Secretary of State John Kerry believes that time is running out for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with at most two years before it is no longer possible.

During a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Wednesday, Ranking Member Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) asked the Secretary about President Obama’s recent trip to Israel and the West Bank, inquiring about the stalled peace process. Kerry’s response highlighted the urgency with which the administration views restarting talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders:

KERRY: But I can guarantee you that am committed to this, because I believe the window for a two-state solution is shutting. I think we have some period of time a year, a year and a half, to two years or its over. [...] So there’s an urgency to this in my mind, and I intend, on behalf of the President’s instructions, to honor that urgency and see what we can do to move forward.

Later in the hearing, Rep. Ted Deutch (R-FL) followed up on Engel’s earlier question, placing the onus of restarting negotiations solely on the Palestinians. Deutch specifically asked why Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas had not done more to “prepare his people for peace,” lamenting Palestinian preconditions on negotiations — like demanding Israel end its illegal settlement construction — and its push for statehood recognition at the United Nations.

“Look, the hurdle we have to get over here, part of the difficulty is the level of mistrust on both sides is gigantic,” Kerry responded. “President Abbas deep-down is not convinced — and that may be a light word for it — that Prime Minister Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu and Israel are ever going to give them a state. And on the other side, Israel is not convinced that the Palestinians and others ever going to give them the security that they need. So we have to find an equation here, folks, where we can try to dispel those years of mistrust and get both sides to understand that both things are in fact possible.”

While President Clinton laid the groundwork, U.S. support for the two-state solution has been official policy since 2002, when President George W. Bush announced his desire to see an independent Israel and Palestine living side-by-side. Since then, the peace process has moved forward in fits and starts before and stalled in 2010. While a report from CAP in 2009 also implied that the window of opportunity is closing, this is the first time a Secretary of State has been so blunt in producing a narrow timeframe. Secretary Kerry recently returned from his third trip to the Middle East in the latest round of shuttle diplomacy intended to jump-start direct negotiations between both sides.

As CAP’s Matt Duss notes, however, in the absence of direct talks, there are several options the United States could pursue in the meantime to help lay the ground for a lasting peace. And while the political process has yet to move forward, the U.S. did win agreement from Netanyahu and Abbas to help boost economic development in the West Bank. Kerry, in response to questions from Rep. Ileana Ros-Lesthein (R-FL), made clear that the economic process is meant to move forward along side the political track, not as a replacement.

Kerry with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas

For weeks, media outlets have been reporting that Kerry might seek to revive the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative as the basis for the new talks. The Saudi-proposed and Arab League-backed plan is a comprehensive peace deal calling for the Israelis to withdraw from the territories seized in the 1967 war in exchange for a normalization of relations.

And it appears that there is some validity to the reports. The AP says today a senior State Department official said Kerry “welcomes” the role the plan can play in his current push:

Kerry “welcomes efforts to enhance the constructive role the Arab Peace Initiative can play moving forward,” a senior State Department official said, while denying that he was proposing changes to the plan. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of Kerry’s orders not to brief reporters.

Bloomberg also reported that a unnamed Turkish official said Kerry discussed the Arab Peace Initiative with Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan in meetings ahead of his trip to Israel and the West Bank. Bloomberg says the Turkish official reportedly asked for anonymity “because talks about the plan are intended to remain private.”

If the reports are true, it’s worth noting that back in 2011, President Clinton told a blogger roundtable that the Israelis missed an opportunity for peace by not seizing on the Arab-backed plan, as Foreign Policy reported at the time:

Israel also wants a normalization of relations with its Arab neighbors to accompany a peace deal. Clinton said that the Saudi-inspired Arab Peace Initiative put forth in 2002 represented an answer to that Israeli demand.

“The King of Saudi Arabia started lining up all the Arab countries to say to the Israelis, ‘if you work it out with the Palestinians … we will give you immediately not only recognition but a political, economic, and security partnership,’” Clinton said. “This is huge…. It’s a heck of a deal.”

While the Israelis saw flaws in the plan, and obstacles on both sides remain today, CAP’s Matt Duss noted last month that “a number of liberal Israelis promulgated the Israeli Peace Initiative, which called on the Israeli government to ‘accept the Arab initiative of 2002 as a basis for negotiations for peace agreements in the area’”:

One of the leaders of this initiative is Jacob Perry, a former head of the Shin Bet security service who is now the number two man in Yesh Atid, the new party that made a surprising second-place showing in Israel’s recent elections, and is now a member of the governing coalition.

“I am convinced there is a road forward. I would say to everyone that I have no illusions about the difficulties, we’ve seen them,” Kerry said as he met Israeli President Shimon Peres this afternoon in Jerusalem.

