The Israeli-Palestinian Impasse, the Hamas Problem, and the Need for a New American Policy
August 27, 2007Radio Interview with Ambassador Philip Wilcox, FMEP President, by Roger Kahn on "Outside-In", for KBUT Crested Butte, CO
Roger Kahn: Welcome to Outside-In.
Our guest today is Ambassador Philip Wilcox, who is the President of the Foundation for Middle East Peace. He is a Colorado native and a graduate of Williams College and Stanford Law School. He served for thirty-one years in the U.S Foreign Service, including assignments as Director for Israeli Affairs, Deputy Assistant Secretary, U.S. Consul General in Jerusalem and as Ambassador-at-Large for Counter-terrorism. Ambassador Wilcox, welcome to Outside-In. I know you support a negotiated two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Why do you see this as the only viable path to peace?
Philip Wilcox: Roger, there is really no other way. These are two communities that are passionately attached to the land they both consider their home. There has been a link between the ancient kingdoms of Israel and the modern state of Israel, and the Palestinian people have lived there from time immemorial. They both have a deep sense of national identity and want states of their own where they can lead their lives, raise their families and fulfill their aspirations. They have been fighting for decades over the same land and so it is critical that this land be divided to allow each of them to have a state of their own. It’s the only way they can live in peace.
Kahn: If that is the case, what would a likely two-state solution look like?
Wilcox: By now, the outlines of a solution are well known. For 20 years the Israelis and Palestinians have been talking to each other after the previous 50 years of conflict and violence. Out of that dialogue, beginning in the late ‘70s, came a series of negotiations, official and unofficial.
These negotiations produced the outlines of a solution which would divide the former British mandate of Palestine into two states: A state of Israel along the lines in which it was originally created in 1948, and a Palestinian state in that area that was occupied by the Israeli forces in the Six Day War of June 1967. Specifically, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza would comprise the Palestinian state. Israel would preserve its state in its original form, as it was between 1948 and 1967.
Kahn: When you say East Jerusalem, Gaza, and the West Bank, and President Bush talks about a contiguous Palestinian State, is that what exists now?
Wilcox: No. A contiguous Palestinian state can never be completely created because a large portion of the Palestinians, perhaps 25-30 percent, live in Gaza, which is geographically separated from the West Bank by a 30-mile strip of land in southern Israel. What is more important is a contiguous, consolidated land mass in the West Bank, where Palestinians can travel freely, do business freely and trade. The Israeli experiment over the last 40 years in building settlements inside the West Bank is a grave challenge to such a Palestinian state.
The purpose of settlements, which in retrospect was a very dangerous policy, was to make it impossible to return this land to the Palestinians after the Israeli conquest in 1967. Settlements were led by messianic Jews who believed that this land was given to the Jewish people by God and that they had a divine obligation to recover it and to settle it. The problem with that is that there were millions of Palestinians living there who regarded it as their home. They saw the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem as the remnant of the lands that were theirs before the 1948 War, when the modern state of Israel was created. So the two-state solution can only be accomplished if most of those Israeli settlements are evacuated and the West Bank, as well as Gaza and East Jerusalem are returned to the Palestinians.
Kahn: Is that something the Israelis are likely to do?
Wilcox: The Israeli political leadership and the Israeli military are resisting this because they have invested huge amounts of capital and energy in the settlement project over the last 40 years, and there are 140 or so Israeli settlements, with almost 250 thousand Israeli settlers living in them, scattered throughout the West Bank.
Many people think it is too late now. But the process can be reversed once it is recognized that giving up on the two state solution means perpetual conflict and bloodshed.
Many Israelis do not sympathize with the settlers. They realize now that settlements were a mistake, and if they could feel secure and assured that there would be real peace with the Palestinians, they would support the evacuation of settlements. However, this is unlikely to happen as a result of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Their political systems probably are not strong enough to do this, and there is a huge power imbalance. The United States is going to have to intervene much more actively if there is ever going to be peace.
Kahn: Well, the United States has, at different times, tried to bring the parties together and it has not worked.
