Stay Informed

Sign up to receive the Middle East Bulletin!

Support Middle East Progress

In-Depth Coverage

Original Commentaries

09/04/08
From Zero-Sum to Win-Win  —Mara Rudman, adviser, Middle East Progress; senior fellow, Center for American Progress. Original Commentary for Middle East Bulletin.
09/04/08
How Progress Is Possible  —
08/07/08
How to Deal with Jerusalem  —Lt. Col. (Res.) Ron Shatzberg, Project Director, Economic Cooperation Foundation. Interview with Middle East Bulletin.

Setting the Record Straight

Two-State Solution Still Best Option

“In practical terms, we can reach two conclusions: First, a final-status agreement, although its details are known, cannot be secured in the foreseeable future. Second, the time has come to think about other solutions. One of them is a return not to the 1967 borders, but rather, to the reality that prevailed in 1967, when Jordan controlled the West Bank.”
—Major General (ret.) Giora Eiland, “The Jordanian Option,” YNet, September 3, 2008 versus
  • "On both sides of the green line and, indeed, wherever people think about solutions to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, a lot of old/new thinking is taking place. … Most of these ideas are patently unrealistic. Discussion of them often reflects despair, not pragmatic strategic thinking. … Precisely because there is no such alternative, other options more readily suggest themselves, ranging from temporary conflict management to three states or entities. Nor does failure today mean that tomorrow we cannot try again to arrive at a two-state solution, which remains the best option for all."
    —Yossi Alpher, coeditor of the bitterlemons family of internet publications & former director, Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University, "One State Definitely Not an Option," bitterlemons.org, August 18, 2008
  • Middle East Analysis

    • How Progress Is Possible —Hiba Husseini, chair, Legal Committee to Final Status Negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis; former vice chairperson of the Palestine Securities Exchange (1998-May 2005). Interview with Middle East Bulletin.
    • Perils of an Israeli Transition —The New York Times, Editorial
    • The Arabs Will Look Differently Upon America —Ron Pundak, director general of the Peres Center for Peace and former architects and negotiators of the Oslo Agreement (bitterlemons.org)
    November 30, 2007

    Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Syrian President Bashar Assad (AP)

    We expected the U.S.-sponsored international peace summit in Annapolis, to trigger intra-Arab conflicts as usual. Interestingly enough, this meeting has healed wounds, some of which have been bleeding for years on various fronts. It is an odd phenomenon that contradicts all possibilities on the table.

    Jordan has had bad relations with Syria for over four years… Yet, unexpectedly, the Jordanian king landed in Damascus and a joint statement that is filled with political wooing was issued, voicing agreement by both sides on everything after they had disagreed on everything.

    Syria, which viewed the Annapolis meeting as a dubious plan, is now saying that Arab participation will reinforce the status of Arabs and their position on the number-one Arab cause… Moreover, President Ahmadinejad’s words to Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem that this conference will cause the loss of Palestine were only carried in Iranian media outlets.

    As for Hamas, which continued its attack against the Annapolis meeting, and which announced that it was shocked by Arab participation, it made concessions that drew it closer to the PA, its opponent, in Ramallah. A top Hamas official openly said that Hamas is now willing to hand over security to the PA under certain conditions, and this is the main problem that had led to the coup. …

    Have the winds of Annapolis blown over the region? There is a definite connection between these three cases of reconciliation, rapprochement attempts, and refraining from opening fire, and between the Annapolis conference. The connection lies in the Americans backtracking on their boycott on the Syrians after having considered this boycott a necessity and their pressure on others to boycott Syria a lofty duty. The Americans have backtracked… Had they not done that, the Annapolis meeting would have been an occasion for fiery battles in Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq. Access the full article>>