In-Depth Coverage

Original Commentaries

09/04/08: From Zero-Sum to Win-Win —Mara Rudman, adviser, Middle East Progress; senior fellow, Center for American Progress. Original Commentary for Middle East Bulletin.
09/04/08: How Progress Is Possible —
08/07/08: How to Deal with Jerusalem —Lt. Col. (Res.) Ron Shatzberg, Project Director, Economic Cooperation Foundation. Interview with Middle East Bulletin.

Setting the Record Straight

Two-State Solution Still Best Option

“In practical terms, we can reach two conclusions: First, a final-status agreement, although its details are known, cannot be secured in the foreseeable future. Second, the time has come to think about other solutions. One of them is a return not to the 1967 borders, but rather, to the reality that prevailed in 1967, when Jordan controlled the West Bank.”
—Major General (ret.) Giora Eiland, “The Jordanian Option,” YNet, September 3, 2008

"On both sides of the green line and, indeed, wherever people think about solutions to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, a lot of old/new thinking is taking place. … Most of these ideas are patently unrealistic. Discussion of them often reflects despair, not pragmatic strategic thinking. … Precisely because there is no such alternative, other options more readily suggest themselves, ranging from temporary conflict management to three states or entities. Nor does failure today mean that tomorrow we cannot try again to arrive at a two-state solution, which remains the best option for all."
—Yossi Alpher, coeditor of the bitterlemons family of internet publications & former director, Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University, "One State Definitely Not an Option," bitterlemons.org, August 18, 2008

Middle East Analysis

How Progress Is Possible —Hiba Husseini, chair, Legal Committee to Final Status Negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis; former vice chairperson of the Palestine Securities Exchange (1998-May 2005). Interview with Middle East Bulletin.
Perils of an Israeli Transition —The New York Times, Editorial
The Arabs Will Look Differently Upon America —Ron Pundak, director general of the Peres Center for Peace and former architects and negotiators of the Oslo Agreement (bitterlemons.org)

Iraq After the Surge: Options and Questions

Daniel P. Serwer, vice president, & Sam Parker, program officer, Center for Post-Conflict Peace and Stability Operations, United States Institute of Peace

April 7, 2008

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Syrian President Bashar Assad (AP)

Iraq remains a critical problem for the United States. Security has improved to roughly 2005 levels, and tentative political progress has been made, but there is no visible end to the U.S. commitment required to prevent Iraq from spinning out of control and threatening a widening war in the region. …

The continued presence of U.S. forces in Iraq cannot produce an outcome worth the costs in lives and resources. Moreover, the broader global interests that the United States is sacrificing due to its presence in Iraq far outweigh any gains that could possibly be achieved there. [Unconditional redeployment of all deployed U.S. forces from Iraq, coupled with an enhanced security presence in the region, an invigorated diplomatic effort, and continuing political support to the Iraqi government] would include:

• A firm, non-negotiable timetable for withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq that has no relation to the Iraqi political environment and is not subject to change (for example, withdrawal to begin in January 2009 and be completed in January 2011).
• Enhanced U.S. military presence in the Gulf and maintenance of U.S. ability to intervene from outside of Iraq
• Rebuilt regional alliances
• Within the limits allowed by withdrawal of deployed U.S. forces, a U.S. diplomatic and assistance presence inside Iraq, including a train and equip mission managed by the Office of Defense Cooperation in the U.S. embassy. Access the full article>>