perennial to the nation.20 All of the above is far more manageable than the cost of peace as things currently stand. So the important question that the Administration must ask is what strategy could they utilize to make peace more desirable and therefore incentivize Israeli action?
Some authors have suggested that making peace more desirable for Israel involves making their fallback less desirable. One way of achieving this goal is for the U.S to make further defense spending contingent on reaching a successful peace deal. This would force Israel to make larger concessions, as the fall back will have become so undesirable that peace will be far more appealing. Similarly the Trump Administration could put more pressure on the issue of settlements so that Israel is more inclined to return the lands in the negotiations. As things stand, the U.S and other nations do not support the occupation of this land, but they also have done little to see it returned. Perhaps placing tariffs on products produced there could end the continued settlement expansion and make a deal more attractive. No matter how brilliant a negotiator a president may be, it is near impossible to make someone take a deal that will do more harm than good. The Administration should consider seriously what they are willing to do to incentivize Israel to take a deal if peace is their goal.
Unlike Israel, the United States has far less control over Palestine, so the direct impact the U.S can have on the state is fairly minimal. This is especially true in light of reports that Jared Kushner, the person in charge of the peace initiative, has had a tense relationship with Palestinian President Abbas, which has contributed to rumors that the Administration is dropping the issue entirely.21 If Palestinian-American diplomacy remains somewhat lackluster, the U.S may consider enlisting our allies in the region. As the climate in the Middle East changes and more Sunni nations wish to unite against Iran and the threat of terror, it is only rational that these states may consider working in concert with Israel against their common enemy.
Under these circumstances, hypothetically, these nations could put pressure on Palestine to make them concede on key points. For this reason the Administration should consider the role that other nations in the region can play in creating an environment for peace. This, of course, is contingent on states like Saudi Arabia being willing to normalize relations with Israel. In this regard, there have been some promising signs that such an alliance could occur. After his visit to numerous Sunni states President Trump indicated
18 Thrall, “Israel-Palestine”, The Guardian, May 16, 2017, Accessed June 13, 2017. 19 Thrall, “Israel-Palestine”, The Guardian, May 16, 2017, Accessed June 13, 2017. 20 Thrall, “Israel-Palestine”, The Guardian, May 16, 2017, Accessed June 13, 2017. 21 Amir Tibon, “U.S rejects reports that Trump is pulling out of Israeli-Palestinian Peace Effort”, Haaretz, June 28, 2017, Accessed June 28, 2017. that a conclusion to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would work to their best interests. Such an alliance could help these states counter Iranian aggression.22 Netanyahu himself has acknowledged the Arab world’s slow acceptance of Israel. He has gone so far as to say that it would be what “will help reconciliation between Israel and the Palestinians”.23 Some are looking to the future of Saudi Arabia optimistically, as Saudi Crown Prince Bin Salman is often considered far more pro-American and Israel then his father and his predecessors.24 However, many still feel as though normalization with the Arab world is still a long way off, and will likely only result from a successful agreement.
In contrast, others remain obstinate claiming that peace should come from the region as a whole first and then to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Instead of waiting for peace to come from Palestine and Israel, some suggest that the best course of action is to build relationships with these Sunni states so that they can push Palestine to come to the negotiation table.25 This argument is not without validity; perhaps ending the Israeli- Palestinian conflict is contingent on the Arab world’s support. Under these circumstances the United States could put pressure on Israel, while the Arab world persuades Palestine to make further concessions. The Administration would first build its clout in the region, and then it could use its accumulated social capital to build peace through careful regional alliance.
Whatever it is that the Administration plans to do to end the conflicts in the region, it would be wise to consider all of the actors involved, and the political capital it has and could have to organize a peace. Ultimately, peace in the Middle East will remain a far off goal for American policymakers and leaders, unless serious thought and careful action is undertaken. As for the issue of Israeli-Palestinian peace, it seems as though it is still far off as long as the currently climate remains unchanged, however, the current Administration must not despair. It is well within its power to take steps to help forge a better future in the region. Such a future will be difficult to create, but a new Administration does bring with it new opportunity. The success or failure of the Administration lays squarely on its own shoulders, the one question that remains impossible to answer is if they will make peace in the region the priority or will this issue fall to the next president?