“The two-state solution is the best solution and the parameters for that agreement already exist, two states for two peoples – a Jewish state, Israel and an Arab state, Palestine,” Peres said.

President Obama told an audience of Israeli university students, in what is being hailed as a historic speech, that if they want see peace with the Palestinians, they must put more pressure on the Israeli government to act.

While Obama reiterated that Israeli settlement activity “is counterproductive to the cause of peace,” he acknowledged that Israel “has taken risks for peace.”

“You made credible proposals to the Palestinians at Annapolis. You withdrew from Gaza and Lebanon, and then faced terror and rockets,” Obama said, adding, “Across the region, you have extended a hand of friendship, and too often have been confronted with the ugly reality of anti-Semitism.”

But he said that ultimately, achieving peace will mean that they must urge their leaders to move forward to take the risks necessary to achieve an agreement. “You must create the change that you want to see,” he said:

OBAMA: That is where peace begins – not just in the plans of leaders, but in the hearts of people; not just in a carefully designed process, but in the daily connections, that sense of empathy, that takes place among those who live together in this land, and in this sacred city of Jerusalem. And let me say this as a politician, I can promise you this: political leaders will never take risks if the people do not push them to take some risks. You must create the change that you want to see. Ordinary people can accomplish extraordinary things.

Watch the clip:

Indeed, as CAP’s Rudy deLeon, Brian Katulis and Matt Duss observed recently, based on conversations with officials and experts from the Israeli government and Palestinian Authority, “There are few political incentives to tackle the Palestinian issue”:

There is little sense of urgency in Israel about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict beyond continued concerns about possible security threats from the Gaza Strip. Israelis seem resigned to the status quo and lack a clear sense of the next possible steps forward. Even among those Israelis who express more concern about the need for a two-state solution to the conflict, there is little clarity about the pathway forward to advance that agenda.

They recommend that Secretary of State Kerry “embark on an active process of listening to both Israelis and Palestinians, quietly encouraging both sides to take steps that build trust and public support for the eventual restart of negotiations in the coming year.”

(Photo: AP)

Transcript from Obama’s speech:

Read more

Then-Senator Barack Obama visits Israel in 2008

CAP’s Matthew Duss, who is currently in the region, is concerned that despite calls on all side for a new round of talks between Israel and Palestine, direct negotiations may wind up being counter-productive:

While the Obama administration and its partners in the Quartet on the Middle East—the group made up of the United Nations, the European Union, the United States, and Russia, established in 2002—have stressed the importance of returning to direct talks over the past few years, some analysts I spoke with suggested that this may not be a good option at the moment. Given the level of frustration among Palestinians at their own government’s failure to deliver, it’s possible that the Palestinian Authority could not survive another round of failed negotiations.

In the near-term absence of further negotiations, Duss recommended the United States working quietly to address key issues to boost the Palestinian Authority’s credibility, including Palestinian prisoners in Israel and the on-going construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. “It’s very important, however, that the Palestinian Authority not be supported simply with the aim of prolonging an unsustainable status quo,” Duss warns, noting the necessity of a permanent solution.

The last direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority last took place in 2010, with the declared goal of developing a framework for an agreement within a year. The talks fell apart in late Sept. 2010, when Israel’s partial moratorium of new settlement construction expired.

President Obama’s trip to Israel, the West Bank, and Jordan will start next Wednesday and last until Saturday. While he is not expected to make any major policy announcements while there, his very presence is thought as an assist in revitalizing the peace process. According to Israel’s Channel 2, Secretary of State John Kerry will make a return trip to the region soon after Obama’s as part of a more substantive effort.

Photo: AP

Chuck Hagel has opposed the possibility of military action against Iran, called for a sovereign Palestinian state, called the United States “the world’s bully,” and called for the Pentagon to be “pared down.”

These are not the actions of a man who cares about preserving our national security, and they undeniably disqualify Chuck Hagel from holding the most consequential position in the President’s cabinet.

His confirmation would be a direct threat to our national security, and that’s why Patriot Voices has taken the lead in making sure it doesn’t happen!

So Santorum’s group doesn’t want Hagel confirmed because he supports a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But President Obama supports a two-state solution (as did his GOP opponent in last year’s presidential campaign), and so do a majority of Israelis and so does Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

And Hagel has also said he supports all options, including military force if necessary, to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and indeed, Hagel has said that the U.S. should reduce military spending, a position that experts and the American public agree with.

And did Hagel call the U.S. “the world’s bully”? Nope. Santorum’s group got that from Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) dishonest and out of context line of questioning last week during Hagel’s confirmation hearing.

But the fact that Hagel is getting attacked for believing that the Palestinians are entitled to their own state tells you something about the points of view from which most of the Hagel criticism is coming from.