Session: The Future of U.S.-Israel Relations

December 3, 2004, 6:30 p.m.

Chair: Itamar Rabinovich

Speaker: Dr. Henry Kissinger

Introduction

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is currently at a turning point. The convergence of three major events has opened the door to a great opportunity. These events are: the re-election of American President George W. Bush, the death of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, and the decision by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza. To take advantage of this unique situation, Dr. Kissinger advocated abandoning the traditional method of step-by-step diplomacy.

The Step-by-Step Approach

The step-by-step approach to diplomacy was invented in the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War, as the United States was under tremendous pressure from the Europeans and the greater international community to force Israel to return to the 1967 borders. The oil embargo set the U.S. administration (and Europe) into panic. This was coupled, in the United States, with the Watergate scandal, thus the confluence of these events caused a tremendous amount of strain on the U.S. administration. For moral and practical reasons, Kissinger argued, it was essential that Israel take steps towards peace, but without doing so in a way that would politically, economically, or psychologically crush Israel afterwards. To force Israel under an Arab attack to withdraw to the 1967 borders was, in Kissinger's opinion, unsustainable. This would compound the sense of isolation and the sense of loss.

1

Kissinger acknowledged that as a survivor of the Holocaust he felt a special responsibility towards the fate of Israel and towards the fate of Jewish people. Thus a series of steps seemed like the appropriate way to move forward to get Israel used to the necessity of withdrawal and get the Arabs used to the idea of co-existence. This process worked with Egypt, and somewhat with Syria, where an agreement was made in 1974 which has lasted unimpaired since then. However it broke down on the issue of Palestine. In 1974 in the process of disengagement it would have been Jordan's turn next. The U.S. administration had a plan that King Hussein had approved but it occurred at a time when Yitzhak Rabin had just become prime minister and he did not think he could negotiate about any West Bank issues without another election.

## A Comprehensive Approach

The concept of the step-by-step approach is based on bargaining chips, thus, it was always known that there would come a time when the step-by-step approach would run out of material. That is where we are today. Dr. Kissinger argued that he does not believe that the basic idea behind step-by-step diplomacy has changed, rather a confluence of motives has been reached that might make a more comprehensive approach possible.

This argument is purely strategic. It does not touch on the advantages of war or the advantages of peace. There is an opportunity in which a comprehensive approach should be explored in a strategic way. The first opportunity is due to the death of Arafat. His death removes the blighting element. Arafat could not emotionally accept the existence of Israel and true co-existence and he was not willing to make the necessary sacrifice on the Palestinian side for peace. The second opportunity comes from the shock of the Europeans regarding the re-election of Bush. This has brought forth the notion that Europe must now take Bush seriously

2

and the realization that the United States and Europe cannot go another four years in constant confrontation. Thus, there is a sense that Europe may be more receptive to the United States in the second Bush term. A third opportunity is Sharon's decision to withdraw from Gaza, which should be seen as heroic. It is an extraordinarily wrenching decision for Israel to give up anything, in light of the history of the Jewish state.

Therefore, there are two schools of thought. One side believes that in the long run the Islamic radicalism will burn itself out (this is an analogy to the Reagan period). The proposal of a Palestinian state that is terror-free with transparent institutions is enough to maintain that momentum. The other side believes that this situation is unlike the history of the Cold War. The Islamist movement is more compatible with the feelings of region than communism was to Eastern Europe. It will thus take longer to drain the swamp.

There was a feeling on the American side that this moment is an end of an era and we need to act. The problem is that we need to recognize where the Israelis and the Palestinians are. Abu Mazen may not be in a position of sufficient empowerment to make concessions. The election gives us a six month window in which we need to intervene. We need to develop a conceptual approach. The more precise we become, the more difficult it will be for Abu Mazen. We cannot have him reject us as one of his first moves. We therefore need to create a context for peacemaking and be more general.

Kissinger argued that in order to achieve peace, Bush should retain his commitment to a Palestinian state that is transparent, renounces terrorism, and accepts Israel as a state. The security fence is also a politically wise move. It is not possible to construct guarantees. There needs to be some sort of compensation from the Israeli side to the Palestinians to address the refugee issue, but will maintain the demographic character of both sides. The first step to peace,

3

however, must come from the Palestinians. They must genuinely accept a Jewish state and curb
anti-Israeli propaganda in the schools and elsewhere. Furthermore, Israel cannot accept any Arab
right of return and should, in fact, reduce the Arab population inside the Jewish State.

In regard to Iraq, the United States will not be able to end Iraqi resistance without scoring the
help of some of Iraq's neighbors, namely Syria. This, however, involves dealing with settlements
in the Golan and the West Bank. This may not be emotionally endurable for the Israeli people.

You cannot ask Israel to take on too many fronts at once.

An American Concept

On the American side, it was argued, there should be no American map/master plan. The
Americans should go to other countries with a general "concept", which includes the fence, a
change in attitudes, adjustment to territory, etc. and attempt to get the Europeans and others on
board with the concept of peace. Kissinger argued that we should not overestimate the role of the
Europeans. They cannot do a lot on the positive side, but they can do a lot of negative damage by
preventing moderate Arab leaders from following their instincts. It is not conceivable for the
president to go another four years without expressing what peace should be. Iraq and
Israel/Palestine are two sides of the same coin. There is no choice but to prevail in Iraq.

In conclusion, Kissinger emphasized that this is the end of the step-by-step approach. We need to
give moderates in the Arab world the opportunity to express themselves.

4