It's Not the Economy, Stupid

The United States must tackle the dysfunctional Palestinian political system for the peace process to have any chance of success.

BY MICHELE DUNNE | JULY 4, 2010

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sits down with U.S. President Barack Obama tomorrow, the economic plight of the Palestinian citizens of Gaza will be near the top of the agenda. The United States hopes to follow up on Israel's decision to ease its blockade of Gaza, working with the Israeli leadership on further steps that could be taken to allow more goods into the area. Netanyahu, for his part, will no doubt remind the president of the security threat posed by the militant group Hamas, and Israel's need to restrict the flow of any goods that could be used for military purposes.

Although the situation in Gaza is dire, we should not view this dispute solely or even primarily through the prism of economics. The flawed policies of the United States, Israel, and the international community toward Gaza -- and indeed toward the entire Israeli-Palestinian issue -- go far beyond the failure to allow cement and other construction materials into the strip. Without reconciliation between Palestinian factions and the political reunification of the West Bank and Gaza, not only a better future for Gaza but the two-state solution itself will remain out of reach.

Gaza's economic plight is a symptom of a larger failure of U.S. policy. The U.S. approach toward the Israeli-Palestinian issue -- which sets the tone for policies by Europe and other interested parties -- is based in part on two assumptions that are almost certainly false.

First, the United States assumes that indirect talks between Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas can lead to direct negotiations, which can then lead to a comprehensive peace agreement that would allow Abbas to outmaneuver Hamas and regain control of Gaza. Secondly, U.S. policymakers believe that a process of internationally funded reform, led by Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, can create the strong, efficient institutions needed for a future Palestinian state.

The problem with both of these assumptions is that Palestinian leaders such as Abbas and Fayyad are deplorably weak, due to the deep political, social, and territorial rift between Hamas-controlled Gaza and the Fatah-controlled West Bank enclaves. Without a unified Palestinian community behind him or even a valid electoral mandate, Abbas cannot take risks in negotiations with Israel, one of the many factors -- which also include the lack of will within the Israeli government -- making progress extremely unlikely. And Fayyad's hands are tied in building durable, democratic institutions for many reasons, among them the fact that the Palestinian Authority's legislative branch has been unable to meet in three years, preventing it from making laws and developing political consensus.

Although there is plenty of blame to go around, Washington must evaluate where its policies have gone wrong and stop making the same painful mistakes.

The U.S. inclination to delay, ignore, or manipulate internal Palestinian politics in the service of short-term goals related to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations has been a fundamental error in Washington's policies in the region. In the 1990s, Bill Clinton's administration ignored the authoritarian tendencies of then-President Yasir Arafat, allowing him to undermine the elected legislature and develop a corrupt, ineffective Palestinian Authority, which eventually lost popular support. Then, after the Second Intifada broke out in 2000, George W. Bush's administration tried to manipulate internal Palestinian politics to deprive Arafat of power -- only to have Hamas emerge victorious in the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections and gain the premiership that had been "empowered" at U.S. behest.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

 

Michele Dunne, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, is a former specialist on Middle East affairs for the U.S. State Department and White House. She recently published "A Two-State Solution Requires Palestinian Politics."

MUSTNOTSLEEP14

9:37 AM ET

July 5, 2010

Obama should not give one

Obama should not give one cent to Hamas until they release Gilad Shalit. We need to use our leverage against BOTH parties to improve the situation for everybody on the ground. Hypocritical one-sided pressure on Israel wont help.

 

SKIPPER

9:32 AM ET

July 6, 2010

10,000+ Palestinian children are in israeli jails.

How about the ten thousand plus children in israeli jails? Hamas was created to resist occupation and higher ups in the white house/military know this... It is now the DEMOCTRATICALLY elected govt in Gaza.. America will one day stop paying welfare to the jews.....

 

MUSTNOTSLEEP14

2:41 PM ET

July 6, 2010

First of all, even the

First of all, even the Taliban gets access to the Red Cross, a "privilege" that Hamas has denied to Shalit. Secondly, I imagine that there was at least SOME reason to put those Palestinian prisoners in jail for directly harming Israeli security. There is a clear difference between what Israel has done and what Hamas has done. I definitely agree that Israel needs to make serious concessions, but releasing 1000+ terrorists is a very, very terrible price to pay and will set a disastrous precedent.

 

RSAFSOZ

10:56 AM ET

July 5, 2010

no

no, its economy

porno
sex videolari
porno film

 

JOHNHUNT

10:34 PM ET

July 5, 2010

The Solution is to Remove Hamas

It seems as though some genuine progress is being made in the proximity talks and I could imagine a deal between Israel and the PA which would give the Palestinians a demilitarized state in the West Bank which is "based" upon the 1967 borders with a 1:1 land swap.

But that is only a partial solution. Hamas has the gun in Gaza and so won't be overthrown. Hamas will never give up its stated goal of throwing out Israel from all of "Palestine". If Hamas and the PA form a government without Hamas giving up its goal then probably Israel will sever ties with the PA state at the least or even annul the PA state.

No, Israel failed to do the one thing necessary to achieve lasting peace with the Palestinians. During Operation Cast Lead, they failed to fully invade Gaza, cordon the cities and give the civilians a deadline to leave (as was done in Fallujah) and then proceed to clean the cities of Hamas. This would have to have been done regardless of international reaction if there is to be lasting peace. Then, after a period to let tempers cool down, eventually the PA would probably be willing to assume control of Gaza. At that point there would be the possibility of a true lasting peace agreement that the Palestinians might actually abide by.

 

TRUTH NOT PARTISAN

9:58 AM ET

July 6, 2010

also they arent 1967 borders.

also they arent 1967 borders. They are cease fire lines because the Palestinians never agreed to peace.

 

NICHOLAS WIBBERLEY

10:03 AM ET

July 6, 2010

Quid pro quo

There is too much ambiguity in the present situation. The UN defined the boundaries of Israel without consulting the Palestinians; it should perhaps now define the boundaries of Palestine without consulting Israel. That would make a start.

 

VILKSSWEDEN

10:33 AM ET

July 6, 2010

Yeah, the UN defined the boundaries based on Israeli desires

HAHAHAHAHAHA. That's why they gave them indefensible statelets in 1948. That's also why the British were allowed to cut out 70% of mandate palestine and give it to a petty king from saudi arabia and call it "Jordan"

 

HUGH

10:10 AM ET

July 7, 2010

It's the settlements, stupid

Michelle Dunne’s article expresses the neocon-lite conventional wisdom. Obviously there’s no mention of the ever expanding settlements and instead it’s Palestinian factionalism that we are supposedly to believe is the main stumbling block to peace. So Washington’s ‘fundamental error’ has been the ‘inclination to delay, ignore, or manipulate internal Palestinian politics in the service of short-term goals related to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations’…as opposed to say acting as ‘Israel’s lawyer’ or giving AIPAC veto over policy. There’s something depressing about a once proud liberal institution like Carnegie having this sort of Israeli PR masquerading as nuanced analysis associated with it.

 

JAMESGH

3:40 AM ET

July 13, 2010

Obama should not give one

Obama should not give one cent to Hamas until they release Gilad Shalit. We need to use our leverage against gay cams BOTH parties to improve the situation for everybody on the ground. Hypocritical one-sided pressure on Israel wont help. Good points!

 

PETEFROST5

2:27 AM ET

July 27, 2010

Obama must think twice before

Obama must think twice before helping other nation. He needs to make sure that he's really doing the right decision for the benefit of many people. Well, as we consider him as the most powerful man of today.Pete Frost