The APN Research Center provides the facts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from hundreds of balanced, credible, and comprehensive sources. Select an item to the left to enter the Research Center and to learn about every aspect of the conflict and the efforts to achieve peace.
A mosaic of tours and talks from Americans For Peace Now's 2013 Study Tour in Jerusalem and the West Bank.
APN Study Tour 2013 from Nehemiah Stark on Vimeo.
As you know, there are always new challenges along the path to peace. Volatility in the Middle East, new policy makers and political pressure from all sides, and a continually evolving landscape in and around Israel create seemingly endless obstacles to peace. At Americans for Peace Now, however, we believe peace is possible. But we know it takes work. Working together, we are confident that we can educate, advocate, and serve as a strong voice that will lead toward peace, security, and stability for Israel.
On October 31, Israel's Defense Forces pulled out its last troops from guard-posts in communities surrounding the Gaza Strip.
We know that pro-Israel does not mean blindly supporting policies
that are irrational, reckless, and counter-productive. Pro-Israel means supporting policies that are consistent
with Israel's interests and promote its survival as a Jewish, democratic state.
You've heard the arguments of the religious and political right-wing, and so have we. They've had their say. Now, we'll have ours.
Go HERE for all installments of APN's "They Say, We Say"
What about Hamas and Gaza?
They Say:
Palestinian "reconciliation" is just code for letting terrorists into the government. Israel can never deal with a Palestinian government that includes terrorists and any agreement Israel might make with such a government would only be exploited and violated.
We Say:
There are some fundamental truths about peacemaking that have to be recognized. First, you make peace with your enemies, not with your friends. Second, you make peace not to be nice, but because it is in your self-interest. Third, real peace must reflect a balance of interests, not an imbalance of power. And fourth, security arrangements, not trust, will be the foundation of any peace treaty.
It is absolutely true that some Palestinians hate Israel and hate Jews. Some may never give up their dream of reclaiming all of "historic Palestine." But this isn't an argument against negotiations or against an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty, including with Hamas. The fact is, Israel doesn't need Palestinians to embrace it. What Israel needs is an agreement establishing recognized international borders that preserve it as a Jewish state and a democracy. After that, some Palestinians may still dream of Israel's destruction, but they'll have to give up acting on these views - or be thwarted by Israel, which will have the unchallengeable legitimacy of a sovereign state acting in self-defense. Likewise, some Israelis may never relinquish the dream of Greater Israel - but with a peace agreement in place, they will have to relinquish efforts to achieve it.
Palestinian reconciliation - fixing the cleavage between Hamas and Fatah, and between the West Bank and Gaza - is vital to achieving peace. A Palestinian government that represents all Palestinians, and with security and governance capacity in both the West Bank and Gaza, is vital to any future peace agreement. A peace agreement negotiated in the context of Palestinian unity will have much greater legitimacy and be much harder for Hamas or any party to renege on, at least without appearing hypocritical in the eyes of its people. A peace agreement that involves all parties, leaves neither people feeling humiliated, and leaves both peoples significantly better off, will likewise be stronger, with peoples on both sides having an interest in rejecting anyone who tries to undermine the new status quo.
Finally, the sine qua non of any Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement is that it must include comprehensive security arrangements to ensure that no matter what might happen among the Palestinians or in the region, Israel's security is protected. This is just common sense. Israeli security planning takes into account the possibility of a breakdown of the Jordan and Egypt peace treaties, and, so, too, must it take into account potential worst-case scenarios after an Israeli-Palestinian agreement.
It is time for smarter U.S., international, and Israeli policy regarding Hamas. It is time to recognize that existing approaches have failed to dislodge Hamas and, indeed, have been counterproductive. It is time to end the blockade and press the Palestinians to achieve national reconciliation. Relations with any Palestinian government - including a unity government - should be based on the positions and actions of that government, not on the basis of whether Hamas is included in it.
