Posted By Stephen M. Walt Share

As with the earlier meeting between President Obama and Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, I don't think today’s visit between Obama and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will be a game-changing event. But it is an opportunity for Obama to do two important things: 1) signal to Israel that he is really, truly serious about a two-state solution, and do what he can to bolster Mahmoud Abbas's fragile standing among the Palestinians.

With those goals in mind, here's what the two men should say to each other. 

Obama will should emphasize that he is strongly committed to a two-state solution and that he is willing to use U.S. power and leverage to pressure both sides. He should tell Abbas that he intends to push Israel hard to stop building settlements and to negotiate a two-state solution that will lead to a viable Palestinian state on virtually all of the West Bank and Gaza.  He should also tell Abbas that he thinks this new state should have its capital in East Jerusalem, along with mutually acceptable arrangements governing access to the various holy sites in the Old City and subsidiary arrangements on water rights, air space, and the like.

At the same time, Obama needs to underline what he expects from Abbas and the Palestinian Authority. Most importantly, he should make it clear to Abbas that the refugee issue will have to be resolved in a way that does not jeopardize Israel’s status as a Jewish majority state. In other words: if the Palestinians want a state of their own, they will have to give up any vision of a full "right of return." Second, Obama should make it clear that his vision of a two-state solution will involve certain restrictions on Palestinian sovereignty, mostly having to do with armaments and external security arrangements. Third, he should tell Abbas that he expects the PA to cooperate with the multinational effort (under Lt. General Keith Dayton) to build a reliable and professional security forces. Fourth, he should tell Abbas that it is time to beginning transferring power to a new generation of Palestinian leaders, and make more visible efforts to prepare the Palestinian people for a peaceful relationship with Israel. In particular, he needs to explain to Abbas that Palestinian radicalism has badly undercut their image here in the United States, and that his efforts to help them will be facilitated if they go to great lengths to underscore their desire to live in peace and security with Israel.

For his part, Abbas should tell Obama that he hopes Obama follows through more effectively than his predecessors did. He should make it crystal-clear to Obama that he supports the broad outlines of the deal laid out above, and he should voice his support for a two-state solution in front of as many cameras and reporters as he can. And Abbas should remind Obama that genuine progress towards peace is the best -- and maybe the only -- way to reduce the popularity of Hamas and to deprive Iran of the main issue that it is now exploiting to enhance its regional influence. Abbas should also warn him against attempts to make progress on Israel-Palestine contingent on a resolution of the various issues with Iran, or on a prior peace deal with Syria.  He should express his gratitude for U.S. assistance in building up Palestinian security forces, but make it clear that this effort will collapse if progress towards statehood stalls.  And he should tell Obama that this is one issue where eloquent rhetoric is not enough.  In the end, it is Obama's actions that will count.   

But what really matters is not what the two men say to each other; what matters is what each of them does. But remember that one of them is the extremely popular leader of the most powerful country in the world, and the other isn't even a head of state, and is someone whose own legitimacy has been badly tarnished by prior U.S. policy and events like Gaza. Now that Abbas and Netanyahu have both been to see him, the ball is in Obama’s court.

Omar Rashidi/PPO via Getty Images

 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

GRAND SEN-OR

6:34 PM ET

May 31, 2009

Obama is talking yo another

Waste of time and taxpayers funds...
Obama is talking to another ex-Shah, de facto leadership there is in the hands of Hamas. If he is serious and realist he should talk to Hamas than Abbas. But no! He has to save the yet imagined State of Palastine with an imagined nation. I am just wondering when they will open the museums, reservation parks;->>

Grand Sen~or.

 

FRANKIER

11:27 PM ET

May 28, 2009

Isn't this playing into Netanyahu's hand?

Isn't this playing into Netanyahu's hand? Assuming that Netanyahu isn't interested in having a strong and representative Palestinian counterparty, not including Hamas will just empty the process of any relevance and allow the usual games to be played.

Shouldn't the US try to bring together Hamas and the Abbas government and have whatever it comes out of it representing the Palestinian people? I know it sounds unrealizable, but as long as Gaza and the West Bank are physically separated, it will be really hard to have an homogeneous leadership for the Palestinian people. Is Israel's ultimate objective to reduce the Palestinian state to just Gaza with the West Bank being gradually "settled"?

 

KENNETH SORENSEN

6:48 AM ET

May 29, 2009

Shame!

