indicates related category

When Peace Seemed Close

By TTN Blog

Our Third Narrative community has been debating whether there’s any prospect for a two-state solution, or any resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would leave Israel intact as a safe homeland for the Jewish people.  All of us who have expressed ourselves in TTN’s listserve are disturbed by Israeli abuses of Palestinian human rights in the West Bank, and we see this situation as corrosive to Israel as well; yet there is a sharp divide on whether the Palestinian people are willing to accept Israel’s ongoing existence as predominantly “Jewish and democratic.”  (All quotes and materials published in this post have been duly authorized for release.)

While we cannot ignore the challenges and dangers that Palestinians themselves often pose to a peaceful outcome, there was pushback from Dan Fleshler and others to Stan Nadel’s claim that there is no “Palestinian leader willing to advocate a final peace with Israel that would leave Israel intact anywhere between the river and the sea with no further claims that would negate its existence as a Jewish State.”

Dan wrote: 

By all accounts, [Ehud] Olmert and [Mahmoud] Abbas came very close to a deal.  There are several reasons why it didn’t work — including the fact that Olmert was a lame-duck PM facing criminal charges, and the outbreak of the Gaza war.  Here is an assertion by Khaled Elgindy, one of the Palestinian Authority’s negotiators: 

Khaled Elgindy [starting at 18 minutes, 34 seconds into the audio at the website]: President Abbas asked us to put together a Palestinian counterproposal to Olmert’s maps. It wasn’t a full blown vision for all the permanent status issues, but it was mainly the map that seemed to be what the Palestinian leadership was mostly focused on. I believe it was a 1.9 percent land swap, so significantly less than Olmert’s, but it still included a majority – an absolute majority of the Israeli settlers who would not be evacuated. They would remain in settlements that would be swapped. 

And here’s a more recent story about Olmert’s memoir, headlined “Abbas never said no’ to 2008 peace deal, says former PM Olmert.”

This perspective is substantiated by an article in the NY Times Magazine by the Canadian-Israeli writer Bernard Avishai, “A Plan for Peace That Still Could Be” (

And this is from TTN colleague Kenneth Stern:

Our colleague, Paul Scham, prepared a useful chart of the main narratives of each side [see it inserted at the bottom of this text].

There was, indeed, a time when a peaceful solution seemed closer. I recall talking with people who were walking around Jerusalem with GPS devices, identifying which street was going to one side or the other.

I’ve had the good fortune to become friends with some Palestinian thinkers and academics (from the UK and North America), some of whom are fervently anti-Zionist. I suspect that many of us, if we were born in their shoes, would have a similar point of view. In discussing these issues, I think it’s important to ask oneself what you would be thinking if that were the case.

I cited a study in my book (“The Conflict Over the Conflict“) that suggests a way forward is for each side to see the other giving up one of their “sacred symbols.” I suspect that’s right.  

I also recommend Seth Azinska’s [2018] book, “Preventing Palestine: A Political History from Camp David to Oslo.” Basically, Israel and Egypt agreed to sacrifice the Palestinian cause for their own purposes at Camp David. I suspect, years from now, that when the history of the current period is written, while there are many faults that can be put on the PLO and PA (corruption, lack of inspiring leadership under Abbas), and more on Hamas (which Israel helped build up as a counterforce to the PLO), but Israel’s dismal failure to help Palestinians succeed in their state-building (errors of omission as well as building up the settlements, etc.) will also be a major factor.

As a side note, we look forward to the publication of another colleague’s work, Eric Alterman, in November:  “We Are Not One: A History of America’s Fight over Israel,” from Basic Books.

We conclude with Paul Scham’s chart, below:

Israeli and Palestinian Traditional Narratives of Their History:

Different Understandings of the Past, Stalemating the Present 


Revised and excerpted from “Shared Histories: A Palestinian-Israeli Dialogue,” edited by Paul Scham, Walid Salem and Benjamin Pogrund, 2005. This version © 2009 by Paul Scham.

2 Responses to “When Peace Seemed Close”

  1. Stan Nadel
    July 8, 2022 at 11:04 am #

    It may be that Abbas came close to a deal with Olmert, but the fact is that he rejected it in the end and that no counter-proposal was ever actually made. More important for my. point is that he and his organization still claim that all of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean rightfully belong to Palestine and that sooner or later the Palestinians will eliminate Israel. That’s their public position, at least in Arabic for Palestinians. Palestinians who murder Jews are put on salary if they are arrested, and declared martyrs whos families get the salaries if they are killed. He, and all other “moderate” leaders stand for this publicly and as I said, have never moved an inch towards preparing their people to accept a 2 state peace that would give up all further claims against Israel and leave it intact as a predominantly Jewish state. As a result it is virtually certain that if Abbas or any other Palestinian leader were to sign such an agreement he would be denounced as a traitor by most of his followers (as well as his rivals for leadership) and the only question would be who would assassinate him–one of his own or one from his rivals from Hamas et al. That reality, and not any inherent proclivity of the Palestinians, is what makes me so pessimistic. We should try to promote what is right anyway, but we need to avoid falling for illusions as we do so.

  2. Bernard Bohbot
    July 11, 2022 at 3:39 am #

     This debate reminds me of a famous Japanese film; Rashomon, in which each protagonist recounts the same story from a different perspective. There is just not one-dimensional answer.

    However, in my humble opinion, the “revisionist” recounting of the failure of the peace process collapsed after Abbas said no to the Kerry-Obama principles in 2014. And frankly, I find unconvincing the claim that Olmert’s legal problems justified Abbas’ refusal to respond to his offer. An agreement in principle would have turned the 2009 election into a referendum on peace (this was Olmert’s intention). A peace agreement of this nature cannot be passed by a mere vote in Parliament without consulting the population (doing the opposite can cause a civil war). Abbas too had to call an election to sign a peace agreement with Israel, as he had no majority in Parliament.

    Even PA negotiators such as Abu Ala, Hussein Agha, Akram Haniyeh, among others, have acknowledged that the Palestinians do not accept a final-status agreement based on the Clinton parameters.

    But once again, it does not justify the occupation. Instead, we need to look for creative ideas that can reconcile the two-state solution with the Palestinian refugees’ right of return.

    A partial agreement on “real estate” only, not the refugee issue or the holy sites, is an option. However, I am much more comfortable with confederalism, which is becoming increasingly attractive to moderates on both sides.
    Let’s not forget that nothing prevents a confederation from having its own army as well as a joint foreign policy (both Macron and Scholtz call for the creation of a European army as well as a joint EU foreign policy – with a right of dissent for states that may disagree with foreign policy decisions taken by the EU).
    A confederation with its own army and its own foreign policy would have all the trappings of a federal state but it would also give veto power to both states over major issues. That would create two states in a joint homeland/country.

    A confederal solution would render the whole debate about the collapse of the peace process redundant. Lack of creativity is one of the main obstacles to peace (not just in Israel and Palestine).

Leave a Reply