Analysis: U.S. focus on Palestine-Israel

WASHINGTON, June 13 (UPI) -- Resolving the longstanding Israeli-Palestinian dispute should be made a priority of U.S. foreign policy, say Middle East experts.

At a conference earlier this week hosted by the Century Foundation and the Center for American Progress, the panelists focused on the need to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli issue -- echoing the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Report on Iraq, which they often mentioned, and citing a recent U.S. State Department brief that a resolution to the issue is a sine qua non for all other U.S. relations in the region.

"Everyone knows what the solution is, but no one knows how to get there," said Daniel Levy, senior fellow at the Century Foundation, referring to a two-state solution with various conditions on Israel's withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories, Palestinians' right of return, access to holy sites and the status of Jerusalem.

"When people know what they have to do, but they don't want to do it, they need an external push," said Levy, and that external influence is the United States.

He also pointed out the need to work with as many groups as possible, even if they are not perfect, such as Fatah or the present unity government of the Palestinian Authority. "If we lump them all together, we get bad policy," he said.

The panelists broadly agreed that the environment is ripe for a solution, but Ellen Laipson, head of the Henry L. Stimson Center, argued that the rise of radical Islam means "powerful forces in the region ... don't accept it and could prevent the elites from moving toward it."

Speaking after the session concentrating on the Middle East, scholar and former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said that bringing about a resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is one of three critical steps America must take if it wants to "continue to be a force for good in the world." Another necessary task is to begin seriously negotiating with Iran.

"Our negotiations with Iran appear not to have been intended to succeed," he said. "There are a priori concessions the Iranians have to make just for the privilege of talking with the Americans."

Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., addressed Iran's nuclear ambitions prior to the Middle East panel session and called for serious action and strong economic sanctions, citing the importance of "raising the costs to Iran of continuing to pursue its nuclear ambitions." Gordon cited tough new legislation to hinder Iranian financial transactions and to pressure European states to cut trade with Iran.

However, it's unclear how effective economic sanctions can be. "Iran can resist the effect of the sanctions ... and teach greater self-reliance. Countries can adapt to economic sanctions ... and Iran has a very strong economy," Laipson told UPI. "The only sanctions that will really hurt Iran are on its oil exports, and that's not going to happen."

Arguing for a more constructive approach, Laipson said during the Middle East session that America has been sending mixed signals to Iran that feed its insecurity. "The logic of the diplomacy that we're engaged in suggests that if Iran can comply with a set of rules, we can live with the government, but we're simultaneously sending a message that we can never live with it. ... We've consistently sent a message that we don't accept the government of Iran," she said. She suggested that the United States should help Iranians "rethink their position ... to dismantle the logic, paranoia and insecurity that Iranians live in."

"We can't look at the issue of Iran in isolation," said Daniel Kurtzer, professor of Middle Eastern policy at Princeton University and former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt. "There are other issues we need to deal with," such as "whether the U.S. continues to be the sole source of security in the Gulf." That, he said, was a job China and India had recently declined.

Brzezinski's final prescriptive task for improving American foreign policy was to "signal credibly that we're getting out" -- ideally within a year. Then, "We have to talk to all the leaders of Iraq -- not just those in the Green Zone" -- and its neighbors to develop a plan for disengagement, he said. He also balked at recent "mutterings about staying in Iraq for 50 years along the model of Korea."

On Iraq, Kurtzer also supported a withdrawal. "My idea is to set a timetable ... objectives we can live with and accomplish" and "use the concentration of minds in the region to think about what will happen."

The panelists also advised paying a little less attention to world affairs. Laipson noted: "We have such amazing access to information here -- we behave as if we're responsible for everybody else's problems." On a similar note, Kurtzer said later: "We ought to pay attention to Israeli politics once a week -- not once every hour."

Perhaps that would be the simplest way to readjust American foreign policy, but as long as America remains best poised to lead the world, it should exercise its position wisely.