Yet Another Middle-East Peace Plan Effort

President Obama included a vision for the Israeli-Palestinian peace plan in his speech today on the Middle-East and North Africa. So as with many modern Presidents before him, he is seeking an American supported effort to bring peace to the single conflict in the Middle-East that either foments or is used as an excuse for six decades of conflicts between Israel and neighboring Arab states.

I admire the hopeful persistence that American presidents show toward this endeavor. Certainly there is nothing unworthy about attempting to bring peace anywhere, and particularly in this region that has suffered from pointless violence founded upon a poorly conceived and implemented concept of creating a Jewish homeland. But my dissatisfaction with yet another vision is that it is not actually a plan. It jumps straight to the solution without bothering to dealing with foolish things like a process and methodology to handle the obstacles that already exist or that will surface from where we are today to where the ‘vision’ has everyone at the end.

This vision will likely suffer the same fate as previous attempts. The peace process will either collapse after a in a new round of attacks and counter-attacks, or it will conclude with some minor and unfulfilling accord without definitive consequence. The failure inherent in these approaches is that they are conceived and attempted by politicians, power-brokers and religious die-hards; sometimes embodied in the same person. While such individuals are necessary and critical to the success of any peace process, nothing about their positions or authority bestows on them the wits, wisdom or willingness to seek innovative, inspired and insightful approaches to transitioning from their current state of hostility to a peaceful and harmonious coexistence.

The plan that the Israeli and Palestinians need is one which will move them incrementally through the steps and stages that are necessary to provide the time to identify not only the major issues that will require a resolution but the more numerous small and minor issues that will be cumulatively more important than the stumbling blocks that have prevented progress in the past. Additionally, the two principle parties will also need to comprehend why they need to take incremental steps to get to their final goal. It is a reasoned and rational methodology that have evaded past efforts. And it is deficiency that is and has been missing from the peace process toolkit. Processes directed and driven by the mighty and powerful players at the negotiating table are vulnerable to their greatest shortcoming, engaging in a game in which they do not know or understand the rules. Playing at the peace process is not an ideal strategy for something deserving of at least a half-hearted attempt at actually trying to succeed.

What Obama should do now is proceed with suggestions on how the Israeli and Palestinians can initiate the drafting of an approach to peace planning and execution. Part of his proposal would be to include individuals who are skilled at defining and resolving the goals and the requirements that need to be accommodated in the evolving effort of crafting a solution that will deliver a two-state solution of independent, viable and secure nations.

Ah! to dream. As always such a possibility is highly unlikely, it requires the movers and shakers of the world to demonstrate their own inability to deal with the very complexity that they strive to overcome. They have never learned that the one thing you want in subordinates is people who are just flat out brighter than yourself.

Blockading Any Solution: Continuing the Israeli – Arab Impasse

The Israeli boarding of the latest Gaza destined flotilla this week, which has sparked the International outcry regarding the intolerable action on Israel’s part, will spur numerous proposals and plans for international action and sanctions against Israel. But will anyone seize the moment to use this event to set forth a new approach to making progress toward a path to resolving this decades long conflict? No.

The Israelis and Hamas-governed Gaza Palestinians are locked into their well-practiced and behaviorally conditioned stimulus-response mentality. They are not likely to find a solution as they are both doing the exact opposite of the old joke about “looking for their keys under the street-lamp because the light is better over here”. They are both looking for their solutions in the dark with blind-folds on and both hands tied behind their backs.

The international community is divided among countries that advocate the complete destruction of Israel, that support the right of a nation to protect itself by all means necessary (which oddly can apply to either party in this conflict), and those countries that counsel that only a diplomatic solution will be able to settle the dispute. The first two positions do nothing to resolve the conflict as they are the conflict; and the diplomacy approach has demonstrated its efficacy for this situation by essentially failing to do more than produce occasional and sporadic lulls in the conflict.

What then to do, how do you find a resolution to the Israel – Palestinian dispute?

An alternative to diplomacy, to sanctions, to threats or the continuation of madness might be contracts. A contracts approach could be used in smaller instances, on manageable issues and between any particular parties that can help play a role in breaking through the impasse brick by brick. The concept of using contracts to resolve the conflict may not be clear to some; but it offers a number of advantages, not the least of which it is an essential underpinning of any diplomatic approach that is chiefly espoused by most nations.

Other advantages of the contracts approach include allowing different parties to address their own interest-centric needs directly and specifically, it allows multiple issues to be dealt with simultaneously and without being contaminated by side issues or other groups, it allows for small steps to be made without being held hostage to negotiations on some unrelated or a currently unresolvable issue; and it requires each party to clearly define the conditions of the agreement.

It is this last part that makes the most difference. In addition to detailing the points of the contract agreement, the contract specifies the responsibilities, consequences and penalties that go into effect should the contract be broken. This advantage contains within it one of the motivating forces that helps invest the participating parties with self-interest in complying with the contract.

If you don’t think it would work, consider how a contract between Turkey and Israel might be able to deal with their current problem of the Gaza blockage versus the delivery of humanitarian aid. What would Israel require of Turkey to provide aid delivery and what consequences would Turkey be held to if they failed to fulfill the contractual terms and conditions? Likewise what would Turkey expect of Israel, if they did not allow for delivery of humanitarian aid under the terms and conditions of the contract?

Establish a contract on this issue, put it into effect and then there is one less brick in the wall. Keep weakening the wall brick-by-brick and eventually the impasse is broken.