Gaza: Moving Forward by Pulling Back

David Makovsky

From Foreign Affairs, May/June 2005

Summary:  Despite widespread calls to rush to a final-status agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, it would be a mistake to reach for so much so soon. The parties must first restore trust after four and a half years of violence, above all by making sure that Israel's planned withdrawal from the Gaza Strip proceeds smoothly, leaving peace and security in its wake.

David Makovsky is Senior Fellow and Director of the Project on the Middle East Peace Process at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a lecturer at Johns Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies. This article is based on the forthcoming study Engagement Through Disengagement: Gaza and the Potential for Middle East Peacemaking, published by the Washington Institute.

THE OPPORTUNITY

After four and a half years of terror and violence, the proverbial stars seem to be aligned for a new push for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Unlike his predecessor, the newly elected Palestinian Authority (PA) president, Mahmoud Abbas, stresses the importance of peaceful problem solving and has condemned suicide bombing (in Arabic and in English) as counterproductive. On the Israeli side, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the onetime architect of the settlement movement, is leading the drive to evacuate all settlers from Gaza and the northern West Bank. At Sharm-el-Sheikh earlier this year, he and Abbas committed to a cease-fire, an important step even if rejectionists on both sides are certain to try to exploit it. In Washington, meanwhile, Condoleezza Rice is as close to the commander in chief as any secretary of state has been since James Baker teamed up with George W. Bush's father, guaranteeing that she speaks with the president's authority.

But even under such relatively favorable conditions, it is wrong to assume that the Israelis and the Palestinians can simply return to the summer of 2000, when Washington thought that an end to the conflict was within sight. Since then, trust between the parties has been shattered by violence, and rebuilding it will not be quick or easy. Reaching for too much too soon will turn the current opening into one more lost opportunity.

Optimists -- arguing that the time is right to work out compromises on such thorny issues as the borders of a Palestinian state, the status of Jerusalem, and the rights of Palestinian refugees -- want to move shortly to negotiations on a final-status agreement. Rushing to an endgame approach, however, will energize hard-liners in both camps and undermine the leadership of Abbas and Sharon. Abbas, despite his victory in the January elections, does not yet have the authority to veer from Yasir Arafat's legacy on the conflict's most sensitive issues. Sharon, for his part, has won domestic support for his plan to disengage from Gaza and the northern West Bank, but an overly ambitious focus would be equally damaging for him. There is no evidence that he is either willing or politically able to strike a grand deal. Any attempt to do so would lead to his ouster in Likud (to the benefit of his hard-line opponent Binyamin Netanyahu), threaten the survival of his government, and reverse the favorable political dynamic set off by pulling Israeli forces out of Gaza.

Before negotiating a final agreement -- and before the United States issues its own blueprint for a final outcome -- both sides need to provide tangible evidence that they are willing to compromise, thereby restoring trust and reinvigorating the peace process. Israel's disengagement from Gaza and the northern West Bank provides the perfect opportunity for doing so, and Washington should focus its immediate energy and resources on coordinating this endeavor. A successful withdrawal will shatter old taboos, undermine extremists, embolden moderates, and facilitate further withdrawals. A failed effort, meanwhile, will condemn both the Israelis and the Palestinians to many more years of violence and despair.

THE RISK OF OVERREACH

There are two variants of the case for moving shortly to a final-status agreement. Those who are most optimistic believe that the United States should jettison the three-phase "road map" -- a set of mutual guidelines endorsed by the international community and meant to serve as markers on the way to a two-state solution -- and fast-forward to discussions of the most sensitive issues: namely, Jerusalem, refugees, and territory. Others call for Washington to issue a blueprint for final status now, regardless of the ripeness of the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves. (Both groups note that Bush has already gone part of the way toward defining his vision of a final agreement -- which is not inconsistent with that offered by President Bill Clinton.)

The premise behind these arguments is that since opportunities in the Middle East are fleeting, it is best to go for a grand deal as soon as there is an opening. (Some in Washington offer an additional rationale: that issuing a blueprint will improve the United States' standing in the Arab world.) But in reality, such a high-risk move would be counterproductive, undermining peacemakers on both sides of the conflict as well as in Washington. And any blueprint that neglects conditions on the ground and raises expectations only to see them dashed again will trigger a new wave of violence and despair.

Opponents of Abbas will inevitably accuse him of betrayal on two key issues: refugees and Jerusalem. While campaigning, Abbas veered from Arafat's legacy on violence and on the issue of coexistence. He refused, however, to contradict Arafat on the questions of the "right of return" -- whether all Palestinian refugees should have the option of returning to Israel -- and exclusive Palestinian sovereignty over holy sites in Jerusalem. The implication is that Abbas does not yet have enough strength to compromise on such sensitive issues, as would be necessary in any discussion of final status, leaving him vulnerable to attack from rejectionists.