Search

Begin New Search Topic Diplomacy Political Geography Middle East

701. Sunset for the Two-State Solution?

Author:
Nathan J. Brown
Publication Date:
05-2008
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
The Bush administration is using its final months to try to gain agreement on a twostate solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict—but much of the framework supporting a two-state solution has collapsed. In January 2009, a new American administration will face a series of bleak choices. It may still be possible to revive a two-state solution, but it will require the emergence of a more viable and unified Palestinian leadership. Rather than pretending that an agreement is possible now, it would be far better if U.S. efforts in the remainder of this calendar year began to address the underlying problems.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Diplomacy, and Foreign Exchange
Political Geography:
United States, America, Middle East, and Israel

702. The Past as Prelude? Negotiating the Palestinian Refugee Issue

Author:
Rex Brynen
Publication Date:
06-2008
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Chatham House
Abstract:
The question of Palestinian refugees has long been one of the most difficult issues in dispute in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. With the onset of renewed peace talks following the Annapolis summit of November 2007, it is once again an issue that the Israeli and Palestinian negotiators must address. The two sides are in a worse position to resolve the issue than they were during the last rounds of permanent status negotiations in 2000–01. The political weakness of the Israeli and Palestinian governments is compounded by heightened mistrust between the two societies, as well as by a hardening of Israeli public attitudes against even the symbolic return of any refugees to Israeli territory. There is now a substantial accumulated body of work on the Palestinian refugee issue to guide and inform negotiators and policy-makers. This includes past official negotiations among the key parties, wider discussions among regional states and the international donor community, unofficial and Track II initiatives and a considerable body of technical analysis.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Law, and Migration
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, and Palestine

703. Interview with Itamar Rabinovich: Walking the Tightrope of Middle East Diplomacy

Author:
Michael Mylrea
Publication Date:
09-2008
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
al Nakhlah
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
In an attempt to revive peace talks, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert recently met with Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas at his residence in Jerusalem. Once again, Palestinian and Israeli leaders appear to be at an important crossroads. Is peace on the horizon? Or will violence erupt? Tough questions loom ominously. The complex environment of Middle East diplomacy is like walking a tightrope, where each negotiation rests on a delicate balance between peace and war. As Israel's former Ambassador to the United States and Chief Negotiator to Syria, Itamar Rabinovich has walked this tightrope, negotiating through some of Israel's most challenging times. Former Ambassador Rabinovich sat down with al Nakhlah to shed light on his diplomatic experience, offering important lessons from the past and his unique perspective on the future challenges and opportunities in the Middle East.
Topic:
International Relations and Diplomacy
Political Geography:
United States, Middle East, Israel, and Palestine

704. The New Arab Diplomacy: Not With the U.S. and Not Against the U.S.

Author:
Marina Ottaway and Mohammed Herzallah
Publication Date:
07-2008
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
Many Arab countries traditionally aligned with the United States are showing increasing reluctance to follow Washington's lead in addressing regional problems. This tendency toward an independent foreign policy is particularly evident among the Gulf countries. Even states that host major U.S. military facilities on their soil, such as Qatar, Kuwait, and Bahrain, consider U.S. policy in the region counterproductive and are forging a new diplomacy. Gulf countries have refused to enter into an anti-Iranian alliance with the United States, and have chosen instead to pursue close diplomatic contacts with Tehran, although they fear its growing influence. They are trying to bring about reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah in Palestine, while the United States is seeking to isolate Hamas. They have helped negotiate a compromise solution in Lebanon, while the United States has encouraged the government to take a hardline position. Yet, the new diplomacy of the Arab countries is not directed against the United States, although it contradicts U.S. policie.
Topic:
Diplomacy
Political Geography:
United States, Washington, Middle East, Israel, Kuwait, Arabia, Bahrain, and Qatar

