5th Annual Fall Peace Forum : Daniel Levy, "The Shape of a Peacable Foreign Policy" with Respondent Adam Horowitz

Sunday, October 26, 2008
3:00 PM - 5:00 PM
The Barshinger Center • Franklin & Marshall College • Lancaster, PA

Listen to Audio Recording

The 5th Annual Fall Peace Forum, hosted by the Center for Liberal Arts & Society of Franklin & Marshall College, featured Daniel Levy, a Senior Fellow at the New America and The Century Foundations in Washington, DC. Levy directs their respective Middle East Peace policy initiatives. He formerly worked as an adviser in Israeli Prime Minister Barak's office and as an official negotiator and as lead Israeli drafter of the informal Geneva Initiative peace plan.

Levy was the Director of Policy and International Efforts at Heskem, the Israeli headquarters of the joint non-governmental Israeli-Palestinian Geneva Initiative. Levy led the working-level Israeli negotiating team for over two years, and was the lead Israeli drafter of the Geneva Accord.

Levy previously served as senior policy adviser to former Israeli Minister of Justice, Yossi Beilin, from March 2000 to March 2001. In this capacity, he was responsible for coordinating policy on various aspects of the ministerial portfolio, including issues related to peace negotiations, the Palestinian minority in Israel, civil and human rights, representing the minister on governmental committees.

During the Ehud Barak government, he worked in the Prime Minister's Office as special adviser and head of the Jerusalem Affairs unit under Minister Haim Ramon.

Levy was a member of the Israeli delegation to the Taba Summit with the Palestinians in January 2001, and of the negotiating team for the "Oslo 2" Agreement from May to September 1995, under Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

In 2003 Levy worked as an analyst for the International Crisis Group Middle East Program, during which time he authored reports, including "A Time To Lead – the International Community and the Middle East", "Middle East Endgame – How a Comprehensive Peace Settlement Would Look", "A Middle East Roadmap to Where?", and "Identity Crisis: Israel and its Arab Citizens". He also worked for three years as projects director for the Economic Cooperation Foundation, a Tel Aviv based policy 'think-tank and do-tank' whose mission is to promote regional peace and stability in the Middle East.

He served his compulsory army service as an NCO in the Liaison Office with the United Nations Forces based in the region and in the office of the Deputy Coordinator of Government Activities in the territories.

A graduate of King's College, Cambridge, Levy was the Anti-Racism Officer of Cambridge University Students Union from 1989 to 1990. Between 1991 and 1994, Daniel Levy was Chairman of the World Union of Jewish Students. He occasionally writes opinion pieces for Ha’aretz.

Adam Horowitz coordinates the American Friends Service Committee's national advocacy and activism on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as part of the national Middle East Peace building Program. Adam has been engaged in social change work since 1995, working in Atlanta, New York City and Philadelphia. Before coming to the AFSC, he was active in the Jewish community as board member of Jews for Racial and Economic Justice and a founding member of the organization, Jews Against the Occupation. Adam holds a master's degree in Near Eastern Studies from New York University.

SUMMARY by URBANE PEACHEY

1. Occupation

• Ending the occupation is critical to Palestine-Israeli peace.
• Occupation is rarely appreciated
• Occupation generates hostility. “Benevolent Occupation.” Those words do not go together. Occupation by its nature cannot be construed as benevolent.
• Parenthetically, the Iraqis, also under occupation, cannot be blamed too much for not spending the 70 plus billion for reconstruction, while they are under occupation.
• Occupation is exacerbated if you move external population into the occupied area.
• Dignity matters to people
• Grievances of occupied people, root causes, needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, in making this point one is accused of being soft on terror.

2. Engage Diplomatically

• To engage is not to endorse
• We limit our own options if we don’t engage. Engagement improves mutual understandings, without preconditions. The point of diplomacy is to address existing conditions and perceptions. In setting preconditions the US has boxed itself in. The cart is put before the horse. We should engage with state and non state actors. Note for example, that Egypt has been partially successful mediating between Israel and Hamas. Each side has legitimate arguments.

3. Know Islam
We’ve dumbed down our way of looking at Islam. This undifferentiated sea of hostility toward Islam is counter productive. Islam does not support Al Qaeda. The Mainstream of Islam is reformist rather than revolutionary--defensive rather than offensive. Applies to Hamas and Moslem Brotherhood. Neither Hamas or Moslem Brotherhood attack America. It is not for us to confer legitimacy upon democratic choices made by other groups.

4. America should cultivate friendship with “real Islam,” not imagined Islam. Likewise, Americans should cultivate relationships with “real Israel”, not imagined Israel. Neither Islam, nor Israel are monolithic. Most Israeli families are opposed to sending their kids into hostility. Israeli military has this tendency of misbehaving if there are no consequences. Friendship should be cultivated with “real Islam” and “real Israel.”

5. Nurture stability in the region. We need to be attentive to the fragility of the region. We are skating on thin ice, and we should not take a pick ax to thin ice.

• Respect your own values as Americans
• Respect local wisdom

We cannot make progress by supporting divisions. Let the ice thicken and you will find other Shi’a. Be very careful who you listen to in the expatriate community. Note for example the consequences of US adoption of Ahmad Chalabi in making the case for the Iraq war.

Summary

1. US credibility in the region has been lost. US conduct in the region resonates across the Muslim world, and has contributed to radicalization of the extremes. It is hard for countries to line up with the US, given the corrosive effect of the ongoing Palestine-Israel conflict. Border adjustments will be required.

2. A strong case for a two state solution. Palestinians have recognized Israel and the international community should build on that.

The single state track will be problematic and not practical in the near future. The majorities in Israel and Palestine prefer a two state solution.

Israelis know that their interests are not served by the occupation. Outgoing prime minister Olmert, says Israel is finished if the two state solution is not realized. Even Hamas is moving toward two state option,
Noted 250,000 Israelis living in West Bank and 250,000 Israelis living in East Jerusalem. Three and one-half percent boundary change can accommodate Jerusalem area Israeli settlements, and should be compensated with equal border adjustments elsewhere.

3. Negotiations while Palestinians are under occupation are not working.

Annapolis initiative is a structural failure. Palestinian statehood cannot "incubate" under a foreign hostile occupation. Palestinians and Israelis cannot do it alone. An interim international presence will be needed in order to move this process forward. And American involvment is indispensible to progress.