President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu may soon embark on yet another round of peace talks between Palestinians and Israelis. Each leader, in his own way, faces daunting challenges, in part because he must answer to ideological constituencies which are vehemently opposed to the concessions which are part and parcel of the peace process. Netanyahu, for example, will face an uphill fight convincing his right-wing coalition to compromise on Jerusalem. And in a similar vein, Abbas could be relegated "traitor status" for compromising on such contentious issues as the "right of return." And yet, a successful outcome of these talks could be the spark that lights the fire of change in the region, and for that matter, in the world as a whole.

 

As difficult as it will be to contain dissent from within, so much more so will it be difficult to contain dissent from without. Due to a number of factors, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has been accorded a symbolic significance way beyond the four corners of the conflict itself. Chances are good that if the conflict would have been limited to a territorial dispute between two peoples, an equitable agreement could have been reached long ago. But because so many other players forced themselves into the picture, players who were not and are not directly involved, the prospects for peace have remained dim at best. And thus, parties outside the conflict itself, including extremist elements, have helped to keep the conflict alive, for their own purposes, and for a whole host of reasons, including the desire to divert attention from internal problems of governance, and as a way of consolidating political support for governments and groups which may otherwise have failed to garner such support.

 

The question arises, therefore: Given this debilitating cocktail of internal opposition and external pressure, what will Abbas and Netanyahu need to do to maneuver through this politically charged ideological minefield, in an effort to broker a peace deal? The answer may be that the negotiations themselves will have to be strategically positioned within the context of a higher and brighter vision for the future, within a Vision of Hope, so as to rise above the political fray, and beyond the restraints that have been imposed by domestic and foreign players. In other words, because the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has been manipulated to embody the ideological imperatives of so many diverse constituencies, Abbas and Netanyahu, if they are to succeed on peace, will have no choice but to sell a new vision to the man on the street, so as to elevate the negotiations themselves to a higher level, a level that rises above the crippling narrow agendas of the past.

 

What sort of vision would be required to give the peace talks a chance? Such a vision, a Vision of Hope, would have to be multi-faceted so as to address all the various impediments to peace. A Vision of Hope would include five parts, like the five fingers of your hand:

 

Ideology: If there are ideological forces at work which seek to impede the peace process, Abbas and Netanyahu should formulate and use a new ideology, a new framework for rational discourse, An Ideology of Common Sense, to speak to one another, and to the world for that matter, with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity. Words matter, and the right kind of words, used in just the right kind of way, can inspire a sense of hope, which will help raise the level of discourse to a much higher level. Instead of believing in what we want to believe, it may well be time to start believing in what makes sense. Instead of jumping to false belief and rationalizing why we're right, why not use rationality in the fist place to arrive at what is worth believing in? In a more perfect world, common sense, the collective wisdom born of shared experience, will inspire our thinking and inform our speech. In our fractured world, common sense is the common denominator.

 

Investment: If extremist groups on both sides of the political fence use charitable handouts to consolidate political support, Abbas and Netanyahu should discuss, as part of the negotiations, using international investment dollars to create jobs: jobs which grow their economies, jobs which protect the environment, and jobs which help to weaken the hold of extremist thinking. The idea here is to win hearts and minds by giving everyone a place at the table, a stake in his or her future, in a sustainable world.

 

Hope: If the extremists in the region have worked to engender and sustain a sense of dread about the future, then Abbas and Netanyahu would do well to use An Ideology of Common Sense along with some well placed Investment Dollars to sell their people on a Vision of Hope, a vision of Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom. Luckily, the formula for world peace is not all that complicated: Ideology plus Investment equals Hope, and with hope all things are possible, even the impossible dream of peace.

 

Public Diplomacy: If the extremists continue to use their propaganda machine to disseminate hate, then Abbas and Netanyahu should not only sell a Vision of Hope, but should sustain a sense of hope by launching a series of public diplomacy programs which are specifically designed to prop the vision up, and to carry it forward, such as: a program to Empower Women, a Student Exchange, a Cultural Exchange, an expanded version of the Peace Corps, a Media Campaign, and a set of International Conferences. Take, for example, the program to Empower Women by financing female entrepreneurs and promoting women's rights. Empower Palestinian and Israeli women in ways that they deem appropriate, and you will have changed the dynamics of the conflict. Who are women? They are the givers of life and the caretakers of life and as such are uniquely qualified to reconstitute their societies consistent with a Vision of Hope.