705. Palestine Divided - Middle East Briefing

Publication Date:
12-2008
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
International Crisis Group
Abstract:
The current reconciliation process between the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) and Palestinian National Liberation Movement (Fatah) is a continuation of their struggle through other means. The goals pursued by the two movements are domestic and regional legitimacy, together with consolidation of territorial control – not national unity. This is understandable. At this stage, both parties see greater cost than reward in a compromise that would entail loss of Gaza for one and an uncomfortable partnership coupled with an Islamist foothold in the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) for the other. Regionally, Syria – still under pressure from Washington and others in the Arab world – has little incentive today to press Hamas to compromise, while Egypt and Saudi Arabia are tilting more pointedly toward Fatah. It will take significant shifts in domestic, regional and international attitudes for this to change. Palestine's political-territorial division, now over a year old, is set to endure.
Topic:
Diplomacy
Political Geography:
Washington, Middle East, Israel, Arabia, Gaza, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Egypt

706. Sharing the Burden in the Middle East

Author:
Marina Ottaway
Publication Date:
12-2008
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
The Obama administration will face a Middle East where the problems are enormous, U.S. interests have shifted eastward, and solutions are elusive. Major conflicts appear deadlocked: the peace process, political reconciliation in Iraq, and negotiations with Iran. The situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan is deteriorating rapidly. The new administration promises to bring to all these issues a welcome change from its predecessor's attitudes: during the election campaign, President-elect Barack Obama made it clear that he would resuscitate the idea that diplomacy, not force, is the weapon of first resort, and that diplomatic progress requires a willingness to talk to hostile, even rogue, regimes. While this promised return to diplomatic normality is encouraging, it will not be enough. The United States cannot break the deadlock on most issues without the help of countries of the region, sharing with them the burden and the responsibility. This would not be abdicating the United States' great power role, but rather recognizing changing realities in the Middle East.
Topic:
Foreign Policy and Diplomacy
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Afghanistan, United States, Iraq, Iran, Middle East, and Arab Countries

707. The keys to understanding the Israel-Russia

Author:
Pierre Razoux
Publication Date:
11-2008
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
NATO Defense College
Abstract:
The world financial crisis, the Iranian crisis and the Georgian crisis illuminate through different prisms the complex relations between Israel and Russia.The seeming contradictions of this odd couple are a constant source of serious concern and perplexity to theWestern world, and to NATO in particular, all the more so since Russia sent its army into Georgia and is back on the world stage as an essential player.Why is it that only six weeks after the verbal clash over the Georgian crisis in August 2008 (when Russia accused Israel of having armed and trained the Georgian army), Russia and Israel abolished their visa regulations, thus facilitating reciprocal trade? How do we explain the acceleration of capital flows between the two countries, at a time when world trade is clearly slowing down? And why is it that Moscow, after Washington, is still a destination of choice of Israeli prime ministers, while the Israeli authorities continue to insist that Israel has a special relationship with the United States? Are we to infer from this, then, that Israel and Russia are upgrading their strategic ties, as a popular Turkish magazine suggests ? Lastly, why was Israel one of the very few states in the Middle East to maintain regular relations with Russia after the ColdWar, unlike the many Arab states who coldshouldered their former arms supplier just as it was preparing to deliver sophisticated missile systems to Syria and a nuclear power station to Iran? For many observers, trapped in Cold War thinking, it was impossible to imagine Israel and Russia, the USSR's successor, as anything other than irreconcilable adversaries. This perception of Israel as the West's champion against Sovietsupported Arab countries overlooked the fact that the Arab-Israeli conflict arose from a regional conflict that went way beyond the confines of East-West confrontation. It also failed to take into account the deep and longstanding bonds between Israel and Russia, particularly in the area of immigration.
Topic:
Diplomacy and International Affairs
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Middle East, Israel, Arabia, and Syria

