Commentary
Nathan J. Brown
{
"authors": [
"Nathan J. Brown"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "menaTransitions",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center",
"programAffiliation": "MEP",
"programs": [
"Middle East"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"Middle East",
"Israel",
"Palestine"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
Palestine and Israel: Time for Plan B
Negotiations over a two-state solution have reached a dead end. International efforts should focus on a short-term cease-fire between Israel and Hamas that can pave the way for a sustainable armistice.
Published on Feb 26, 2009
Negotiations over a two-state solution to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have reached a dead end. International efforts should focus on a short-term cease-fire between Israel and Hamas that can pave the way for a sustainable armistice, concludes a new policy brief by Nathan J. Brown.
The bitter realities on the ground make an immediate and comprehensive solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict unattainable for now. A new diplomatic approach should be based on three steps: first, a properly negotiated cease-fire; second, a medium-term armistice; and finally, addressing the underlying causes of the conflict during the respite.
Key Conclusions:
- A new cease-fire agreement must be attractive to both sides. Hamas can be enticed with border openings, freedom of operation in Palestinian areas, and a freeze on settlements and Israel with a cessation of attacks from Hamas and other groups, combined with a serious effort to halt arms supplies to Hamas.
- Both have indicated interest in an armistice, but credibility and trust issues must be addressed. Palestinians need assurances that an armistice will not become a permanent solution and Israel must believe that Hamas will not use the time for a military build-up.
- Enforcement mechanisms—settlement monitoring and border inspections—are key to the armistice.
- The United States should encourage rather than discourage European and Arab efforts to lead negotiations among Palestinians and between Palestinians and Israelis.
- A period of relative stability for five to ten years under the armistice could serve as a platform to address the underlying causes of the conflict. Paramount in this stage will be rebuilding Palestinian institutions and democracy.
Brown concludes:
“Acknowledging and working with existing realities must not, however, mean accepting them as permanent. The existing situation is not only short on security and justice; it is also unstable. Things can—and might well—get worse unless the United States and other outside actors couple a realistic view of the present with a serious effort to push for a more promising future. But for the present, they should stop banging their heads against the obstacles to an immediate and comprehensive solution of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Instead, it is time for Plan B.”
About the Author
Nathan J. Brown
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Middle East Program
Nathan J. Brown, a professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University, is a distinguished scholar and author of nine books on Arab politics and governance, as well as editor of five books.
- In the Trump Gaza Plan, Diplomatic Failure is Success
- Looking Past the Wall on Palestine-IsraelCommentary
Nathan J. Brown
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Europe
- Letter from the Editor: Europe Takes Two Steps Forward But One Step BackCommentary
As we close out another season of Strategic Europe, it is worth taking stock of the deep shifts underway.
Rym Momtaz
- Assessing Information Ecosystems: How Governments Can Get Ahead of Hybrid ThreatsPaper
The hybrid warfare landscape is evolving rapidly, leaving policymakers without clear strategies. To better inform their work in addressing emerging challenges, governments must dig deeper into the underlying dynamics at play.
Raluca Csernatoni, Alicia Wanless
- Taking the Pulse: Are the EU’s Watered-Down Russia Sanctions Better than None?Commentary
The EU had to compromise to adopt a twenty-first sanctions package against Russia, exposing growing cracks in the union’s resolve. Is this latest, weaker round worth it to keep pressure on Moscow?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- Why Europe Must Take Charge of its Russia Diplomacy NowCommentary
Trump is distracted and Ukraine wants Europe to step up. The continent’s leaders must find their voice and assert it in talks with Russia.
Alissa de Carbonnel
- Why Russia Could Escalate Hybrid Warfare Against EuropeCommentary
Mounting economic strain and battlefield losses will not necessarily make the Kremlin less dangerous. They could instead push Moscow toward a more aggressive hybrid campaign designed to test NATO’s Eastern flank, exploit allied hesitation, and fracture European resolve.
Maksym Beznosiuk