 

The Willingness to Fight: If the extremists, on both sides of the fence, use terror to impede peace, then Abbas and Netanyahu would do well to collaborate militarily, perhaps as part of a regional military and economic alliance, to stave off the threats from extremist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and even groups in Israel which lean toward violence. If we already have to fight against the forces of extremism, and we do, then we will fight, and fight hard, but we will also position the fight within a Vision of Hope. We will raise the fight on the ground to a higher moral plain by giving the fight a moral clarity of purpose. People will fight harder if they know what they're fighting for. We are not fighting a "war against terror." We are fighting a war to realize a Vision of Hope. There's a big difference.

 

If the upcoming negotiations are to succeed, there is no choice but to win the war for hearts and minds. Abbas and Netanyahu can maximize the chances for success on the peace front by daring to embody a Vision of Hope, and selling the vision to the man on the street. In fact, given the heavy weight from within and without, that attaches itself to the peace process, and the ideological extremism that has prevented any success in this regard, these two leaders will have to develop strategies to beat the odds, by beating the extremists at their own game. If they play their cards right, they can co-opt the extremists' strategy and thereby marginalize them in the eyes of their own people. So, for example, if the extremists are ideological about Jihad, or a Greater Israel, or what have you, we will be ideological about Common Sense. If they invest in charity, we will invest in jobs. If they sell a vision of hope for martyrdom, or paradise, or additional settlements, we will sell a Vision of Hope for Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom. At every turn we will cut them off at the pass and beat them at their own game. In the final analysis, the ideological extremists on both sides will not be able to capture the public's imagination, once people begin to imagine a better life for themselves. Some will say that all this may be a bit naïve or over the top. But as we are fond of saying: This may well be the time, before time runs out, to dream the impossible and to make the impossible come true.

 

I had the opportunity recently to read the Manifesto of the Green Movement in Iran. It's quite an impressive document; very reminiscent, in many ways, of American democracy, as spelled out in such historic documents as the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Thomas Jefferson would have approved. The trouble is, however, as the violence on the streets demonstrates, that the Green Movement's vision for Iran is very much at odds with the vision of the Ayatollahs and political leaders who hold the reigns of power. It may be helpful to compare and contrast these two very different visions.

 

The Green Movement talks about human rights: the right to be equal before the law, the right to freedom without discrimination, the right to participate fully in government, the right to own property, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of thought, religion, education, opinion and speech, the right to a free press, the right of assembly, the right to work with just and favorable conditions in the work place, the right to unionize, the right to intellectual property, the right for a decent standard of living, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury with due process and with the assistance of counsel, and the right not to be punished in a cruel and unusual manner.

 

So what would the Ayatollahs say about these various human rights? Well, their actions speak louder than words. They send forth their riot police to quell dissent. They beat some people and imprison others. They torture as they see fit. They make a mockery of judicial proceedings, and sometimes, they choose to execute the innocent. Actions speak louder than words. My guess is that the Ayatollahs tolerate human rights, but only to the extent that such rights don't interfere with their hold on power. They readily choose to sacrifice human rights, and human beings for that matter, to the extent necessary to consolidate their strong grip on the levers of political power.

 

The Manifesto of the Green Movement talks quite a bit about democracy. It states that in a true democracy the people are sovereign; they are the highest form of political authority. Democracy requires compromise among competing factions. "Everyone has a right to be heard." We can choose our leaders and hold them accountable. "Laws and policies require majority support, but the rights of minorities are protected in various ways." There should be a balance of power between the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of power. Free and fair elections should be held at regular intervals. All parties and candidates should be able to campaign freely. As for religion, the Green Movement believes in a separation between church and state: "We believe God has no need for politics...the Mullahs would have more influence if they focused on religion." And as for the economy, they state, "The economy should be based upon free market principles, and its aim should be economic development, increase of productivity, improvement of the standard of living, and achievement of prosperity for all citizens in Iran."

