Nonviolent Change Journal

     As the Israeli-Palestinian conflict drags on with no end in sight, three approaches to end it compete for the attention of would-be mediators, analysts and politicians. There is the old game, based on a search for a conflict-ending agreement; the interim game embodied by the road map phases, and the new game, premised on waiting for strategic changes that would somehow make the conflict easier to resolve. While the first two approaches are certainly problematic, the third - based on a policy of "strategic waiting" - is downright dangerous.

     As prospects for a two-state solution recede, time may be the one commodity Israelis and Palestinians cannot afford to waste. The recent surprise announcement of the Geneva initiative by out-of-power Israelis and Palestinians demonstrates the old game's allure and forcefulness. And it's easy to see why.

     Oslo's failure, the collapse of the interim approach, and the desperation generated by three years of non-stop terror and violence underscore the attraction of the grand deal roughly based on the diplomacy of the last two years of the Clinton administration. It is not that playing the old game is illogical or unreasonable but, simply put, its proponents have no way of playing it seriously in the face of opposition from Palestinian and Israeli leaders, angry publics, and ongoing violence.

     In short, right now and for the foreseeable future, there is no way to negotiate the old game, impose it from the outside, or appeal over the heads of politicians to the publics to embrace it. The interim game seeks to address this deficiency by laying out a general vision with phases to realize it. Based on the premise that what is required is confidence and trust and a serious environment for negotiations free from violence, this approach requires each side to take meaningful steps - fighting terror, freezing settlements, to create such an environment.

     The interim game, embodied by the U.S.-brokered road map makes perfect sense in theory, but in practice, neither Israelis nor Palestinians seem prepared to take the kinds of measures required to give this process traction. Palestinians will not crack down on terror and Israelis will not freeze settlement activity and so, like the old game, there is no way to get started.

     In the absence of serious prospects for either the old or interim game, the new game has emerged. It is in fact less a defined strategy and more a series of judgments and opinions oriented around the need for regional change to make the Israeli-Palestinian conflict more tractable.

     According to this model, a real resolution depends on time - time for leadership changes, meaning mainly Arafat's removal; time for a U.S. victory in Iraq to weaken the influence of radicalism and extremism; and time for changes in the Arab world driven by democratization and free market forces. Only then will real Israeli- Palestinian and Israeli-Arab peace be possible.

     There is indeed some attractiveness in the new game theory as frustration with Arabs and Israelis and their interminable violence mounts. The new game also generates a perverse sense of satisfaction on the part of Palestinian, Israeli, and American leaders, politicians and analysts in convincing them that they bear no responsibility for a conflict whose resolution is beyond their control.

     But in reality this may prove to be dangerous and myopic thinking. Surrendering to the forces of history or to the unpredictabilities of the future, means actively abandoning the only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that stands a chance of succeeding. Israelis and Palestinians face one major problem from which neither can escape - proximity.

     Their lives and their futures are inextricably linked together and only a two-state solution offers a chance to preserve the security, identity, and demographic equilibrium of both peoples. Indeed one of the darker dimensions of the new game is pursued by those Palestinians who believe that time and demographic advantage is on their side and that it is only a matter of time before they will become masters of all Palestine.

     With American diplomacy and efforts from both sides it remains possible to lay the groundwork for an active two-state solution. But there is no telling for how long. The shadows of demography, extremism, terrorism, and settlements loom large and will continue to erode the common ground on which such a solution must be built. Pulling it off will not be easy; and there are no guarantees.

     But one thing is unmistakably clear - continuing to play the new game may create a situation in the next few years where there is no game left to play at all.

The writer is President of Seeds of Peace. Over 25 years he has advised six Secretaries of State on Arab-Israeli negotiations.

Top of Page

©2002, 2003, 2004. All rights reserve. The Nonviolent Change Journal is published by the Research/Action Team on Nonviolent Large Systems Change - an interorganizational and international project of The Organization Development Institute. Opinions expressed are solely that of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editing staff, Nonviolent Change Journal, Organization Development Institute, nor of the host and website owner of CirclePoint

Permissions: Reposting and reprints are encouraged, as long as proper source acknowledgement is given. As a courtesy, please let us know that you are reprinting or electronically reposting. It helps us know of the interest level. Thank you.