Event reports
Having been involved in this process for decades, Ambassador Ross served under three presidents, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. He was heavily involved in the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty of 1994 and the Hebron Protocol of 1997.
High-level representatives of many notable organizations joined the event, among them international diplomatic missions in the United States; German, Israeli and U.S. research institutions; industry representatives; elected officials and journalists. Ross emphasized that, at the moment, it is very important to define the principles for further negotiations. He judged John Kerry’s efforts as extremely important. In the current negotiation cycle, Ross sees factors which appear promising, but at the same time there are a number of obstacles. Dennis Ross also made concrete proposals for further steps to push forward the negotiations.
First, the longtime diplomat pointed out, that he had never been one of those who have been skeptical of Kerry's efforts. As a reason for that, he noted, that the solution of the Israel/Palestine conflict should not be seen in exaggerated expectations as the solution for other problems of the Middle East. This indeed has repeatedly been the anticipation since the days of President Truman, but this won’t meet the current environment in the Middle East.
For example, he mentioned that the challenges in Syria, the existential confrontation between the army and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and the situation in Iraq, Yemen, and others were practically unaffected by this Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nevertheless, it is important to find a solution to this conflict - even if it would be not be a "game changer" for the region. The region is already loaded with increasingly acute problems, and further unrest would not be in America’s interest, according to Ross.
From the context of the conflict, several factors arise that would favor a solution:
• According to Ross’ analysis, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is currently not the top priority in the region. The fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the central challenge could help to solve it, as Ross emphasized. The top challenge is “the changing balance by the regional ambitions of Iran.” This Iranian challenge would lead to a different dynamic and probably common interests of some countries, e.g. between Israel and Saudi Arabia.
• Second, the current weakness of the Hamas movement would open up new opportunities: Hamas was seen also by Mahmoud Abbas as a harbinger for future developments toward a radicalization in the region, but this is no longer true.
• Thirdly, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly stressed that the creation of a bi-national state would not be in Israel's interest. Netanyahu would have been ready to go the appropriate steps to prevent this design.
• John Kerry’s strong commitment is a positive sign - without this commitment, progress would not be possible at all.
• The negotiations so far have clarified the remaining problems. This would also be helpful when we make the endeavor to find a comprehensive peace solution, said Ross.
However, there are many obstacles that result from two factors:
• First, both the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas, distrust each other very deeply. E.g., Israel was disappointed, that Abbas was shirking away decisions, such as the submitted offer of his predecessor Olmert. On the other hand, Mahmoud Abbas' expectations concerning Netanyahu have not been met many times.
• Secondly, the public on both sides does not believe that a solution is currently achievable. As a result, the support for a two-state solution has decreased rapidly, even on the Palestinian side. This has had an impact on the decisions of all political leaders, said Ross.
“Where are we now,” he asked. Basically, it is not the point to get a final agreement now, but the process is all about fundamental principles on which the negotiations could be based. To keep the process running, concrete steps must be taken by both sides. At the same time, the public has to be convinced of the current feasibility of a two-state solution. As a step toward the right direction, Ross suggests that Israel should publicly announce to build only in already existing settlement blocs (and no longer in settlements outside the settlement blocs). In exchange, the Palestinians should publicly advocate for a "two states for two peoples" solution.
This would demonstrate seriousness on both sides. Germany especially could play a role here, said Ross. It should act as an advocate for these two concrete steps in Europe. Also, Germany could turn against the momentum of Palestine’s current ambitions to implement their interests: addressing this issue at international organizations (for example, the UN) and in that way avoiding further negotiations with Israel. This effort of the Palestinians would be "misleading" because that would put "symbols over substance."
In the discussion, which was moderated by Bruce Stokes from the Pew Research Institute, Dennis Ross replied to advocates of a "one-state solution" that this had never really worked anywhere, and especially not in the Middle East.
The event served as the opening of a two-day conference, in which the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung had brought together experts from international public policy and different academic fields in Washington. At this conference, the shared values and common challenges of Israel, Germany and the United States were placed at the center of discussions.