 

What would the Ayatollahs say about these notions of democracy? Well, here again, actions speak louder than words. As for the idea that the power to rule comes from the people, they would say that the power comes from God, and as it so happens, God has entrusted that power to them. As for everyone's right to be heard, they would say that their voice embodies God's will, and should therefore be heard above all others. As for the rights of minorities, they would point out that minorities are out of step with the will of God, and are therefore not worthy of much consideration. As for free elections, they would allow the semblance of elections, but only among candidates which they approve. As for the separation between church and state heaven forbid, they would recognize no such separation since the power of the state is derived from God, and only they are entitled to define the nature of God and the substance of what He requires of us. And as for the economic resources of the nation, these too, as it happens, have been entrusted to them to do with as they wish, in the pursuit of goals to which they aspire.

 

So the question remains: Who will win in this existential struggle between these two competing visions for Iran, and beyond? The answer is: He will win who has the greatest faith in the truth of his convictions.

Peace in the Middle East has long been an illusive dream, but there are hints in the air that peace negotiations between Palestinians and Israel may soon be underway, and that this time around, some measure of success may be in the offing.

 

What indications do we have that negotiations are imminent? In late December, for example, Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed a convention of Israeli diplomats and made it clear that his intent is to conclude a peace deal based on two states for two people. He said, "The time for excuses is over. Now's the time for action." Such words could easily be dismissed as self-serving, but perhaps there is more to this than meets the eye. At around the same time, Netanyahu invited Zippi Livny, the leader of the opposition, to join his government. Was this simply an empty and cynical gesture, or could Netanyahu be seriously interested in enlarging his coalition, to counter a defection by some of his supporters in the wake of peace negotiations and the concessions which will have to be made? In addition, Yossi Beilin, one of the chief architects of the Oslo Accords, said recently that Netanyahu is very close to finalizing the terms of reference (TOR), or preliminary understandings, for a renewal of talks.

 

There are other indications that talks may soon be underway. With respect to reducing the number of roadblocks, and curbing settlement construction in the West Bank, Netanyahu has gone further than any previous Israeli government. Is this due simply to pressure from the U.S., or could it be something more? In addition, after Netanyahu met Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on December 31, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit offered rare words of praise for Netanyahu, thanking him for raising new ideas and advancing the peace process. Reportedly, Netanyahu was quoted as saying, "Help me with Abbas and I will be ready to go for a far-reaching deal."

 

These and other indications all point to an imminent resumption of peace talks, but the question still remains: What reason is there, this time around, to expect a successful outcome from the negotiations which may soon be underway? The answer may be that a peace deal may be in the offing not because the two sides love one another, but because for the first time, they need one another, in a substantial way, and this sense of mutual need may be shared by many of the key players in the region, and beyond.

 

Why would Palestinians, particularly in the West Bank, be inclined to conclude a peace deal at this time? It is clear to many observers that Fatah and Hamas find themselves locked in an existential battle for survival. The more moderate and secular Palestinians in the West Bank, including members of the Fatah leadership, do not want to see a takeover by Hamas fundamentalists, as occurred in Gaza. To stave off this threat, Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has launched and is implementing a two-year state-building plan, which is similar to Netanyahu's vision of peace through economic prosperity, and which includes General Dayton's training of Palestinian security forces. Economic prosperity and job creation, along with a consolidation and strengthening of the security apparatus, would be an effective way of containing Hamas. Israel could play a major role on both these fronts, economy and security: helping with job creation, taking down more roadblocks, bringing in foreign investment, and helping to consolidate Palestinian security, perhaps as part of a regional military and economic alliance, in exchange for a peace deal.

 

But why would Israel be inclined to push the peace process forward at this time? The answer is relatively straight forward: Iran. Just as Hamas poses an existential threat to Fatah, so too does Iran, with its nuclear and foreign policy ambitions, pose an existential threat to Israel. And Israel, in order to stave off this threat, will need international support from the region, and from the international community at large. Such support will be needed even if Israel acts unilaterally to destroy Iran's nuclear installations. The negative repercussions from such an attack will be significant, and Israel will require international consensus and support to mitigate the effects of these repercussions. A peace deal with Palestine will give Israel some measure of credibility, as she undertakes to contain the Iranian threat.

