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",
"Iraq"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Brown: Future of Israel-Palestine Negotiations Pessimistic
Nathan Brown, an expert on Arab issues and professor of political sciences and international affairs at George Washington University has indicated to El Khabar his “pessimism about the future of negotiations between Palestine and Israel,” attributing it, on the one hand, to the weakness of Israeli leaders and on the other hand to the deep division among Palestinians.
Published on Apr 18, 2008
Source: El Khabar
After Annapolis summit later last year, President Bush, more has given the impression of being determined to boost peace process in the Middle East. Do you believe Palestinians and Israelis could live in peace in the short term, regarding what is happening in Gaza Strip and insistence of Israel on building new settlements? In your opinion what are things hindering the two parties to be engaged seriously in bilateral talks on sensitive issues like borders between the two states, Jerusalem, and the comeback of refugees?
There are serious negotiations going on right now between the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships on the most sensitive issues. This is a welcome change from the past when neither side really engaged the positions of the other. But there are still deep problems with the negotiations that lead me to be very pessimistic. The gaps between the parties are very wide, but that is actually not the biggest obstacle. Instead the weakness of the Israeli leadership and the deep division of the Palestinian leadership make it impossible to make any progress. The Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Liberation Organization are now hollow shells, thanks to the mistakes of their own leaders and to Israeli attempts to undermine them. I do not see how it is possible to each an agreement with leaders who cannot lead even if they wanted to do so.
Israel has made of Gaza a big prison following the unilateral withdrawal. Is there any solution for this issue? Does it have any impact on negotiations process? And don’t you think excluding Hamas by the US Administration and the international society is complicating the issue more than offering serious hopes for a solution?
The division of the Palestinians between the West Bank and Gaza serves no interest—it is damaging to the Palestinian, the Israelis, and all other concerned parties. We often say “When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” All the Israelis have is the hammer of military domination—and it makes Gaza look like a nail to them. The cost in human terms in Gaza is very large. But for Israel to take a different approach would be politically very difficult. It would mean acknowledging the reality of Hamas and trying to trap them in the political process. Not only would that be unpopular; it would also be risky. Hamas is not an easy organization to outmanoeuvre.
Do you think the Arab Summit held recently in Damascus has managed bringing something new for the Arab-Israeli conflict and Lebanon issue? How do you assess the level of participation of Arab countries in the summit, and the absence of Lebanon precisely? Do you have any analysis on the political blockage in Lebanon?
The only thing new in this Arab summit was that divisions were even more in the open than usual. This was not good news, because the problems of the region could be easier to solve if the Arab regimes could reach a consensus on something other than restricting satellite broadcasting. The Lebanese stalemate needs an international atmosphere that is supportive of a solution rather than the current atmosphere, which aggravates the situation.
The US invasion on Iraq has reached its fifth year. Despite the usual optimism of President Bush’s Department, Iraq is still weltering in blood, mess, and sectarianism war. In your opinion what are available options for the US Department to end the war in Iraq? Regarding the course of US Presidential Elections, who is the candidate you believe owning an operational vision to find a solution for Iraq issue?
President Bush may speak optimistically in public, but I can say that I have not met anybody in Washington who is optimistic about the situation in Iraq. Even people who supported the invasion admit that many mistakes were made, and I think most would admit that the invasion itself was a mistake.
But acknowledging past mistakes does not point to a solution. I do not think any of the candidates has a realistic solution. Senator McCain offers a continuation of the current Administration’s policies; Senators Clinton and Obama both have a stronger inclination to withdraw American forces but they do not have a realistic plan to leave behind an Iraq heading toward reconciliation rather than civil war.
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.
- Trump’s Plan for Gaza Is Not Irrelevant. It’s Worse.
- Israel’s Forever WarsCommentary
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 Russia Eurasia Center
- After Ilia II: What Will a New Patriarch Mean for Georgia?Commentary
The front-runner to succeed Ilia II, Metropolitan Shio, is prone to harsh anti-Western rhetoric and frequent criticism of “liberal ideologies” that he claims threaten the Georgian state. This raises fears that under his leadership the Georgian Orthodox Church will lose its unifying role and become an instrument of ultraconservative ideology.
Bashir Kitachaev
- Lukashenko’s Bromance With Trump Has a Sell-By DateCommentary
Lukashenko is willing to make big sacrifices for an invitation to Mar-a-Lago or the White House. He also knows that the clock is ticking: he must squeeze as much out of the Trump administration as he can before congressional elections in November leave Trump hamstrung or distracted.
Artyom Shraibman
- What the Russian Energy Sector Stands to Gain From War in the Middle EastCommentary
The future trajectory of the U.S.-Iran war remains uncertain, but its impact on global energy trade flows and ties will be far-reaching. Moscow is likely to become a key beneficiary of these changes; the crisis in the Gulf also strengthens Russia’s hand in its relationships with China and India, where advantages might prove more durable.
Sergey Vakulenko
- Beyond Oil: Hormuz Closure Puts Russia in the Lead in the Fertilizer MarketCommentary
The Kremlin expects to not only profit from rising fertilizer prices but also exact revenge for the collapse of the 2023 grain deal.
Alexandra Prokopenko
- Tokayev’s New Constitution Is a Bet on Stability—At Freedom’s ExpenseCommentary
Kazakhstan’s new constitution is an embodiment of the ruling elite’s fears and a self-serving attempt to preserve the status quo while they still can.
Serik Beysembaev
