by Johanna Ginsberg
NJJN Staff Writer

February 5, 2009

As Israel holds its elections and assesses its achievements in Gaza, David Schenker, senior fellow and director of the Program on Arab Politics at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, will analyze these matters and more in a talk next Tuesday in Caldwell.

He will appear at a men’s club program at Congregation Agudath Israel of West Essex on Feb. 10 at 8 p.m. A $5 charge can be paid at the door.

Schenker, who grew up in Ridgewood, served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense as the Pentagon’s top policy aide on the Arab countries of the Levant. In that capacity, he was responsible for advising the secretary and other senior Pentagon leaders on the military and political affairs of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and the Palestinian territories. He was awarded the Office of the Secretary of Defense Medal for Exceptional Civilian Service in 2005.

NJJN caught up with him by phone to get his perspective on current issues in Israel and the Middle East.

NJJN: Is the window fast closing on the two-state solution, as The New York Times’ Tom Friedman argued last week?

Schenker: I think the election in 2006 of Hamas and the subsequent military takeover of Gaza has really been a blow to those who would want to make progress on a peace agreement. You know, Israel has in recent years really taken bold steps, like unilaterally withdrawing from Lebanon and in 2005 from Gaza. The withdrawal from Lebanon was validated by the UN as being in compliance with resolution 425; yet Hizbullah moved up to the border and sent troops. Israel withdrew from occupied Gaza; in response, Israel got Kassam rockets. You know the experience of withdrawal, and taking steps for peace, has not been reassuring and is not going to encourage Israel to withdraw from more territory….

Now there’s no state in Gaza. As long as it is ruled by Hamas, no one will cut a deal. We can have a state in the West Bank, as long as “moderates” are in control. Fatah is not a panacea, but it can demonstrate its willingness to compromise, and it can be more flexible on certain issues…. But without Israel’s presence, it’s unclear how long Fatah will remain in control. If Israel withdraws from the territory and gets missiles in Tel Aviv and Lod Airport, that’s not a situation Israel will tolerate.

NJJN: Has Israel “won” the war in Gaza, and what is victory?

Schenker: The jury is still out. Prior to the Israeli campaign in Gaza, there was strong international consensus that Hamas should be isolated. The policy was to make the West Bank bloom with stability, economic development, and be a model for Gaza. In the aftermath of Gaza, there are fissures in this broad international consensus, notably from France, which has indicated it will engage in diplomatic ties with Hamas. And there have been dozens of op-eds saying that Hamas is a reality that we have to deal with.

Not everyone is on board anymore with the Quartet conditions that no one accept Hamas until Hamas accepts Israel’s right to exist and rejects violence. The problem is that there are many who would set the bar lower for engaging with Hamas than with the PLO. They do not have to give up their commitment to the destruction of the State of Israel or doing violence, whereas the PLO had to for the United States to open negotiations in 1988.

There are a couple of other areas where Hamas is making headway; one is, of course, that they started the war in order to end what they call the siege…. The Israeli government has floated the idea of a deal to let over 1,000 prisoners go and open the Rafah border crossing in exchange for Gilad Shalit; it’s a pretty similar proposal to the deal Israel and Hizbullah made that returned Samir Kuntar in exchange for the bodies of the two IDF soldiers Hizbullah had abducted. If Israel opens Rafah, Hamas will see it as having won.

Finally, and most important, Hamas is taking a page from Hizbullah’s playbook; namely, if you want to win, you must win at home. You must be strong at home in terms of humanitarian support, and Hamas is offering $40 million in cash for families who lost their homes….

NJJN: Some American Jews dread the idea of “even-handedness” on the part of newly appointed Middle East envoy George Mitchell or any American envoy. The argument is that with so many countries lined up against Israel, Israel needs a “dishonest” broker to right the balance. Is there merit in this argument?

Schenker: Israel needs to be an honest broker, and the United States needs to be an honest broker, if not always neutral. That said, I would say that the Obama administration has what I think are ambitious goals: Taking on Iran, splitting Syria and Iran, and engaging an agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

But this Mitchell trip [Jan. 26-Feb. 3] is very limited in what it sets out to accomplish. He’s visiting Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, and Saudi Arabia — not Turkey, not Syria. And he’s going to Europe. There are two focuses; first, to help ease the humanitarian crisis in Palestinian areas, and second, to work with our regional allies, most importantly Egypt, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and Fatah to create a durable cease-fire with the critical element of the interdiction of tunnels from Egypt to Gaza. They are going to talk and see what’s on the table, not push forward the peace process.

NJJN: The Israeli elections will be held Feb. 10, the day you will speak at Agudath Israel. What are the implications of each of the front-runners for Israeli policy going forward?

Schenker: You can look at what the front-runners have said in the past to see what the implications are. [The Kadima Party’s Tzipi] Livni has said she will freeze the Syria peace track if elected; [The Labor Party’s Ehud] Barak has in the past demonstrated that he has great confidence in himself and in the force of his personality in getting agreements with the Palestinian or Syrian side. And [Likud’s Benjamin] Netanyahu has shown his distaste for negotiating with the Palestinians. Netanyahu is a little more tepid about what can be accomplished; Livni, vis-a-vis Syria, requires a split with Iran; I don’t think that’s in the cards or feasible for a broad number of reasons that I will address in my Feb. 10 talk.

Comment: comments@njjewishnews.com

--TOP--