Stephen M. Walt wrote:

Most importantly, he should make it clear to Abbas that the refugee issue will have to be resolved in a way that does not jeopardize Israel’s status as a Jewish majority state

Israel have no right per se to a "Jewish majority state". More than a million people have been kicked out with the deliberate aim of creating this Jewish majority. The only rightful thing to do for posterity, is to dismantle the outlawed colony of Israel, - by inviting all the exiled Palestinians and their descendants back to the land they are named after, and thereupon have a vote about how this their ancestral land should be governed. You cannot get it more democratic than that; one man, one vote.

I have always said that this is the Palestinians strongest card. Never give up on the refugees right to return. Arafat was close to do that at Camp David in 2000, and the Palestinians then chose Hamas next time they had a vote, because they knew that Hamas would not sell out of this key right.

If anything, by constantly raising the refugee issue, and by constantly educating Americans about the injustice that was committed in 1948 (and again in 1967 when 250.000 fled the West Bank), we help to undermine the moral justification of Israel and put a huge question mark on its right to exist -- founded as it is by means of a horrendous crime against humanity, committed against somebody who had absolutely nothing to do with racism and pogroms against Jews in Europe.

The refugee crisis and the millions of Palestinians legitimate and just right of return is Israel's Archilles heel -- one which one sunny day will make this Colossus on Clay Feet come crumbling down.

 

BRETT

7:50 AM ET

May 29, 2009

inviting all the exiled

inviting all the exiled Palestinians and their descendants back to the land they are named after, and thereupon have a vote about how this their ancestral land should be governed.

What gives the descendants of Palestinians expelled in 1948-49 any right to the territory in question? They've never lived on it, and were born in the territory of another state. We frown on inter-generational punishments of crimes (i.e., "punishing the son for the sins of the father"), and ignoring that, trying to enforce what is really a dying land claim on their part (since even the youngest people from that era are in their 60s, and dying quickly) because their ancestors lived on it is rooted in the same type of "ancestral land claim" nonsense that was used to justify the creation of Israel.

I'm sympathetic to Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, because Israel is harming them right now, and I believe that the living victims of a crime have the right to restitution. The descendants, on the other hand, have no right to anything but an apology and recognition that a crime occurred.

If anything, by constantly raising the refugee issue, and by constantly educating Americans about the injustice that was committed in 1948 (and again in 1967 when 250.000 fled the West Bank), we help to undermine the moral justification of Israel and put a huge question mark on its right to exist

No, you just make yourself look intransigent and irrational, a people who can't let go of the past and are too caught up in avenging the sins committed against their parents to take advantage of the opportunities they have now to grow and do better.

The refugee crisis and the millions of Palestinians legitimate and just right of return is Israel's Archilles heel -- one which one sunny day will make this Colossus on Clay Feet come crumbling down.

Don't make me laugh. If the Palestinians were to decide that the Right of Return is non-negotiable in any form, then what it will become is the anvil upon which the Israeli hammer will break them, whether by "gentle" or "hard" ethnic cleansing, or by the denial of rights. Even the "demographic" issue is fading as a hope for them; while the Gazan population explodes, the West Bank population has lower birth rates than the Israeli Jewish population - and the Israeli government is perfectly willing to let the Gazans rot in their own filth and poverty as long as they aren't shooting missiles at Israel.

 

KENNETH SORENSEN

10:57 AM ET

May 29, 2009

Answer to Brett

Brettwrote:

What gives the descendants of Palestinians expelled in 1948-49 any right to the territory in question?

Because they are Palestinians.
If Brett and other Americans had been herded together in enclaves along the Mexican border, a lust for revenge would undoubtedly manifest itself in Brett also. It would be enough that his father, uncles and friends had been expelled 3 score years ago. Brett would be proud to be among the first to return, so that his fathers sufferings had not been in vain. And Brett would say: I am an American and so my children are, and one day we will return to the land we are named after.

Israel has deliberately dragged out the day of reckoning, because they cynically calculate that the exiles will die out. You got to understand that it is this cynicism that we want eradicated from the surface of the Earth. We simply cannot stand idle and watch how Israelis besmirks the reputation of all honest white men. Therefore we must see to that Israel is closed down, just like we did with White South Africa. Because such cynicism must not be rewarded.

You also seem clue-less with regards to where all the violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan originates. Who sophisticated the car bomb and brought it to Iraq, and who had a deep-felt motive to attack Israels only ally on the face of the Earth? And who brought it to Afghanistan in 2005 in order to spoil this undertaking as well? It is very foreign to Afghan mind-sets, and to me it is obvious that it is angry people with a motive that are doing it. Stateless people being brought up in a refugee-camp in Lebanon for example. This is one of the many taboos: Who are the suicide-bombers? Where do they come from? Israel and its Lobby has an interest in not spelling out who these people are. But the so-called "Al-Queda"- leader in Iraq, Al-Zarqawi was a Jordanian of Palestinian descent.