Bibliography
Jeremy Diamond, “Trump Vows to work as ‘mediator’ for Israeli-Palestinian Peace”, CNN, May 3, 2017, Accessed June 13, 2017, http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/03/politics/abbas-trump-white-house-meeting/index.html
22 Baker and Fisher, “Trump Comes to Israel”, New York Times, May 22, 2017, Accessed June 13, 2017. 23 Raphael Ahren, “Bereft of meat, Trump declarations leave Israel with much to chew on”, The Times of Israel, May 22, 2017, Accessed June 13, 2017. 24 Bar’el, Zvi. “Saudi Arabia’s New Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman is Good News for Israel and U.S.” June 26th, 2017. Accessed June 26, 2017. 25 Charles Krauthammer, “Israel and Palestine are a sideshow to the real Middle East peace process”, The Telegraph, May 26, 2017, Accessed June 15, 2017. Omar Barghouti, “Donald Trump’s causal stance on the Two State Solution has got Palestine Worried”, Newsweek, February 2, 1017, Accessed June 13, 2017, http://www.newsweek.com/israel-netanyahu-donald-trump-palestinians-bds-557816
David Rosenburg, “’Trump expanding cooperation with Israel’”, Arutz Sheva, June 13, 2017, Accessed June 13, 2017, http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/230951
Peter Baker and Ian Fisher, “Trump Comes to Israel Citing a Palestinian Deal as Crucial”, New York Times, May 22, 2017, Accessed June 13, 2017 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/world/middleeast/trump-israel-visit.html?_r=0
Nathan Thrall, “Israel-Palestine, the real reason there’s still no peace”, The Guardian, May 16, 2017, Accessed June 13, 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/16/the-real-reason-the-israel-palestine- peace-process-always-fails
Raphael Ahren, “Bereft of meat, Trump declarations leave Israel with much to chew on”, The Times of Israel, May 22, 2017, Accessed June 13, 2017, http://www.timesofisrael.com/bereft-of-diplomatic-meat-trump-declarations-leave-israel- with-much-to-chew-on/
Bar’el, Zvi. “Saudi Arabia’s New Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman is Good News for Israel and U.S.” June 26th, 2017. Accessed June 26, 2017. http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/1.797007
Charles Krauthammer, “Israel and Palestine are a sideshow to the real Middle East peace process”, The Telegraph, May 26, 2017, Accessed June 15th. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/26/israel-palestine-sideshow-real-middle-east- peace-process/
Amir Tibon, “U.S rejects reports that Trump is pulling out of Israeli-Palestinian Peace Effort”, Haaretz, June 28, 2017, Accessed June 28, 2017. http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-1.798209
Herb Keinon, “Trump Envoy Greenblatt Facilitates Historic Israeli-Palestinian Water Deal”, Jerusalem Post, July 13, 2017, Accessed July 13, 2017. http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Israel-PA-agree-on-water- deal-499575
David Graham, “Trump: Middle East Peace is ‘Not as Difficult as People Have Thought”, The Atlantic, May 3, 2017, Accessed July 22, 2017. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/05/trump-middle-east-peace-is- not-as-difficult-as-people-have-thought/525267/ Armin Rosen, “Trumps Israel Palestine Negotiator is Perfectly Unqualified”, Foreign Policy, May 1, 2017, Accessed July 22, 2017 http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/01/trumps-israel-palestine-negotiator-isnt-qualified/
Maayan Lubell, “For hard line West Bank settlers, Jared Kushner is their man”, Reuter, February 1, 2017, Accessed July 22, 2017 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-kushner-idUSKBN15G4W2
Jodi, Kantor, “For Kushner, Israel Policy May Be Shaped by the Personal”, New York Times, February 11, 2017, Accessed July 22, 2017 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/11/us/politics/jared-kushner-israel.html