Related Resources

Recognizing the Israeli-Palestinian issue as the most decisive in the region, Aaron David Miller addressed the future of the peace process in the Middle East at the 57th Annual Middle East Institute Banquet. Miller outlined six “first principles” both in the process and substance of peacemaking based on his conviction that there is an equitable and durable solution to the conflict that can only be achieved through protracted negotiations: The conflict cannot be viewed as a moral struggle between right and wrong. Rather than painting a Manichean picture of good versus evil, it must be recognized that this is a conflict between “two rights.” The end game for the negotiations be clear, particularly calling for a two-state solution. Miller argued that this is the only logical solution because it alone is capable of solving the “proximity problem” resulting from the lives of Israelis and Palestinians being inextricably linked. Negotiations must be based on a balance of interests, not power. Miller referenced the relative success of both the Israel-Jordan and Israel-Egypt peace agreements to support the idea that a durable peace requires the interests of both sides in the negotiations to be met. To underscore this idea further, Miller deemed the failures of previous negotiations a result of the pernicious imbalance of power between Israelis and Palestinians. Israel has the “power of the strong” – the power of unilateralism. The Palestinians have the “power of the weak” – the power not to have to take responsibility because they are the victims. Both sides must stop exploiting these positions for peace to emerge. Fundamental imbalances of power are ingrained in both camps and so it is necessary for third-party mediation. Israelis and Palestinians are unable to see the problems on both sides because each believes they have a monopoly on pain and truth. The US is the one power that must make this conflict a high priority if there is ever to be a peace settlement. Conventional diplomacy alone is not sufficient. A new type of transformational diplomacy allowing Palestinians and Israelis to understand the story and humanity of their negotiating partners must be implemented.

In concluding, Mr. Miller suggested that the real casualty at Camp David was the idea that negotiated solutions are feasible, a return to will revitalize the hope that peace is possible. Cautioning against surrendering to the forces of history, Miller concluded that we cannot afford the outcome of a violent solution where there can be only one winner and one loser.