[New York Review of Books] Hussein Agha and Robert Malley - As currently defined, a conflict-ending settlement is practically unachievable; even if signed it will not be implemented and even if implemented it will not be sustained. Against this background, the idea of a long-term interim arrangement acquires some logic. Instead of a resolution that promises finality, Israelis and Palestinians could strive for an agreement that seeks to minimize risks of violence. The mention of Jordan as a possible piece of the Israeli-Palestinian puzzle comes with burdensome baggage. Yet arguments favoring some kind of Jordanian-Palestinian entity comprising Jordan, the West Bank, and perhaps Gaza are worth considering. Inserting a new variable would give both parties additional flexibility in an increasingly arthritic process. Being closely linked to Jordan - a country of similar ethnicity and faith, where the majority are already Palestinian - and accepting a Jordanian security presence in the West Bank might seem a tolerable price to pay compared to the alternatives, whether continued Israeli occupation or the dispatch of an unfamiliar Western force. Palestinians would gain economic and strategic strength, reduce their vulnerability and dependence on Israel, obtain valuable political space, and become part of a more consequential and self-sufficient state. The notion of a nonmilitarized West Bank could become more palatable. Should President Obama follow the same trodden path, without first rethinking basics, there would be nothing bold or ambitious about his efforts. They would be futile and thoroughly mystifying. This time, there would be no excuse. Hussein Agha is Senior Associate Member of St. Antony's College, Oxford. Robert Malley, Director of the Middle East Program at the International Crisis Group, served as special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs for President Bill Clinton.
2009-11-11 06:00:00Full ArticleBACK Visit the Daily Alert Archive