708. The Future of the U.S. Military Presence in Iraq

Author:
Julie Montgomery
Publication Date:
09-2008
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
United States Institute of Peace
Abstract:
The dramatic improvement in security in Iraq has changed the U.S. policy debate. The Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) are taking a bigger role, the Maliki government's capacity is improving and the U.S. is gradually stepping aside.
Topic:
Diplomacy and War
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, and Middle East

709. Negotiating with the Islamic Republic of Iran: Raising the Chances for Successs—Fifteen Points to Remember

Author:
John W. Limbert
Publication Date:
01-2008
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
United States Institute of Peace
Abstract:
Both Iranian and American sides come to the negotiating table burdened with years of accumulated grievances and suspicions. Their recent history has led both sides to assume the worst about the other and to see it as infinitely devious, hostile, and duplicitous. Yet, while talking to Iran may sometimes be difficult and unpleasant, it is also worth doing and may help both sides to find common interests lurking behind walls of hostility and distrust. To enhance the prospects of a fruitful encounter, American officials should pay attention to a variety of traits that their Iranian counterparts are likely to demonstrate. Although some of these characteristics might make productive negotiation difficult, American negotiators should remain patient and focused on the issues under discussion. Iranian negotiators may base their arguments on an abstract ideal of “justice” instead of defined legal obligations. This distrust of legalistic argument springs from the belief held by many Iranians that the great powers have long manipulated international law and the international system to take advantage of weaker countries. The American negotiator should, therefore, look for unambiguous, mutually agreeable criteria that both define ideals of justice and avoid legal jargon. The combination of Iran's great imperial past and its weakness in the last three hundred years has created a gap between rhetoric and reality. Yet, while history certainly matters to Iranians, they will on occasion bury the past to reach an agreement, especially if that agreement serves a larger interest. There are parallel governing structures within the Islamic Republic, making it difficult but also important for American negotiators to be sure they are talking to the right people. The factionalization of the Iranian political system can make Iranian negotiators reluctant to reach an agreement lest they become vulnerable to charges of “selling out” to foreigners. Grand gestures may overshadow the substance of issues under negotiation, and American negotiators need to be able to distinguish substance from political theater. Iranians feel that they have often been treated as fools in political contacts, and they will be very sensitive to American attitudes. If they sense that the American side considers them irrational and unreasonable, they are likely to react in exactly that way. American negotiators should thus treat their Iranian counterparts with professional respect and not lecture them on what is in Iran's national interest. The Islamic Republic believes itself surrounded by hostile American, Arab, Turkish, and Sunni forces, all determined to bring about its downfall. Conspiracy theories are very popular, and events such as the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the Iran-Iraq War are often considered the outcome of great power plots. If an American negotiator senses that that the Iranians are overplaying a hand and pushing a momentary advantage beyond its value, the best response is to ask, “On what basis are you asking for that?” and to insist that the Iranian side come up with some understandable basis for its position. Mediation or arbitration by an impartial body can sometimes help to counter what appear to be unreasonable demands. What works in any negotiation—preparation, knowing each side's best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA), building relationships, and understanding underlying interests—will work in negotiations with Iranians. What can undermine any negotiation—such as ill-advised public statements—can also compromise negotiations with Iranians.
Topic:
Diplomacy
Political Geography:
United States, America, Iran, and Middle East

710. PolicyWatch #1426: The Problems of Engaging with Iran's Supreme Leader

Author:
Mehdi Khalaji
Publication Date:
11-2008
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad's congratulatory letter to U.S. president-elect Barack Obama was the first of its kind in the history of the Islamic Republic. In his letter, Ahmadinezhad expressed his hope for fundamental change in U.S. domestic and foreign policies. Although some observers speculate that the letter suggests a transformation in the mindset of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, about normalizing relations between Iran and the United States, this is unlikely. Majlis speaker Ali Larijani expressed the widespread attitude of Iranian leaders on November 9, saying, "Whoever thinks that Obama will change the U.S. foreign policy is naive."
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and Islam
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, and Middle East