- By Marc Lynch
Marc Lynch is associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University, where he is the director of the Institute for Middle East Studies and of the Project on Middle East Political Science. He is also a non-resident senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security. He is the author of The Arab Uprising (March 2012, PublicAffairs).
He publishes frequently on the politics of the Middle East, with a particular focus on the Arab media and information technology, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, and Islamist movements.
What role could an international military force play in securing a two-state Israeli-Palestinian peace? That’s the question addressed in “Security for Peace”, released today by the Center for a New American Security after nearly a year of discussions and meetings. I wrote the final chapter for the report, which was edited by Andrew Exum and which includes four comparative case studies and a sweeping overview by Ambassador James Dobbins. The report does not advocate for an international military force to be deployed. Instead, it asks what role such a force could play in making a peace agreement succeed, should one be proposed, and the conditions under which it is most likely to be productive. It’s a pretty hot issue for CNAS to take up — and some of its conclusions will likely be controversial. Hopefully, the report will generate some fresh and productive thinking about concrete ways to make a two state solution work in practice.
The idea of an international force is not new, of course. The Clinton Parameters of December 2000 included discussion of “an international presence that can only be withdrawn by mutual consent” which would “monitor the implementation of the agreement between both sides.” The idea was floated by Tom Friedman several times back in the violent days of 2001-02 as “a way out of the Middle East impasse.” A 2005 RAND study of how to build a Palestinian state included a chapter on an international force. Current National Security Adviser James Jones reportedly floated the idea several times towards the end of the Bush administration — to generally hostile response. This report builds on those discussions, looking to comparative cases and the current political and strategic context to offer up a number of sharp recommendations for what kind of international force would be needed were one chosen.
The full report is too rich for me to easily summarize here. But a few key arguments and conclusions are worth highlighting. Several authors point to the need to the importance of incorporating all armed factions into the new state and securing the “acquiesence of all belligerents”, and warn against the dangers of the international force turning into a partisan actor carrying out a campaign against one faction (i.e. Hamas). Indeed, one of the key determinants of success may be whether the international force is supporting a Palestinian government which includes Hamas or is confronting Hamas as an adversary. If it’s the latter — as seems most likely given current trends — then it may prove very difficult for the IF to avoid shifting from peace-keeping and enforcement of agreements into a counter-insurgency force which, I’d wager, nobody wants to see it become.
The report points to the need for a well-integrated political and military strategy, with sufficient forces and a clear and robust consensus on the force’s mandate and rules of engagement. A token force sitting in bases is not likely to be especially useful. The international force would need to provide public security and demonstrate tangible improvements in the lives of the people in their zones of engagement. A successful mission would also need to deliver comprehensive security sector building — i.e. with civilian institutions and the rule of law rather than only narrowly defined security force building. That means drawing on the civilian side and the “whole of government” concept which is all the rage these days.
The authors also often note the absolute centrality of maintaining impartiality by protecting and ensuring compliance by both sides — both Palestinians and Israelis. That will be difficult, obviously, especially in what is likely to be an intensely contested arena with heavy media coverage and domestic political implications in the contributing countries. As Dobbins notes, the Palestinians are “unlikely to be enthusiastic about trading an Israeli occupation for an international one.” I propose a strategic communications campaign to ensure that the the international force is viewed as a supportive presence by both Israelis and Palestinians — but that will only work if it is, in fact, such a neutral and constructive presence.
What kind of force would it be? Dobbins concludes that the most successful architecture would be “a NATO-led military component with a civilian-led parallel organization to handle political, governance and development matters. Both components would require the explicit consent of all the parties to the conflict.” It would require the full buy-in of both the Israeli and Palestinian sides for the U.S. or any other government to be willing to play such a role, given the “potentially toxic political and media environment, the near constant potential for violence from spoilers, and a high risk of attacks on its members.”
My concluding chapter sketches out four scenarios under which such an International Force might be deployed — with or without the Palestinian Authority in its current form, and with or without a negotiated agreement. The best case scenario of a full negotiated peace is complex enough, with many opportunities for spoiler attacks and with the job of enforcing compliance with the agreement creating endless opportunities for conflict and clashes. A partial agreement scenario, where Israel reaches a peace agreement only with the current PA in the West Bank, is one of the more likely scenarios and one of the most dangerous for an international force since there would be great pressure for it to morph into a counter-insurgency force battling Hamas and other opposition movements. The other two scenarios would follow from an Israeli decision to unilaterally disengage from the West Bank as Sharon did from Gaza, a move which the current PA might or might not survive. While no government may want to become involved in such a situation, they may do so as the only alternative to the PA’s collapse.
There is much more there, and this overview can not do it justice. I hope that you’ll read the whole thing and that it might help trigger productive debate on exactly how a two-state solution might be achieved should we ever get to that point.