Israel faces several challenges today including a stalled peace process with an increasing worldwide call for a bi-national state solution; Iran’s nuclear program; and the growing social divide in Israeli society between religious and secular Jews.  A two-state solution should remain the only acceptable resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  However, the calls for one state for Jews and Palestinians alike will continue to gather steam in the future.  Given the current demographic situation and problems in Israeli society, maintaining the status quo does not benefit Israel.

History is replete with examples where doing nothing proved the simplest yet most detrimental path.  The belief that most problems in the Middle East would be solved by Palestinian-Israeli peace or Israel’s disappearance is a dangerous and flawed assumption.  Nevertheless, it is in the world’s interest that a peaceful solution ends the conflict sooner rather than later.  A realistic approach is far more useful than empty slogans and high-stakes summits.  The more failed attempts at final status issues, the more the international community will call for a bi-national state.

Israel relies on American diplomatic, political, and economic support and this will likely continue in the future.  Polls in the U.S. are intimating that American Jews are becoming less connected with Israel, a trend likely to continue as the memory of the Holocaust wanes over time.  Concurrently, there is a disturbing trend in Middle Eastern Studies in American universities where revisionism is seen as the gospel truth, and supporting the latest fashionable Arab ideology has taken precedence over historical fact.  This began with Edward Said’s Orientalism in 1978 and his battle with Bernard Lewis and continues through today as represented by Noam Chomsky, Alan Dershowitz, and others. 

Middle East history professors at America’s most prestigious institutions, such as Rashid Khalidi at Colombia University, abandon even an imagined attempt at historical accuracy when they embark on speaking tours.  Addressing students at the University of Minnesota in 2003, he frequently used the phrases “ethnic cleansing” and “apartheid regime.” 

Middle Eastern History in the U.S. has become a political vehicle for attacking Israel and the media helps to amplify misconceptions by drawing a moral equivalency under the guise of “fairness.”  Add to this the increasing funding for Middle Eastern Studies programs by countries such as Saudi Arabia and it is clear the next generation of graduates pursuing a political or diplomatic career will likely be less supportive of Israel.  Therefore, lack of progress in the Palestinian-Israeli peace process is against Israeli and Jewish interests, and in the interest of states and actors who reject Israel’s legitimacy.  Indeed, despite religious-ideological differences, Hamas, Hizballah, and al-Qa’ida share a common perception: Time is on their side.
   
America’s objectives should be to promote calm between Israelis and Palestinians, to continue to isolate Hamas while preserving ties to the Palestinian people, and to forge alternatives to the Islamists.  If the Israelis and Palestinians can undertake a series of steps designed to bolster the other’s image among their public, then more concrete steps can be taken on the path to peace and tackling final status issues will become easier. 

Firm and agreed short-term principles need to be established to avoid the minimalist understanding each side currently has of their own commitments.  The U.S. must publicly hold each side accountable for breaching an agreement. 

To begin, Palestinians should make a sustained and public effort to combat incitement in their media, mosques, and schools.  Israel should stop expanding all settlements.  The joint security services should be re-established in the West Bank in order to build confidence, which could lead to the removal of checkpoints, easing restrictions on movement.

The U.S. should have no illusion that running headlong towards final status issues will prove more beneficial now than it was in 2000.  Without a significant change in either Palestinian or Israeli red lines and a readiness to tackle their mythology, an “end-of-conflict” agreement as envisaged by Barak in 2000 will remain an elusive prospect. 

U.S. diplomacy should be geared toward creating an environment where making final status decisions become possible over time.  History has taught us that for all of the flaws of the Oslo process, a process of peace with the Palestinians is better than the status quo.