Yesterday there were two posts on the recent report "A Last Chance For A Two-State Israel-Palestine Agreement: A Bipartisan Statement on U.S. Middle East Peacemaking"(pdf). Both Roger Cohen and Andrew Sullivan made reference to it, and it is reportedly on its way to the Obama administration. The report was created through Henry Siegman's U.S./Middle East Project and written by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Chuck Hagel, Lee H. Hamilton, Carla Hills, Nancy Kassebaum-Baker, Thomas R. Pickering, Brent Scowcroft, Theodore C. Sorensen, Paul A. Volcker and James D. Wolfensohn. Not a too shabby a lineup. If they can't budge U.S. policy, we might as well pack up shop.
The report is worth reading, but a few things stand out. First the time line, from the report:
Failure to act would prove extremely costly. It would not only undermine current efforts to weaken extremist groups, bolster our moderate allies and rally regional support to stabilize Iraq and contain Iran, but would also risk permanent loss of the two-state solution as settlements expand and become entrenched and extremists on both sides consolidate their hold. In short, the next six to twelve months may well represent the last chance for a fair, viable and lasting solution.
Emphasis mine. The clock is ticking, Obama, and you have the ball. It's no coincidence the Cohen's article on the report was titled "The Fierce Urgency of Peace." In the past few days it has appeared that the incoming Netanyahu government senses that the endgame is here, and it would seem that this distinguished panel would agree.
So, if this is true, what would stop the Obama administration from standing in the way? Rhetorical questions aside, they take this on as well:
Regardless of how the new administration organizes to deal with Arab-Israeli matters it will not avoid domestic political controversy. There are Jewish-American and Christian Zionist groups that feel comfortable amplifying the positions of Israeli politicians hostile to hard compromise and painful concession. At times the administration may take positions coordinated with an Israeli Prime Minister who may nevertheless feel unable, for domestic political reasons, to acknowledge his or her complicity. Moreover, there are virtually limitless ways in which actions and words emanating from Arab parties can make constructive American behavior look ridiculous. A disciplined American diplomatic approach can inadvertently yield bouts of domestic political unpleasantness that can spill over onto other priorities.
We do not, however, believe it is beyond the capability of any American President to explain to the American people why this long-running dispute must at long last be ended and why it will take much diplomatic heavy lifting and public expenditure to make it work. In the end the stakes are too high to pursue a hands-off or arm’s-length approach.
Translation: "The Israel lobby will try to stop you Mr. President, but it's time to put U.S. interest over short term electoral considerations and traditional alliances. You are the person to explain this to the American people." Is he up to the task? We'll see, but so far the signs are doubtful.And even if he is, can he move fast enough to make a difference?
This report ignores the question of what happen in a year when the window has closed – what next? There will be many questions on the table – postmortems of the failed plans of the past and new possibilities for the future. That thinking has already started and will continue this weekend in Boston at the conference "One State for Palestine/Israel: A Country for All Its Citizens?" I'll be there and will post reports – reports from the future.
