Ehud Olmert’s “Convergence” Plan for the West Bank and U.S. Middle East Policy

 The Way Ahead

Traditionally, the U.S. government has supported Israeli bids to make peace with the Palestinians based on the paradigm of land for peace. The guiding notion behind this paradigm, which has been the prominent goal of U.S. Middle East policy since the 1970s is that it is possible to end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and defuse the Arab-Israeli conflict as a whole by Israeli appeasement of the Palestinians. Unfortunately, it is now clear that, in light of the radicalization of Palestinian society, it is impossible for Israel to appease the Palestinians into becoming true “partners for peace” and there is no possibility of renewing negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian leadership.

The U.S. government has also traditionally opposed Israel’s control of the West Bank and the establishment of Israeli settlements in the area. The U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv, in conjunction with radical Israeli political groups like Peace Now, seek to prevent all construction inside these Israeli communities and to block all expansion of the Jewish presence in the West Bank, be it by extending communities or by building roads to serve their residents.[49]

And yet, in light of the radicalization of Palestinian society, its intent to annihilate Israel,[50] and its extreme anti-Americanism,[51] it is unclear what U.S. national security interest is served by promoting the Palestinians’ claims of sovereignty in the West Bank over Israel’s claims. It is also far from clear what U.S. national security interest is served by supporting a policy of mass expulsions of Israeli civilians from their homes given the adverse impact such a policy would have on: the stability of Israeli society; the continued war-fighting capabilities of the IDF; and the U.S. policy of supporting a Palestinian state that will accept Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and guarantee the human rights of its citizens and residents.

On its surface, Olmert’s convergence plan appears to align with U.S. national security interests by seeming to enhance both the traditional American support for a land-for- peace formula that will bring about the establishment of a peaceful Palestinian state, and the traditional U.S. opposition to Israeli settlement of the West Bank.  However, when the convergence plan is examined critically, it becomes clear that if the U.S. government lends its support to the plan’s implementation, it will undermine its most important interests in theMiddle East– namely the defeat of jihadist forces and the fostering of security, freedom, democracy and liberal values throughout the Arab and Islamic world.

There are a number of alternative policies that Israel could advance that would have a greater possibility of realizing a just and durable peace between Israel and its neighbors, increasing the stability of Israeli society, strengthening the Hashemite regime and weakening terror-supporting regimes like Iran and Syria while defeating their terror clients in the West Bank and Gaza. These alternative policies would enhance the political influence of the moderate elements in Palestinian society at the expense of forces like Hamas and Fatah.

All of these policies, however, require Israelto acknowledge that it is not the only dynamic force in the region – and an acknowledgement by both Israel and the United States that their fortunes in the Global War on Terror are directly linked. Some of these policy options have been presented publicly[52]; some have yet to be presented to the public. An upcoming Center for Security Policy report will analyze several of the most promising of these alternative approaches in the near future.

In the spirit, though, of the first rule of medicine — “First do no harm” — in the immediate term it must be recognized that policies such as Olmert’s convergence plan serve to exacerbate U.S. and Israeli weaknesses vis-a-vis the forces of Islam of ascism, rather than enhance their respective and joint strengths. This fact should be made clear to Olmert when he presents his policy in Washington, DC next month.