The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains the core problem in the Middle East,
and solving it will go a long way toward securing regional and even global
peace, James Jones, US President Barack Obama’s former national security
adviser, said Monday.
Speaking at the Herzliya Conference, Jones rejected
the premise that the current tumult in Egypt disproved this.
RELATED:Tom Donilon appointed as US National Security AdvisorPM, Barak and Lieberman all skipping conferenceBorderline Views: The Herzliya festival“I’m of the
belief that had God appeared in front of President Obama in 2009 and said if he
could do one thing on the face of the planet, and one thing only, to make the
world a better place and give people more hope and opportunity for the future, I
would venture that it would have something to do with finding the two-state
solution to the Middle East,” Jones said.
Speaking to reporters after
addressing the conference, Jones said Israel’s dispute with the Palestinians was
the “knot that is at the center of mass.”
He added that
Israeli-Palestinian peace was the one thing that extremists and Iran would “most
not like to see happen,” and that the ripple effect would go far beyond the
region.
A retired marine general, he was a central US figure in the
diplomatic process for the last four years, beginning as former president George
Bush’s special envoy for Middle East security, and continuing as Obama’s
national security adviser until late last year.
Making it clear that he
was speaking in a private capacity and not on behalf of the administration,
Jones said the dispute was “one of the most important issues on the planet, and
it affects just about everything from the security standpoint.”
But
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman
had a completely different take, telling a
group of visiting European parliamentarians at the Knesset that whoever thought
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was part of the problem in the Middle East was
“trying to escape reality.”
“At the end of the day, it is clear to
everyone, even to the Palestinian Authority, that the greatest danger they are
facing is not Zionism, but rather Hamas and Jihad,” Lieberman said. “The big
picture of the Middle East shows that major points of contention stem from
challenges and confrontations within Islamic society.”
Jones, meanwhile,
said in his prepared comments at the Herzliya Conference that the events
currently taking place in Egypt “may shape the Middle East for years to
come.”
“Tempting as it may be,” he said, “may I suggest this is not the
time to be passive, to be a spectator to history, especially if you are an
Israeli, American, Arab or European.”
While saying it was too soon to
speculate about how the Egyptian unrest would play out, he added that “we all
know that, unlike in Las Vegas, what happens in Egypt will not stay in
Egypt.”
Jones said that in his personal opinion, a peace process that
showed the promise of near-term progress “drives nearly everything, everything
else that threatens us, everything that happens in this region, and which has
global ramifications if not addressed.”
First, the status quo is not in
the interest of Israel or the greater region, he said.
“The failed peace
process undermines Arab moderates,” he said, adding that economic constraints
from a lack of progress would result in a lack of economic development that
would incite “the young and hopeless class seeking to have a better
future.”
“Time is not on our side, and a failure to act may trigger other
Egyptlike demonstrations in other countries in the region,” he told conference-
goers. “Moderate Arab support could diminish in the near future if peace is not
seen to be an achievable objective.”
Jones said that the benefit to Iran
of the continued dispute “strengthens and amplifies its appeal, and the appeal
of its message, to the oppressed and those who felt they have no future beyond
violence.”
He added that Teheran feared a resolution of the conflict,
“and benefits by the divided attention of the global community. Hamas and
Hizbullah draw strength from the Palestinian issue.”
What was needed in
the diplomatic process, he concluded, was “both a top-down and bottom-up
approach to this process. It is not an either-or. This is a false choice that
ignores reality, diverts attention and retards progress. It must be
simultaneously done and reinforcing.”