 

And why would the nations of the region be likely now to support a peace deal between Israel and Palestine, when in the past it served their interests to block such an agreement? The answer, once again, is relatively simple: Iran. The existential struggle between Hamas and Fatah, and between Israel and Iran, is even more pronounced between Iran and many of the Sunni states of the region. Iran undertakes, on many levels, to challenge many of the quiet understandings that have been reached in much of the Arab world, and poses a credible threat to many of the regimes in the region. Iran does not hide her intention to foment unrest using her various proxies, and a nuclear Iran would render that threat even more palpable. A regional nuclear arms race would likely ensue, bringing even more instability to an already volatile region.

 

And why would the United States, the Europeans, and large segments of the international community, be likely to support a peace deal between Israel and Palestine? The answer, once again is not difficult to fathom: To insure the free flow of oil, and to gain a measure of credibility in the fight against ideological extremism. Peace in the Middle East would go a long way to mitigate the volatility of the region, and would bring some semblance of stability to the price and supply of oil. In addition, an historic peace deal of this sort, along with the regional cooperation and even prosperity which would be engendered as a result, would go a long way to weaken the appeal of extremist thinking, even though much more would have to be done in this regard.

 

In sum, while it is always difficult to predict what will happen in the Middle East, especially when it comes to peace, there may be some reason for optimism due to the unique alignment of self-interest among the key players in the region, and beyond. Usually, self-interest takes us in different directions from one another. In this case, however, it may be the key to bringing us together in common purpose.

 

 

 

 

Peace in the Middle East is still only a dream, but the actual terms of a final peace agreement between Palestinians, at least in the West Bank, and Israelis, are not all that difficult to imagine.

 

Security: Israel would prefer for the new Palestinian state to be demilitarized. Palestinians in the West Bank, however, do not want to see a Hamas takeover there. They see what happened in Gaza, and have a very different vision for the West Bank. Therefore, a deal may be possible by which Israel, as part of a multi-national force, including several Arab states, will agree to guarantee the security of Palestine, even against Hamas, in exchange for an agreement to keep the new Palestinian state demilitarized.

 

Settlements: The vast majority of settlements will be turned over to Palestinians. Some of them, however, will become part of Israel, in exchange for an equal amount of Israeli land. Let's look at the numbers. There are approximately 300,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank. Some 220,000 live in several settlement blocks, which will probably become part of Israel, as part of a land swap. That leaves 80,000 settlers, 40,000 of whom will agree to leave the settlements in exchange for compensation, and 40,000 of whom are die-hard believers. The Jews who refuse to leave can become citizens of Palestine, just as Arabs are citizens of Israel, to the tune of 20% of the population. Prime Minister Fayyad has said that he would not be opposed to Jews becoming citizens of a new Palestine.

 

Borders: Once the issue of settlements is resolved, the final borders between Israel and Palestine can be drawn up accordingly. The final borders will likely be very close to the 1967 borders. Approximately 4-6% of the West Bank will be retained by Israel in exchange for land swaps of Israeli land. Some the land swaps could include a roadway to Gaza, for example.

 

Jerusalem: Jerusalem is a contentious issue, to say the least, because of the religious significance she holds for all three Abrahamic religions. Israel would probably insist that Jerusalem remain the undivided capital of the Jewish state. However, this issue could be finessed by giving Palestinians a certain measure of sovereignty in the areas where they predominate, as well as control over Islam's holy sites. This could be done without technically "dividing" the city, but simply recognizing, in a formal way, the demographic divisions that already exist there. If Jerusalem is truly the City of Peace, then why not use her to usher in an age of peace?

