• Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Middle East logoCarnegie lettermark logo
LebanonIran
{
  "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

Other
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center

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.

Link Copied
By Nathan J. Brown
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.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    Rubble is Israel’s Doctrine, Not a Case of Improvisation

      Nathan J. Brown

  • Commentary
    Trump’s Plan for Gaza Is Not Irrelevant. It’s Worse.

      Nathan J. Brown

Nathan J. Brown
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Middle East Program
Nathan J. Brown
Political ReformForeign PolicyNorth AmericaUnited StatesMiddle EastIsraelPalestine

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 Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Rubble is Israel’s Doctrine, Not a Case of Improvisation

    Adversaries are to be degraded so deeply, that reconstitution becomes difficult or impossible.

      Nathan J. Brown

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    A Geographic and Social Reconfiguration in Lebanon

    Israel is encroaching on the country’s territory, while the Lebanese look askance at one another.

      Issam Kayssi

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Pushing Beirut into an Armed Conflict With Hezbollah Is Insane

    The party’s domestic and regional roles have changed, so Lebanon should devise a disarmament strategy that encompasses this.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Corrupted by Absolute Power

    In an interview, Marc Lynch discusses his new book decrying the post-1990 U.S.-dominated order in the Middle East.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Why Does the Middle East Suffer “Forever Wars”?

    Because perpetual conflict enhances control, offers economic benefits, and allows leaders to ignore popular preferences.

      • Angie Omar

      Angie Omar

Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
Carnegie Middle East logo, white
  • Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.