Wilcox: Yes, but we have achieved some successes in this longstanding conflict. Originally, we saw the conflict as one between Israel and the Arab States. Over time, the Arab States have abandoned their rejection of Israel and now are prepared to make peace. Egypt and Jordan have already done so. The conflict is now between the Palestinians and the Israelis over the land in which they both live, and we have not been successful in trying to resolve that. We tried, but our efforts have been episodic and they have never been as energetic or sustained as they need to be. Unless we try harder, this conflict will continue to fester.
Kahn: What do we need to do?
Wilcox: Trying harder is not simply providing what diplomats call “good offices.” The United States has to have a policy of its own, and we never have. We have never expressed clear American views on the big issues of borders, settlements, the status of Jerusalem, or the fate of the refugees. Of course, our policy must accommodate the basic interests of both sides if U.S. mediation is to succeed. But until we take the lead with a U.S. policy initiative, the conflict will continue.
We need an American vision of peace which reflects the fundamental interests of both Israelis and Palestinians. We have to start talking about what the solution is in terms of settlements, how to have two capitals in Jerusalem, how to resolve the refugee problem, what to do about the limited water supplies the two societies share, and what kind of security guarantees will enable both states can live in confidence, free of future military threats.
Kahn: With well over 200,000 settlers in the occupied territories, where are they going to go? How do you get them to leave?
Wilcox: The majority of the settlers are not messianic Jews. They do not worship the land. They do not see themselves as agents for hastening the coming of the Jewish Messiah. Most of them went there because they were offered cheap mortgages, income tax breaks, very attractive housing - better than they could get in Israel itself. They would leave if they were compensated and if they were assured that this would be a part of a larger process for peace.
Kahn: And where would they go?
Wilcox: They would go back to Israel. And there is ample land in Israel for housing and development. Perhaps 70 or 80 percent of the settlers could be persuaded to leave voluntarily in return for compensation. The hard core of the settlers is more fanatic. They are armed and they have been violent at times, but even they would leave if the Israeli Government was determined to bring about their evacuation.
They did it in Gaza, two years ago, when 8,000 settlers were removed from 20 settlements. It could happen again, but only if the United States intervenes with purposeful, tough mediation that offers the promise of peace to both sides. The outlines of an American peace plan are well known. It is time for us to step up to the plate.
The outlines of a solution are: For Israel, a Jewish democratic state defined by the 1949 boundaries with a capital where it now is, in West Jerusalem, and guarantees that Israel would be free of terrorism and attacks from the Palestinians.
For the Palestinians, a state in the West Bank and Gaza with borders defined by the 1949 Armistice Line with a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. Shared water arrangements are also needed. There would be no right of return for the Palestinian refugees who were forced out in 1948, but they would be offered compensation. There would be some token family reunifications, but not a flood of Palestinian refugees returning to Israel because that would undermine the Jewish character of the state.
This is all doable with sufficient will and leadership. I believe the majority of the Israelis and Palestinians would rally to an American peace initiative of this kind.
Kahn: Well then, why have not we put it forward?
Wilcox: Well, there is confusion and ignorance in Washington about the realities of the conflict. Some in our current administration see this conflict simply as a part of the war against terrorism, and they do not grasp the underlying reality of conflict between two national movements, each of whom demands a home in Palestine.
There are also conflicts between American officials and politicians, some of whom are ideologically disposed to the notion of the greater Israel and support the settler movement. And then, there are people in Washington who believe that this issue is just too politically difficult because of very well organized, very assertive, and well-funded American-Jewish organizations who support the policies of the government of Israel. So it is a combination of factors. Above all, it is a lack of strong presidential leadership.
Kahn: When you say that there are very active Jewish lobbies that are in support of the state of Israel’s policies, are there alternatives to those lobbies?
