Strategic Assessment

This article argues that on the Palestinian issue, Israel’s choice is not between two alternatives – a peace agreement or the status quo – but rather, between four: a peace agreement “acceptable” to Israel according to the Clinton parameters; an unacceptable peace agreement, i.e., on Palestinian terms; and two options that follow from not reaching an agreement, which include what the Palestinians can gain from continuation of the status quo and what Israel can and should gain from it. The article contends that while a peace agreement according to the Clinton parameters is the best option for Israel, there is very little chance of achieving it, at least in the foreseeable future. Other options, including Palestinian initiatives that emerge from continuation of the status quo, will harm Israeli objectives in passive fashion. In the absence of an agreement, therefore, an Israeli initiative is preferred, because it will enable Israel to advance its national objectives by shaping its borders independently and improve its position in negotiations with the Palestinians if and when they eventually resume.