June 16, 2021 Two Israeli Middle East experts, Professor Asher Susser of Tel Aviv University and Dr. Sarah Feuer of the Institute for National Security Studies and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, address…
Nine pre-conditions that enabled Arab-Israeli negotiations to unfold successfully in the 1970s and 1990s are not present today. Egyptian-Israeli and Jordanian-Israeli agreements occurred because the respective sides wanted them and needed them.
CIE asked friends and experts in the field of Israel Studies to discuss the challenges and successes of the State of Israel in this past year, and to reflect on the coming year. Below, we…
A week after Antony Blinken’s confirmation as Secretary of State, the Acting US Ambassador to the UN outlined with considerable detail the administration’s objective to an agreed, not imposed two-state resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict.
November 25, 2020 By Ken Stein Leadership is about knowing your objectives and adjusting and implementing the tactics to accomplish them. Leadership is also about choices and consequences. It is about making political trade-offs. November…
UAE and Bahraini ambassadors to the U.S. provide incisively sharp assessments about why their peace accords unfolded with Israel in September 2020: to halt West Bank annexation, strengthen ties with the United States, enhance national security, and stimulate, if possible, Palestinian-Israeli negotiations.
CIE Founding President, Professor Ken Stein and Visiting Israeli Scholar, Dr. Nachman Shai, who served in the Israeli Parliament for 10 years, explain the context and implications of the Abraham Accords for Israel and the Middle East.
After the August 15, 2020, announcement that the UAE would recognize Israel in return for not annexing any of the West Bank area, the PLO and the PA reacted with anger, calling the UAE action a ‘stab in the back of the Palestinians.’ Subsequently, the Arabic written media and analysts in the Middle East and elsewhere poured out their thoughts about what this action meant to the future of the Palestinian community worldwide and to the Palestinian issue in general. One of the many responses was presented in a webinar by the Brookings Institution on August 27, 2020.
On August 13, 2020, when the United Arab Emirates agreed to pursue full normal relations with Israel, without any Israeli withdrawal from lands it won in the June 1967 war, the sacred negotiating formula, “Land for Peace” that had dominated Arab-Israeli talks for half a century abruptly ended.
President Trump announces the diplomatic breakthrough under which Israel halts its plans to annex parts of the West Bank and the United Arab Emirates agrees to full diplomatic relations with Israel without any Israeli land concesssions.
Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu has repeatedly declared that he will be putting forward his proposal for West Bank annexation as early as July 1. Yet uncertainties about his plans still abound, indicating that this timetable may not be met despite his assertions to the contrary.
With permission, read full article at Washington Institute for Near East Policy. https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/wrestling-with-annexation-the-elusive-search-for-a-policy-rationale As soon as next month, Israel’s new government could approve plans to annex a substantial portion of the West Bank. The trigger…
The analysis summarizes the declaratory or aspirational Trump Plan for a Palestinian-Israeli settlement, outlining proposals on final status issues, and the proposed economic development package, with a hope for a two state-solution. Maps are used to show how Palestine’s and Israel’s borders have changed over the last 150 years. (Video or audio)
U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman provides the most detailed Trump administration analyses of the prescribed two-state solution for terminating the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
The plan builds on previous proposals for a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict and contains a US-Israeli agreement that sets forth final borders for two states. The plan contains multiple prerequisites for Palestinian behavior before either the US or Israel might agree to Palestinian statehood as well as a proposed $50 economic development package to be allotted over a decade.
Unlike Iraq’s immediate neighbors, Israel is not directly tied to recent events in that country. Nevertheless, U.S. withdrawal would create additional threats to Israeli security. Both Iran and the Islamic State would have a freer hand to operate inside Iraq, likely spreading across the porous border into Syria and ultimately to Israel’s own frontiers. American credibility would also suffer a new setback.
The idea that has arisen recently of holding elections in the Palestinian Authority appears more serious at this stage than in the past. The main promoter of the idea is Abu Mazen, who advocates separate elections: first for the parliament, and only later for the presidency. Although Hamas has long demanded that the two elections be held simultaneously, a change in Hamas’s stance is evident, following its declaration that it is willing to proceed with the elections, while hinting that it might consent to Abu Mazen’s plan. Yet despite the positive attitude that the PA and Hamas are currently displaying toward elections, it appears that there are still many other barriers to overcome.
Until a political plan is announced the economic one is unlikely to progress. Two key issues are whether Israel will cooperate in the creation of a Palestinian state, and can the Palestinians create a unified, democratic and effective government within such a state. These remain very open questions.