Wilcox: There certainly are. The American-Jewish community, in my experience, is quite varied. I think the core of the American-Jewish community is moderate and pragmatic. There is a deep sense of loyalty and support for Israel as a Jewish, democratic state, and there always has been. But there is also a growing group of progressive American Jews organizations who understand that conquest, colonization, settlement, and domination of the Palestinians can only bring grief to Israel. These American Jews believe that settlements and occupation corrupt and undermine Israel’s democratic liberal character and will ultimately create a demographic crisis that will undermine its Jewish character.
These peace-minded groups are growing. I think they have considerable support in the American-Jewish community but they have not coalesced into a critical mass. American administrations tend to listen to the right-wing groups who claim to speak on behalf of the entire American-Jewish community. In my view, they do not.
There are also non-Jewish organizations deeply committed to a two-state peace. There is a group called Churches for Middle East Peace which is growing and dynamic. There are small Jewish-Christian interfaith groups around the country. My own group, the Foundation for Middle East Peace, has been promoting a two-state peace for many years, working with progressive Jewish, Christian and Arab-American organizations. So there is a growing mass of American citizens who want peace, and who are trying to coalesce into a movement which could influence our politics more effectively.
Kahn: Is there an existing “PAC” or Public Affairs Committee associated with these progressive organizations that raises campaign funds?
Wilcox: There is none; and needless to say, money is important in our politics. Some of the groups who purport to speak for the American Jews are very well-funded. They make a point of supporting politicians who support their line. Many politicians, for fear of offending these groups and alienating fundraisers, tend to take policy guidance from these groups.
Money is a sad fact of life in our politics. If the progressive, peace-minded groups are to prevail they are going to have to get engaged in campaign financing as well. There is nothing illegal about this. It is a fact of life and it has to be reckoned with.
Kahn: When we talk about our Middle East policies, our thoughts these days are dominated by Iraq. What is the relationship between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and our broader Middle East policies?
Wilcox: There is a connection. The United States has lost much of the credibility that we used to have in the Arab and Muslim world, and that has made it more difficult for us to engage Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran to help us find an honorable way to extricate ourselves from Iraq. We need the help of those states to prevent the conflict in Iraq from spreading throughout the region.
We have not had that help, in part, because we have alienated ourselves from the Arab and Muslim States by our policies toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and our unwillingness to engage with Iran. We are seen in the Muslim world as very partial toward Israel and insensitive toward the rights of the Palestinians. Our policies ought to embrace both the Israelis and the Palestinians. We need to be an honest broker.
The other danger of our lack of a clear and impartial policy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that this issue is exploited by terrorists, who are a strategic threat to the United States. Terrorism breeds when there is anger and hostility toward the United States. Unless we can deal with this more effectively and regain the hearts and minds of the people in the Arab and Muslim world, that region will continue to be a fertile field for terrorism aimed at the United States. We must show them that we are impartial, and that we want the best for both Israelis and Palestinians. So, there is profound U.S. national security interest involved.
Kahn: The Arab League changed their policy of denying Israel’s right to exist in 2002. What was the policy? What is it now? And what impact has it had on Israel, and the chances of a negotiated settlement?
Wilcox: Both the Arab States and the Palestinians were in denial for years about the reality of the State of Israel, which they saw as some kind of passing colonial enterprise. They did not understand the depth, the passion, the historical impetus behind the quest for a Zionist Jewish State and so, they simply denied it. They talked about the “Zionist Entity” but never used the word “Israel”.
The Palestinians turned to toward realism and pragmatism in the 1980s. They accepted Israel and agreed to negotiate peace on the basis of two states, and forswear war . That was a major historical breakthrough.
Most of the Arab States took longer to recognize Israel, although Egypt made peace with Israel in 1978 and Jordan did so in 1994. In 2002 the Arab League said “We recognize Israel is here to stay. We are prepared to establish normal relations and make peace with Israel, if it liberates the Palestinians, withdraws from the occupied territories, and supports a Palestinian capital in the East Jerusalem.” That was a momentous change in Arab policy and a very promising one. So that brings some encouragement.
Kahn: Does Arab recognition of Israel change the negotiating situation??
