WASHINGTON (AP) — Israel and the Palestinians have set a goal of reaching a final peace settlement within one year, a highly ambitious aim given past failures and future obstacles.
Here are some questions and answers about the peace process and the prospects for success.
Q. What would a peace deal look like?
A. The current idea is a "two-state" solution, meaning the Palestinian people would have their own sovereign state adjacent to Israel. Palestine would be comprised mainly of the West Bank, which has been occupied by Israel since 1967, plus the Gaza Strip. One problem, however, is that Gaza is now ruled by the militant Hamas movement, which is not part of the peace negotiations and does not recognize Israel's right to exist. Gaza has been the staging point for rocket attacks on Israel that have led to an Israeli blockade of the territory.
Q. What else is standing in the way of a deal?
A. Among the major obstacles is Palestinian opposition to expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu imposed a 10-month moratorium on settlement construction, but that is due to expire in a few weeks. The Palestinians are saying that if the ban is not extended, the revived peace talks will collapse in short order.
The two sides also must agree on specific borders, the political status of Jerusalem, the fate of Palestinian refugees in Jordan and elsewhere, and arrangements to ensure Israel's security.
Q. What is the next step?
A. Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas are scheduled to hold a second round of negotiations Sept. 14-15, probably in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheik. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and the administration's point man for Mideast peace, former Sen. George Mitchell, will be there to try to keep the talks moving forward. The initial goal is to come up with a "framework" agreement as a step toward a final treaty.
Q. What's the point of a framework deal?
A. Mitchell said Thursday that it would spell out the main compromises each side would have to make to reach a final peace treaty. He said Abbas and Netanyahu both see this as a logical way to get to a treaty, and that they believe it is possible to do so within one year.
Q. Why set a one-year deadline?
A. The main reason is to establish a sense of urgency for both parties. As Abbas said Thursday, it is not like they are starting from scratch, given the long history of this conflict. What's more, if they could at least reach a framework agreement within a year that could provide a substantial political boost for President Barack Obama heading into a 2012 re-election campaign.
Q. Given previous failures, what's different this time?
A. For starters, the lineup of key actors has changed. Netanyahu, as a hard-liner, may have the credibility among the political right in Israel to make the compromises necessary to strike a deal. The previous set of negotiations broke down under Netanyahu's predecessor at the close of President George W. Bush's administration. Abbas, the Palestinian president, is in a politically life-threatening struggle to sustain his power against the Hamas faction. Gaining statehood for the Palestinians, if the deal is right, could hand Abbas a big political victory. In 1998 Netanyahu and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, both hard-liners, made serious concessions with President Bill Clinton in talks at Queenstown, Maryland. Both later reneged on their agreements, and the pact collapsed.
Q. What's in it for the United States?
A. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a constant source of grievance and unrest to Muslims, especially Arabs. Secretary of State Clinton and Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, have said the impasse frustrates other U.S. goals around the world and fuels extremism. Of course the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is only part of a broader enmity; a comprehensive Middle East peace would mean Israel reaching an accommodation with Syria and Lebanon as well. Israel already has peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt.