Until the Palestinians are back in their ancestral land, terror will just go on. They now have 2 scenes of operation (3 with Pakistan) where they can turn up and down for the violence. In Iraq they have recently been turning it up and it is likely to reach a crescendo when the Americans pull out.

 

BRETT

7:06 PM ET

May 29, 2009

Because they are

Because they are Palestinians.

Do the native Americans have the right to all the land they lost more than a century ago? How about the Germans who were expelled from Konigsburg (now Kaliningrad) at the end of World War 2?

The truth about land claims is that eventually, squatters' rights degrade the original claim. Particularly when the descendants in question haven't lived there at any time.

And Brett would say: I am an American and so my children are, and one day we will return to the land we are named after.

Don't presume to know me. But even were I in that situation, I would be just as in the wrong about my "claim" as the descendants of refugees are today.

Ultimately, we have to decide a point when a dead land claim is a dead land claim. I draw it at the point when the people in question who lived on it are dying and/or dead, and their descendants have never lived upon it.

We simply cannot stand idle and watch how Israelis besmirks the reputation of all honest white men. Therefore we must see to that Israel is closed down, just like we did with White South Africa. Because such cynicism must not be rewarded.

I've got news for you - not all Israelis are European Caucasians. Quite a few, actually, are "Sephardic Jews" from the Middle East and North Africa.

I don't particularly consider Israel some type of "mark" upon my honor as a white man. In fact, I don't really consider Israel as a reference point for anything - it's just another state, in an area of violent, immoral states and religious conflict.

You also seem clue-less with regards to where all the violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan originates.

I know quite well. The violence in Afghanistan, namely that of the Taliban, is rooted in the programs that Pakistan ran in the border regions 30 years ago against the Soviets in Afghanistan. They took a bunch of children, more or less boys from Afghanistan and that region, stuck them in a bunch of Saudi-funded madrassahs, and let them loose upon Afghanistan, largely in the hopes of developing a loyal client state next door.

Stateless people being brought up in a refugee-camp in Lebanon for example.

Do you actually have any proof that the problems facing the refugees are a driving force in the decisions made by Afghani Taliban, other than in a general "Oh, fellow muslims are hurting!" sense? I'd like to see it.

Where do they come from? Israel and its Lobby has an interest in not spelling out who these people are. But the so-called "Al-Queda"- leader in Iraq, Al-Zarqawi was a Jordanian of Palestinian descent.

So? Most of the leadership is either Saudi or Egyptian.

Until the Palestinians are back in their ancestral land, terror will just go on.

Don't count on it. Unlike you, I'm realistic enough to understand that there are multiple causes underlying Middle East terrorism.

 

SICULO ARABI

1:21 PM ET

June 1, 2009

Two Reasons to Return Stolen, Occupied Palestine to Palestinians

Reasons

  1. Trashing International Law, Increasing Judeophobia, Heightening Conflict = Massive Cost. If major states are committed to an international regime opposing genocide, Jewish genocidaires cannot be permitted to keep stolen Palestine merely by virtue of holding it for some number of years. Otherwise any genocidal state today would be able to achieve its goals simply by waiting out the international community.

    While recent genocides in the Balkans and in Africa have not been fully undone, the dynamic of the conflict over Palestine is quite different as I point out below in the second reason. The issue is not really whether Zionists will lose in Palestine but is rather how bad the repercussions will be for Diaspora Jews as increasing numbers of non-Jews in states manipulated by the global Israel Lobby become highly annoyed with Jewish Zionists and their subversion.

    Incurring the continuing costs necessary to supporting the alliance with Israel simply makes no sense especially when the total has already reached $5-6 trillion.

    Why should the USA be throwing good money after bad?

  2. Core Intractability. For 90% or more Muslims, the question of Stolen and Occupied Palestine is an issue comparable to slavery for abolitionists during the 1850s in the Northern USA. The slavery issue would not have gone away without emancipation. The Zionism issue won't go away until the Zionist state is abolished.

    It makes a lot more sense to slash this Gordian Knot than to try to untangle it.

Summary

There is no realist argument for the continued alliance between the USA and Israel. If anything, realism should put the USA on the side of abolishing the Zionist state and removing the Zionist population.

American's national political leaders can only justify maintaining the USA-Israel alliance as an accommodation to transnational Jewish-Zionist ethnic politics because of the power and influence that the Israel Lobby has amassed since the 1890s, but that power can vanish very quickly with only a few words from the president and an appropriate executive order: Haaretz:'Obama wants Mideast breakthrough within next two years'.