Wilcox: In theory, yes it does, but this settlement enterprise, this Israeli adventure in dominating, controlling, and settling the Palestinian occupied territories is now so far advanced that it will be very difficult for any Israeli government to reverse it. So Israel has not embraced the Arab League initiative, although 50 years ago any Israeli government would have warmly welcomed peace with the Arab States.
Now it is Israel, ironically, that has become the rejectionist party. Whereas the Arabs are willing to make peace, the Israeli political and military leadership believes that holding on to the land is more important than peace with their Arab neighbors. It is important to remember that this hard line view does not reflect the views of the majority of Israeli public, who, according to polls, want peace and would sacrifice land and settlements to achieve it.
Kahn: And that leadership does not represent the general public?
Wilcox: Israel is a vibrant democracy in many ways. But in respect to its dealings with the Arab states, security and the question of territory and peace, it is a dysfunctional system. The military and extremist elements have usually prevailed on war and peace and security issues. Any Israeli leadership that has tried over the years to make peace with the Palestinians has failed. Yitzhak Rabin, the great statesman, who finally recognized the need to negotiate with the PLO, was assassinated by a fanatic right-wing Israeli settler. Thus, Israel needs help from the United States to break out of this impasse. Unless we are willing to offer that help, the future is bleak for both Israelis and Palestinians.
Kahn: With American urging, about a year-and-a-half ago, the Palestinians held an election. The results were not exactly what the United States was hoping for as Hamas won a parliamentary majority. What impact does that have on prospects for a two state solution?
Wilcox: It complicates things greatly. As part of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is an Islamist political-religious movement throughout the Arab Middle East, Hamas was formerly a small group. But it has grown since the late 1980s, largely because of the frustration and despair of the Palestinians towards the prospect of liberation and self-determination. Today it is extremely influential.
Hamas decided, for the first time, to compete in parliamentary elections in 2006 and to everyone’s surprise they won. Hamas won not because the Palestinians are religious fanatics – It is actually quite a secular society – but because of disaffection over the poor governance and longtime failure of Fatah, which had been Yasser Arafat’s majority party, to bring peace. Hamas is now the dominant party in Gaza.
Rather than accepting the results of the election, which we had promoted, we rejected them because Hamas, the “wrong” party won. That was a big mistake. Hamas is a divided movement with both pragmatists and extremists. They are here to stay and are now an unavoidable part of the Palestinian political landscape. The more we try to divide and isolate them, the more we empower the extremists. Instead of arming the Fatah and pitting them against Hamas, we need to work for Palestinian political unification.
Kahn: When we talk about the Fatah controlled West Bank and Hamas controlled Gaza, it seems as though the U.S., the European Union and the U.N are now saying, “Let’s talk only about the West Bank when it comes to building a Palestinian state.” Is that viable?
Wilcox: No, because Hamas does have support from a considerable part of Palestinian society, not only in Gaza but in the West Bank as well. If Hamas is deprived of any role in Palestinian politics, its extreme elements will grow stronger and they may revert to violence and terrorism.
The secret is to try to empower and enlarge the moderate pragmatic elements within Hamas, who do exist, by engaging with them. That is the right policy. Hamas is not going away. They are a part of the process and to alienate them is to encourage the extremists. We should work for unity because without Palestinian unity, there will be no successful negotiations with Israel or peace between the two societies.
Kahn: It is often said that the current leadership as it was under Sharon and Arafat, is not going to make peace because there is just too much bad blood. Are the younger people in both Israel and Palestine capable of coming to an agreement?
Wilcox: Yes. These are both societies with rich human resources, a lot of educated people. These are not crazy ideological people. Unfortunately, the best elements of these societies have increasingly shunned politics, and many are leaving. Too many educated, talented Palestinians and Israelis are emigrating because they see no hope in the future.
If the United States were to engage, to offer strong diplomatic leadership, I think we would renew hope among the best Palestinians and the best Israelis and engage them in politics. New leaders are desperately needed in both societies.
Kahn: That is a hopeful note on which we can end and I thank you so much for sharing your wisdom, insights, and experiences with us.