Eric Martin

by Eric Martin

The recent collapse of the Palestinian/Israeli peace talks – and the Obama administration's failure to obtain even modest settlement freeze assurances from the Netanyahu government - has, ironically, been met with a rare bout of optimism from several observers.  The optimism stems, in part, from the fact that the recent collapse of the peace process may, once and for all, sound the death knell for a road to nowhere that has been the only path traveled to the exclusion of other avenues.

Now, with the peace process in shambles, and the demographic time bomb in Israel ticking, present and future necessity combined with past futility, could give birth to new, more promising strategies.  Along those lines, Daniel Levy (in nibbles), Amjad Atallah and Bassma Kodmani (in more substantial form) (pdf) and Robert Wright are beginning to flesh out what one such new approach would look like: a UN-led solution, and its relative advantages.  From Wright:

There is a strategy that could actually work. It would take boldness on President Obama’s part, but it could win him a place in history and the enduring gratitude of most Jews and Palestinians.

Seizing the opportunity involves first seeing the flaw in one premise of our current policy. As Clinton put that premise on Friday, “The United States and the international community cannot impose a solution. Sometimes I think both parties seem to think we can. We cannot.”

Yes we can.

The United Nations created a Jewish state six decades ago, and it can create a Palestinian state now. It can define the borders, set the timetable and lay down the rules for Palestinian elections (specifying, for example, that the winners must swear allegiance to a constitution that acknowledges Israel’s right to exist).

Establishing such a state would involve more tricky issues than can be addressed in this space…But, however messy this solution may seem, it looks pretty good when you realize how hopeless the current process is.

Palestinians and Israelis have taken turns impeding this process, and lately Israel has been in the lead. A raft of American inducements failed to get Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to forgo for even three months the construction of Israeli settlements that are banned under international law. It would be nice to think that this is just a phase, the product of an ephemeral far-right coalition. But there are signs that Israel’s drift to the right runs deep.

Only last week the chief rabbis in dozens of Israeli municipalities — who get government salaries — decreed that landlords shouldn’t rent to non-Jews. Meanwhile, hard-line settlers are systematically populating the upper levels of the military. And moderates seem to be heading for the exits. From 2000 to 2009 the number of Israelis applying for permanent residence in America nearly doubled. […]

By comparison, a United Nations solution looks Israel-friendly. Borders could be drawn to accommodate some of the thickest Israeli settlements along the 1967 lines (while giving the new Palestinian state land in exchange). But perhaps the biggest advantage is the political cover this approach would give President Obama. […]

By contrast, the current path involves Obama taking political heat every time he tries to move Netanyahu a few inches toward the goal line. And there are 97 yards to go.

A prediction: if the United Nations does take the initiative, domestic resistance will be largely confined to the right wing of American Jewish opinion. Vast numbers of American (and Israeli) Jews will rally to the plan, because lasting peace will finally be within reach.

Below the fold is a list of salient issues related to this approach prepared by Wright (reprinted with permission of the author):

Read more