 

BRETT

7:40 AM ET

May 29, 2009

This is good, but it's

This is good, but it's realistically nothing new - and Abbas especially will know that parts of it may be rather difficult to implement. The "East Jerusalem" issue, in particular, will be a bit of a bastard, because in the last serious round of negotiations (the 2000 negotiations under Barak), Jerusalem became a major stalling point.

Obama needs to resist the temptation to let all the important issues fall of the category of "We won't address this now, but it will be part of the Final Status negotiations". That way lies dashed hopes and possibly a Third Intifada.

 

FRANKIER

10:42 AM ET

May 29, 2009

possibly a Third

[...] possibly a Third Intifada

.

Wouldn't that really be the preferred outcome by Netanyahu?

 

BRETT

7:14 PM ET

May 29, 2009

Not really. For one thing,

Not really. For one thing, Israelis will die, probably numbering in the hundreds at least (like the last Intifada), even if ten Palestinians die for every one Israeli.

It would also be expensive, since Israel would have to go into the West Bank and Gaza, again, and effectively crack down and do constant policing and control.

Most importantly, it really wouldn't change anything. The Second Intifada just wasted a bunch of lives, and now we're right back where we started 8 years ago.

 

FRANKIER

7:45 PM ET

May 29, 2009

it really wouldn't change

it really wouldn't change anything

My point exactly .... with the added bonus that Israel could claim that the Palestinians cannot really change so that Israel must continue to defend itself.

 

CHRIS COLE

7:52 PM ET

May 29, 2009

spelling and grammar

professor walt, this posting is SO full of typos i can hardly believe it. i often read your blog and especially enjoy your book/journal article recommendations and provocative analysis of the us-israel relationship, but even for me who is largely sypathetic to your views the typos are a distraction and detract from your credibility. just a thought: try spell and grammar check.

 

KENNETH SORENSEN

8:42 AM ET

May 30, 2009

I have not noticed significant amounts of misspellings

I think Mr. Walt does a tremendous job. Just think if any of us were to write anything coherent, daily, and for...5 months! [he began this blog in January] I for one would have run out of items to write about around January 20 th. - that's for sure. And he does have a lot of other things to attend to, I believe.

Personally, I would prefer few, but high quality postings. Twice a week would be fine for me. An extreme amount of postings one can find on the "mondoweiss"-website. This is just too much. No one have the time to comb trough it all, and most of it is also secunda ware. [and what little good there might be, drowns in all the less important stuff]

 

NUR AL-CUBICLE

4:25 PM ET

June 2, 2009

They live under bridges

Another "concern troll"

 
 

RICHARD WITTYQ

11:06 AM ET

May 30, 2009

Israel does have a right to be a Jewish majority state

When the concept of nationalism was described as done, either defined by a geography of socially (communities), it was the big and federated states that defined that.

Since that time, when Yugoslavia and then Soviet Union fell apart the nationalisms were seen. There has been in the last 20 years, the formation of more national states than during the period that is referred to as the era of nationalism. MANY more states.

People associate for a wide range of reasons, but the principle of consented association remains a primary basis of jurisdiction, governance itself and means of governance.

If in Israel/Palestine the current residents (comprising democracy, CURRENT) determined that they are one people in fact, and desire to self-govern as one people, then that should be compelling. (Certainly there would be struggle.)

I know VERY FEW that conclude that Israel and Palestine are in fact and identify currently as one people. Even the proponents of single-state, don't act as if that were true. (Maybe Ilan Pappe does, but he is ideological more than sentimental. Ali Abunimeh regards himself as Palestinian, NOT as Israeli/Palestinian or Israeli if that is what the majority determined to name that state.)

Walt's realist proposals are more realistic, and also idealistic.

 

GRAND SEN-OR

7:35 PM ET

May 30, 2009

VERY FEW that conclude that

VERY FEW that conclude that Israel and Palestine are in fact and identify currently as one people.

The fact is one can imagine any crowd as a nation, as long as you have museums and a made up history, national parks, national flag, national anthem, etc.
Hey! in the end we are all from Adam and Eve (including Jews;-));->>

Grand Sen~or.

note: I suggest you Guys read Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson to develop your imagination on modern nations;->>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagined_Communities :

The imagined community is a concept coined by Benedict Anderson which states that a nation is a community socially constructed, which is to say imagined by the people who perceive themselves as part of that group.[1] Anderson's book, Imagined Communities, in which he explains the concept in depth, was published in 1983.[1]

Very, very humorous book, every IR-body should read it to boost her/his sense of humour;->

 

Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.

Read More