Commentary
Nathan J. Brown
{
"authors": [
"Nathan J. Brown"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "menaTransitions",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "MEP",
"programs": [
"Middle East"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Middle East",
"Israel",
"Palestine"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Idea of Two-State Solution 'Should be Abandoned'
Parties involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict should focus their efforts on a long-term ceasefire between Hamas and Israel and abandon the idea of a two-state solution, which has come to a dead end for the present time.
Published on Mar 19, 2009
Source: Gulf News
Nathan J. Brown, Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told Gulf News that he sees no point in keeping the offer of the two-state solution open because such a proposal is not feasible based on the current level of enmity and mistrust between the two parties, especially after the Israeli war on Gaza in December last year.
He said the situation might get even worse unless the United States and other actors in the political scene of the conflict come up with a realistic proposal to resolve it.
The Washington, DC-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is a private non-profit organisation, which amongst other objectives, works to promote active international engagement by the United States.
In a telephone interview, Brown told Gulf News the problem does not lie with the solution itself, but it is rather the realities on the ground and the collapse of the diplomatic process because of what he believes is the ignorance of such realities. Brown is the author of a comprehensive study about the horizon of peace in the Middle East titled Palestine and Israel: Time for Plan B, published this month by the institute.
He said leaders of both parties -Israel and Palestine, either do not have the will, are not able - or both, to entice their societies toward the necessary compromises that peace entails.
"In addition to the previous reason, mutual mistrust, political disarray and deliberate actions to impose realities have made the two-state solution impossible. The failure of the former US administration to fulfil its two-state promise has added to the complications of the crisis and resulted in the collapse of the two-state solution for a long time to come."
But why when everybody is talking about peace in the Middle East, can you come up with such a pessimistic view about the horizon of peace? Gulf News asked.
That is an interesting question, Brown replied. He said in his opinion talking about peace was different from achieving it.
"The Bush administration talked about peace for more than a year, but this did help peace to materialise. There was a war instead. I think peace requires the players to concentrate their efforts on establishing a long term ceasefire based on the interests of both Israel and Hamas in order to avoid fighting in the short term."
Brown advised that the ceasefire must be clear and in a written form with Arabs and Europeans playing a major role in achieving it and offer guarantees to both parties. Hamas should be granted access to the outside world through Gaza's border with Egypt while Israel should be assured that no smuggling of arms by Hamas will be allowed.
What about Israel building more colonies on Palestinian land and to what extent does such action undermine the peace process or even a ceasefire?
Brown said he thought the colonies did not help any kind of ceasefire between Palestinians and Israelis and Israel should be forced to face choices between their expansion or a long-term ceasefire.
Brown said a ceasefire came along with the Hamas principle of "hudna" (truce). Arab and EU mediators could sell the idea to Hamas; if the latter's interests were taken into consideration. The ceasefire should last between one to two years with a possible extension for similar periods.
The ceasefire period must be followed with an armistice with Palestinians getting open borders, a freeze of colonies and an opportunity to rebuild institutions. The armistice must be for at least five years.
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
- 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
- Taking the Pulse: Enough with the Annual NATO Summits, Already?Commentary
Over the past ten years, NATO has held almost as many summits as it did during the entirety of the Cold War. Are they still useful, or is it time to stop holding annual meetings?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
