This issue of RAND Review reports on the economic costs of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, healthy menu options for food trucks, ways to bridge the civilian-military gap, the depiction of terrorism on television, and more.
For much of the past century, the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has been a defining feature of the Middle East. Depending on its trajectory, what are the conflict's net costs and benefits to both parties over the next ten years?
At the U.S. launch of The Costs of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Study held at the Wilson Center on June 15, 2015, RAND senior researchers Charles P. Ries and C. Ross Anthony discussed the economic and non-economic factors surrounding the conflict and the long-term implications for Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, and the international community.
Today, more than 90 percent of Israelis and Palestinians were born after 1948 and have known nothing other than some version of the impasse. Both sides could be better off with a stable two-state solution. Prolonging the impasse for another generation would have real costs.
The Israeli economy stands to gain more than $120 billion over the next decade in a two-state solution, a possible resolution of the long-standing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians in which the Palestinians gain independence and relations between the Israelis and their neighbors normalize. Palestinians would gain $50 billion, with average per-capita income rising by about 36 percent.
The Israeli economy stands to gain more than $120 billion over the next decade in a two-state solution, a possible resolution of the long-standing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Palestinians would gain $50 billion, with average per-capita income rising by about 36 percent.
The United States can't wait for a final nuclear deal with Iran to begin thinking through how to manage its aftermath. The challenges ahead are already clear. Washington should prepare for them by setting aside old formulas that have failed to advance stability.
Few nations have more experience with asymmetric conflicts than Israel and the United States. At the National Press Club in Washington, Brian Michael Jenkins of RAND and Admiral Amichay Ayalon, former director of Shin Bet, Israel's security agency, discussed the dynamics of the changing security environment.
The United States and other world powers returned to the negotiating table this week to try to finalize a nuclear agreement with Iran after announcing a seven-month extension in late November. How did the parties get this far?
RAND researchers Alireza Nader, Dalia Dassa Kaye, and Jeffrey Martini discuss November's extension to nuclear negotiations between Iran and the P5+1. Moderated by Lynn Davis, director of RAND's Washington Office, these experts cover reactions from and implications for Iran, Israel, and the wider region
While it is not surprising that the alleged letter from President Obama to Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei has upset domestic critics of the nuclear negotiations, the alleged correspondence has also unsettled Israel and Saudi Arabia, which fear a “bad” deal with Iran and even secret collusion between Washington and Tehran. But such concerns seem unfounded.
Some Israelis worry that America's fight against the Islamic State is distracting from the Iranian nuclear challenge. But the idea that the U.S. would make additional concessions to Iran in the nuclear negotiations because of the anti-Islamic State group effort is not based on realities on the ground.