1)     Post-Annapolis/Gaza Crisis Commentary: Current Israeli-Palestinian Issues and the U.S. Role

2)    Bush Mideast Trip: Key Statements, Speeches and Analyses

3)      Humanitarian/Economic Issues: Gaza Reports, UN Appeal, December Donors’ Conference

4)     Jerusalem News: Sharing/Dividing Now or Later?  

5)     Focus on Holy Land Christians: January Visits and Senators’ Letter

6)     Interreligious Letter to Bush: Jewish, Christian and Muslim Religious Leaders Support U.S. Leadership for Peace

The process begun at the November Annapolis peace conference and continued with President Bush’s trip to the Holy Land in early January provides a real opportunity for progress.  To succeed, movement on Israeli-Palestinian political dialogue must include tangible security and humanitarian changes on the ground and a solution for the current Gaza crisis that enables Israeli citizens to live without fear of rocket attacks and alleviates the deepening humanitarian crisis faced by ordinary Gazans due to border closures and limited access to vital supplies.  A new horizon for Gaza that gives substance to Secretary Rice’s June 2007 statement “that there is one Palestinian people and there should be one Palestinian state” can help lay the necessary groundwork for a durable peace.   

Ever since the President first announced his plan to renew two-state peacemaking efforts in a speech last July, there has been a great deal of skepticism from all quarters.  There are ample reasons to doubt that the current efforts can yield concrete results.  Yet regardless of the many challenges, there are also grounds for hope, with the incentives for peace far outweighing the risks of maintaining the status quo.  Indeed, failure to improve peace prospects this year would serve to bolster those who support violence.  Only a negotiated agreement that includes resolution of the core final status issues can bring lasting peace and security to Israel and the Palestinians, and further U.S. interests in the region.  The pledge to achieve an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement by the end of 2008, made at Annapolis and restated by the President in Jerusalem in January, is a welcome sign of American engagement and commitment.  Now, the U.S. must exercise active and bold diplomatic leadership to help Israel and the Palestinians step back from the brink and move forward on a path toward peace.   

1. Post-Annapolis/Gaza Crisis Commentary: Current Israeli-Palestinian Issues and the U.S. Role 

“360 Days”, M.J. Rosenberg, Israel Policy Forum IPF Friday, January 25, 2008

“…in 2008, the only way to resolve disputes between nations is through direct negotiations. That means that all the problems posed by Hamas in Gaza can only be resolved through negotiations that will end the Israeli occupation, create a West Bank/Gaza Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its shared capital and ensure the security of both Israelis and Palestinians. As the Israelis say over and over again, it needs a partner. In fact, it has one in Mahmoud Abbas. But, being essentially powerless, he is not a partner Israel can hold responsible for very much.  That needs to change. And that means moving on President Bush’s goal of establishing a Palestinian state by the end of his term. That state will not be a gift to the Palestinians, nor will it be a reward for good behavior. What it will be is a solution to a problem that plagues Israelis and Palestinians alike (while seriously damaging America’s interests worldwide). It’s been two months since Annapolis. It’s time for some urgency, especially now that we see mobs taking events into their own hands.  Is that what we want? Or is it the full-scale invasion of Gaza by the IDF which, according to press reports, Barak is considering?  Come on, Mr. President. You are running out of time. Don’t leave this one for the next president. A president has more running room on Arab-Israeli issues in his last year than at any time in his term. Use it. Only 360 days left.” 

Full article >

“Is it a budding partnership?”, Ziad Asali, Gulf News, January 18, 2008 

“…How do we keep the momentum for peace going beyond expressing wishes and hopes?  There are governmental policies that need to be implemented and there is a wider sphere of private, institutional, and individual endeavours that have to be undertaken to finally end this conflict…”

Full article > 

"Middle East Triangle", Hussein Agha and Robert Malley, The Washington Post, January 17, 2008

”The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has gone from a violent, intractable, clear-cut duel to a violent, intractable, three-way chess match. Today, Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas each fears that the other two will reach a deal at its expense. And each is determined to prevent that outcome…In tandem, no two parties are capable enough to deliver; any one party is potent enough to be a spoiler. There can be neither Israeli-Palestinian stability nor a peace accord without Hamas's acquiescence. Intra-Palestinian reconciliation will not last without Israel's unspoken assent and willingness to lift its siege. Any agreement between Hamas and Israel over Abbas's strong objection is hard to imagine.  For any of these dances to go forward, all will have to go forward. Synchronicity is key. Fatah and Hamas will need to reach a new political arrangement, this time not one vigorously opposed by Israel. Hamas and Israel will need to achieve a cease-fire and prisoner exchange, albeit mediated by Abbas. And Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will need to negotiate a political deal with Abbas, who will have to receive a mandate to do so from Hamas. The current mind-set, in which each side considers dealmaking by the other two to be a mortal threat, could be replaced by one in which all three couplings are viewed as mutually reinforcing. For that, the parties' allies ought to cast aside their dysfunctional, destructive, ideologically driven policies. Instead, they should encourage a choreography that minimizes violence and promotes a serious diplomatic process. Otherwise, no matter how many times President Bush travels to the region, there is no reason to believe that 2008 will offer anything other than the macabre pattern of years past.” 

Full Op-Ed >   

“After Annapolis . . .”, Amb. Philip C. Wilcox, Jr. (Ret.) moderates commentary by Ziad Asali and Ori Nir, Middle East Institute Viewpoints, January 9, 2008

“Many Americans, Israelis, and Palestinians are convinced that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is intractable because neither side has abandoned the goal of defeating the other, and neither really believes in compromise. This is a myth…The situation demands on the diplomatic front what Ori Nir calls for, ‘a more assertive, active American role.’ It also calls for, as Ziad Asali urges, a more powerful ‘American national alliance’ here at home of diverse parties who agree on the critical need for negotiating a solution based on ‘two viable secure states.’…If George W. Bush takes advantage of his Annapolis initiative and intervenes more actively to help Ehud Olmert and Mahmud ‘Abbas resolve final status issues they are unlikely to resolve by themselves, he would offer them a desperately needed lifeline that they would certainly grasp. In doing so, he could summon support from and help empower a large American pro-peace majority. Herein lies a bright opportunity for President Bush to help overcome America’s travails in the Middle East, leave a powerful legacy, and help rescue our Israeli and Palestinian friends from a bleak future.” 

Full Article >