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

"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)

The Lebanon Red Line

David Makovsky, senior fellow, Washington Institute for Near East Policy (Haaretz)

January 14, 2008

Damascus is one issue which Washington and Jerusalem view very differently. Those in Israel pressing for a revived Syria peace track have failed to identify the problem with the United States; nor do they realize that the solution to this policy difference between the two friends may be found in Beirut. …

While Washington and Jerusalem have worked closely together on a range of issues, few issues have been more problematic. Lebanon is one such issue and it has affected the way the United States views talks with Syria. …

It is clear… that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Israel’s security establishment believe it is worth exploring whether a breakthrough with Syria could both weaken Iran’s power in the region and weaken Palestinian rejectionists as well remove an arms conduit for Hezbollah. On the eve of Annapolis, Jordan’s King Abdullah made his first trip to Damascus in four years believing Syria must return to the Arab fold and away from Tehran. …

The first step is to align Washington and Jerusalem. Given U.S. anger with Syria over Lebanon, it is unclear whether this will succeed. Yet, the only way it has a chance, it would seem, is if Israel makes clear to the United States that it has a "red line" in peace talks with Syria. Israel should say it will not sacrifice Lebanese sovereignty on the platter of peace with Syria. Access the full article>>