 

Refugees: Israel will not allow the Palestinian refugees and their descendents to enter Israel and become citizens. Such a move would destroy Israel as a Jewish state. However, a certain number of Palestinian refugees, as determined by Israel, could be allowed to return to Israel for humanitarian purposes. The vast majority of Palestinian refugees would be entitled to become citizens of a new Palestine, and would be compensated by Israel for the losses which they and their families suffered. The number of 30 billion dollars was discussed in previous negotiations. Some of this money could be used to build institutions in Palestine, including: revitalizing the economy, promoting education, instituting the rule of law, sponsoring student exchanges, etc.

 

Gaza: It is unlikely that Hamas would buy into such arrangements, at least for the time being. Therefore, a Palestinian state could be declared in the West Bank only, at least for now. However, as peace, prosperity, and freedom begin to take hold in the West Bank of Palestine, Hamas would be under extreme pressure to follow suit in terms of job creation, or face the wrath of its people in Gaza. As such, if Hamas decides to legitimate its hold on power, with good paying jobs and the like, it too can become part of the new Palestinian state, or declare its own statehood.

 

So you see, on the surface, at least, the terms of a peace deal are not so difficult to fathom. What is difficult is to get people on both sides to take a second look, to become more open, and to embrace the possibility of peaceful co-existence. Getting that to happen will require us to stop blaming each other, and to look inwardly, and to ask ourselves what sort of future we want for ourselves, for our children, and for the countless generations of children yet to come.

 

 

 

 

 

This post includes information drawn from Shlomo Maital who wrote an article entitled The Palestinian (Almost) State.

 

As politicians busy themselves with endless debates; business people, both Palestinian and Israeli, are creating economic realities on the ground, realities which speak louder than words, and which point to the possibility of peace, and to a new Palestinian State.

 

Economically speaking, the Palestine of the West Bank already has the makings of statehood. This year the West Bank economy will grow 7%, twice the rate of Israel's economy. The Palestinian Monetary Authority is quickly evolving into a Central Bank. The Palestinian stock market is flourishing. Car sales doubled in 2008. A new town for 40,000 residents is about to be built north of Ramallah, the first such project in decades. Paltel is a thriving telecom company. Foreign aid this year will be $1.8 billion. Unemployment is still high at 18%, but is falling.

 

PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, a former World Bank official, is a financial maven who is making things happen for his people. He represents a new class of managers and investors, who thrive on competition, even against Israeli firms, and who hope to replace the Fattah leaders, whose corruption in the 1990's all but guaranteed Hamas's success in the 2006 election. For example, Mohammad Mustafa runs the Palestinian Investment Fund with transparency and business sense, as opposed to Yasser Arafat who controlled such funds secretly and corruptly.

 

In many respects, Israel is cooperating with and encouraging Palestinian economic growth. The number of check points and restrictions has been decreased dramatically, thus enabling the free-flow of goods and services. Trade is on the upswing. Approximately 80% of West Bank exports go to Israel, and similarly, 90% of West Bank imports come from Israel. As Ali Aggad, who heads APIC (Arab Palestinian Investment Company) puts it: "We have business partners in Israel...We are on excellent terms. It is the politicians who won't leave us alone."

 

Palestine still has a way to go on the road to statehood, but is should be recalled that years before David Ben-Gurion declared Israel an independent state, on May 14, 1948, the Jewish Agency and Hagana had put in place the needed infrastructure. Economy and infrastructure are prerequisites for a new state, and can help overcome a great deal of enmity. As Bernard Avishai, a noted author who writes about Israel puts it: "When people have reasons to dislike each other, they can at least like each other's money." Or as I like to put it: "Business creates its own ideological imperative."

 

What is missing from all this is the issue of security. Economics is definitely one side of the coin, but security is the other. If Israel, by itself, or as part of a multi-national force, including several Arab partners for good measure, is able to guarantee Palestine's security, even against such threats as Hamas, and if Palestinians, at least in the West Bank for now, can somehow become comfortable with such arrangements, then this could well close the deal on peace, and bring into being the birth of a new nation, the nation of Palestine, living in peace, side-by-side Israel, with secure and defined borders, while enjoying the prosperity of a booming economy. Is such an outcome even conceivable or is it just another dream? As Theodore Herzl used to say: "If you will it, it is no longer a dream."