We know that pro-Israel does not mean blindly supporting policies
that are irrational, reckless, and counter-productive. Pro-Israel means supporting policies that are consistent
with Israel's interests and promote its survival as a Jewish, democratic state.
You've heard the arguments of the religious and political right-wing, and so have we. They've had their say. Now, we'll have ours.
Go HERE for all installments of APN's "They Say, We Say"
What about Hamas and Gaza?
They Say:
Criticizing Israel over its blockade of Gaza is wrong. Gaza is under the control of Hamas, a vile terrorist organization. Israel has every right to take whatever steps it deems appropriate to make sure that Gaza is not a threat.
We Say:
Years of boycotts, embargoes, and blockades, have neither ousted Hamas from power nor forced it to accept international conditions (known as the Quartet conditions). Instead, these policies contributed to creating a miserable humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip - conditions that have sparked harsh criticism of Israel throughout the world. Israel's refusal to significantly loosen the siege is widely recognized as collective punishment of the Palestinian civilian population of Gaza.
Israel has learned through painful experience that military force alone cannot eliminate all threats or "solve" the problem of Gaza. The U.S. should stand with Israel in demanding that Hamas end or prevent rocket and mortar attacks on Israel. At the same time, it should also press Israel to finally end the siege on Gaza, while supporting reasonable Israeli measures to block the import of weapons into the area. Most importantly, the U.S. must get the peace efforts back on track. In the absence of a credible effort to reach a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, extremists - including those far more extreme than Hamas - will inevitably gain popular support.
They Say, We Say: "The only thing preventing another "Hamastan" - like in Gaza - is the Israeli military"
We know that pro-Israel does not mean blindly supporting policies
that are irrational, reckless, and counter-productive. Pro-Israel means supporting policies that are consistent
with Israel's interests and promote its survival as a Jewish, democratic state.
You've heard the arguments of the religious and political right-wing, and so have we. They've had their say. Now, we'll have ours.
Go HERE for all installments of APN's "They Say, We Say"
Does more land mean more security?
They Say:
The only thing preventing the West Bank from turning into another "Hamastan" - like in Gaza - is the presence of the Israeli military.
We Say:
The IDF's presence in the West Bank doesn't prevent the growth of extremist ideology and hatred of Israel. Rather, it may contribute to it by undermining the credibility of those Palestinians who argue against violence and who support the idea of a negotiated, two-state, conflict-ending agreement with Israel.
It is folly for anyone to call for Israel to repeat the mistake it made in Gaza by picking up and leaving the West Bank unilaterally. In the Gaza context, we warned that Israel's unilateral withdrawal - and implicit snub of President Abbas and the entire notion of negotiations -would play into the hands of Hamas and other extremists.
Rather, any future Israeli withdrawal should be part of a process of negotiations with the PA's leadership. A negotiated withdrawal, as part of a process that leads to the end of the occupation and the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, can provide credibility for non-extremist Palestinian leaders, strengthening them and enhancing their ability to govern, and to live up to Palestinian security obligations, after an Israeli withdrawal.
We know that pro-Israel does not mean blindly supporting policies
that are irrational, reckless, and counter-productive. Pro-Israel means supporting policies that are consistent
with Israel's interests and promote its survival as a Jewish, democratic state.
You've heard the arguments of the religious and political right-wing, and so have we. They've had their say. Now, we'll have ours.
Go HERE for all installments of APN's "They Say, We Say"
Does more land mean more security?
They Say:
When it comes to Israel's security, Israel can't trust anyone else, especially not the Palestinians. That means the IDF has to stay in the West Bank.
We Say:
Trust, while desirable, will never be the sole or even the primary basis for a peace agreement. Peace agreements, in the Middle East and elsewhere, require far-reaching verification measures and guarantees. These may involve both the parties to the treaty and third-party monitors and guarantors.
Even if Israelis were convinced that all Palestinians were prepared to embrace Israel, any peace agreement would still include comprehensive security arrangements to ensure that - no matter what might happen among the Palestinians or in the region - Israel's security would be protected.
