Publications

On July 1, 2016, the Middle East Quartet published its latest report, focusing on major threats to achievement of a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement and offering recommendations to advance the two-state solution. While the report specifically states that a permanent status agreement can only be achieved through direct bilateral negotiations, it aims to highlight areas where progress can already be made to advance the two-state solution given the ongoing absence of a political process.

Endorsed by the UN Security Council (UNSC Resolution 1435) in 2002, the Quartet was formed to instill new momentum in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations by complementing American mediation with the support of three critical players: the EU, the UN, and Russia. To date, this body has made two notable contributions to the Israeli-Palestinian process: the Roadmap (endorsed by UNSC Resolution 1515 in November 2003); and the three demands stipulated as preconditions for dialogue with Hamas, following the latter's victory in the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections (commitment to non-violence, recognition of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements between Israel and the PLO and their related obligations).

The Quartet’s new report reflects an assessment that the current situation is untenable, feeding extremism and radicalism that will eventually lead to a cycle of increased violence and instability. Accordingly, the report focuses on immediate concrete steps that should be taken in order "to reverse current trends and advance the two-state solution on the ground." To this end, the report identifies three central issues as severely undermining prospects for peace.

The first issue is the continued violence, terror attacks against civilians, and ongoing incitement to violence. In this respect, the report offers a balanced overview by referring to 250 terrorist attacks and attempted attacks by Palestinians against Israelis in recent months. The report notes that Palestinians who commit terrorist attacks are often glorified publicly; that social media is used as a means to spread incitement to violence; and that members of Fatah have publicly supported attacks and their perpetrators. It also notes that while the PA leadership has expressed opposition to violence, Palestinian leaders have not clearly and consistently condemned specific terrorist attacks, and streets, squares, and schools are named in honor of Palestinians who have committed acts of terrorism. At the same time, the report criticizes Israeli extremists and perpetrators of “price tag” violence; Israeli incitement on some social media sites; and statements by Israeli officials in support of the use of lethal force against Palestinian assailants.

The second issue is settlement expansion, land designations, and denial of Palestinian construction, which the report ties together as reflecting a unified policy by Israel. In this respect the report states that the continuing Israeli policy raises questions as to Israel’s long term intentions, especially in light of statements by some Israeli ministers insisting that there will never be a Palestinian state. Specifically, the report criticizes Israel's designation of over 70 percent of land in Area C for exclusive Israeli use, with almost all of the remaining 30 percent of Area C land effectively off limits for Palestinian development. Accentuating this point, the report specifies that out of over 2000 submissions between 2009 and 2013 for Palestinian development in Area C, only 34 building permits were approved, de facto leaving Palestinians "with few options but to build without permits." The report states that settlements are consistently constructed and expanded. Significantly, for the first time the report refers to the number of Israelis residing "deep in the West Bank," which might imply that these settlements warrant more attention.

The third problematic issue is the situation in Gaza, with an emphasis on the illicit arms buildup and militant activity, the dire humanitarian situation, and the continuing absence of Palestinian unity.

The report ends with ten policy recommendations, none of which refer to parameters of a potential agreement or correspond with previous political frameworks proposed for solving the conflict. Content-wise, the ten recommendations can be clustered into three groups. One group (comprising four recommendations) relates to both parties, and calls for the de-escalation of tension; the prevention of violence; respect for the ceasefire in Gaza, and the fostering of a climate of tolerance and counter-extremism. Another group (of three recommendations) relates to Palestinian activity and calls for ceasing incitement to violence; improving Palestinian governance and strengthening institutions; and reunifying Gaza and the West Bank under a single Palestinian leadership on the basis of the PLO platform and Quartet principles. A third group (also of three recommendations) focuses on Israel and calls for ceasing settlement activity; implementing significant policy shifts, including the transfer of powers and responsibilities in Area C; and accelerating the easing of restrictions imposed on Gaza, taking into account Israel's need "to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks."

Despite the criticism of Israel, from Israel’s perspective the report includes three central positive elements. First, it frames the situation as a political conflict in which both sides carry a sizable share of the blame. In this respect the report is a refreshing change from international reports, documents, and movements that frame the conflict as a human rights issue in which Israel is the occupying power purposefully violating basic human rights of Palestinian victims. Second, the report clearly raises the issue of Palestinian incitement as a practice that must be seriously addressed, and specifically addresses all attacks carried out by Palestinians in recent months, referring to them as "terrorist attacks" and  attributing responsibility to the PA for not condemning, and to a certain extent even supporting, these violent acts. Third, the report specifically states that a permanent status agreement to end the conflict can only be achieved through direct bilateral negotiations and not through unilateral actions. Thus, the report does not propose or imply that the international community supports the current Palestinian strategy of internationalizing the conflict, or that this approach is likely to bear fruit.

Both sides have expressed their dismay with the report's content. Israel's official criticism was based on the claim that settlement activity is not an obstacle to peace, and the Palestinians rejected the report, given the equal blame placed on both parties. In this respect, the Palestinian leadership has vocally called on the UN Security Council to reject the report and has quietly implied that it will no longer deal with the Quartet as a body, but rather work with each of its four members separately.

The report's future relevance and impact are unclear. One possibility is that the report will be shelved, along with many other initiatives, papers, plans, and resolutions relating to the decades-old conflict. Another possibility is that the document will serve as a reference point for the international community in future discussions and negotiations relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Either way, the report reflects an apparent despair among the international community regarding the feasibility of reaching a permanent resolution to the conflict under the current circumstances, and hence the need to shift to a more pragmatic and time-sensitive focus. For the Quartet, this translates into the urgent need for both sides to take concrete actions in the immediate term in order to maintain the relevance of the two-state solution.