This is exactly what Israel did in its agreements with Egypt and Jordan. Achieving a peace agreement will not be easy. It will require a combination of political will, courage, and leadership from all sides, including from United States. But it is not just a dream. Past negotiations have already narrowed the gaps between the sides. Agreements on all the issues on the table, including borders, security, Jerusalem, and refugees, while certainly complicated, are within reach.
The PA has demonstrated its ability to fight terrorism in the West Bank and to cooperate with Israel's security authorities, even with the West Bank still under occupation. Over the past decade, successive U.S. Administrations have, with the cooperation of Israel, supported efforts to revamp the Palestine Authority's security forces. This program has shown strong results, with PA forces effectively establishing law and order - and taking action against extremists - in areas under their control. Indeed, Israeli officials have repeatedly expressed satisfaction with the effort.
As part of a peace agreement, security cooperation would most likely go even further, including anti-smuggling measures, early warning systems and intelligence sharing. Likewise, subject to negotiations and the agreement of both sides, there is a possibility of the deployment of an international force inside the future state of Palestine. Such a force, located in the Sinai, played (and still plays) a role in the implementation of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty. In the context of an Israeli-Palestinian agreement, such a force could, for example, monitor the Jordan-Palestine border, in order to prevent infiltration of terrorists and the smuggling of weapons. It could likewise be present at points in the West Bank from which Israel perceives itself to be especially vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
Moreover, under a peace agreement, the existing Israeli-Jordanian security cooperation would likely be strengthened and serve as an additional component in counter-terrorism efforts.
Finally, a peace agreement would have an important counter-terrorism value: it would strengthen Israel's ability to deter terrorist attacks. Israel's ability to inflict pain militarily, whether against Hizballah or Hamas, is unquestioned. Today, absent a peace agreement, Israel's right to do so is often challenged. Under a peace agreement in which Israel's borders are universally recognized and it is universally accepted that the occupation has ended, Israel's right to use force to defend its sovereign borders from attack will no longer be subject to any serious challenge. In this case, Israel's military deterrence will be exponentially stronger.
We know that pro-Israel does not mean blindly supporting policies
that are irrational, reckless, and counter-productive. Pro-Israel means supporting policies that are consistent
with Israel's interests and promote its survival as a Jewish, democratic state.
You've heard the arguments of the religious and political right-wing, and so have we. They've had their say. Now, we'll have ours.
Go HERE for all installments of APN's "They Say, We Say"
Does more land mean more security?
They Say:
If the IDF withdraws from the West Bank, the West Bank will become a haven for terrorists and Israel's largest population centers and its most vital strategic assets could be easily attacked by rockets and shells.
We Say:
The IDF's presence in the West Bank unquestionably has some security benefits for Israel. However, it doesn't guarantee against the infiltration of terrorists and the smuggling of weapons into the West Bank. It also isn't a guarantee against rockets and mortars targeting Israeli population centers and installations.
The reality is that even when Israel was in full control of Gaza, rockets and mortars were launched at Israel from the northern part of the Gaza Strip. Such attacks have stopped only when the Palestinian authorities in Gaza have decided to stop them. Likewise in the West Bank, a motivated Palestinian government has been the most effective means of stopping terrorism.
Terrorism emanating from the West Bank and Gaza, and sometimes supported by outside forces, is already a top Israeli concern. To address this concern, Israel today relies mainly on defensive measures, like the Iron Dome anti-rocket system. Israel will no doubt maintain such measures even under a peace agreement. However, under a peace agreement, Israel would also benefit from intensified security cooperation with Palestinian authorities. Likewise, in the context of peace negotiations there is no doubt that Israel will insist on security arrangements that address specific Israeli concerns, including protecting Ben Gurion airport and preventing infiltration of people and weapons through the Palestinian-Jordanian border into a future Palestinian state.