There's new word today that the White House -- could be on the brink of a major shift in a longstanding U.S. strategy -- U.S. policy toward the Middle East. "The Washington Post" is reporting that President Obama is seriously considering -- seriously considering proposing a U.S. peace plan to try to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Let's talk about this with our guests.
David Ignatius is a columnist for "The Washington Post." He wrote that story. He's also the author of the book, "Body of Lies." And our senior political analyst, David Gergen. They're both here -- David Gergen, let me start with you.
And just to set the stage, because it's -- the U.S. policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is always to try to facilitate negotiations, but let the parties themselves negotiate and come up with a -- a final resolution, not to come up with a U.S. peace plan that would be imposed on the -- on the -- on the parties themselves. That has been repeatedly rejected by U.S. officials. But right now, there may be a change.
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: Well, you're absolutely right, Wolf. For president after president, the policy has been that the U.S. should play the role of a mediator -- of an even-handed mediator. And -- and that's because the Israelis, and, to some extent, the Palestinians -- but especially the Israelis -- have always said don't impose a peace upon us.
If you set conditions out there that you want to see met, here's what we want.
And the Palestinians can grasp a hold of those conditions and say, OK, that's the bottom line for the negotiations. We're not going to -- we're not going to retreat anywhere from those lines. And it puts enormous pressure on the Israelis.
But this president and his administration have met and, you know, have had high ambitions for the Middle East. They increasingly believe that the Palestinian/Israeli struggle is tied to the war on terrorism. The president is frustrated now. And so David Ignatius broke this important story that they are sure -- that they are now looking at that possibility. And "The New York Times" has now come along behind David and confirmed that -- his -- his story.
BLITZER: And David is here.
David, let's talk about this. But I want some context. And I'm going to play two clips for you -- the president of the United States last June and the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, more recently, in March.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP FROM JUNE 4, 2009)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We cannot impose peace, but privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state.
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE: The United States knows we cannot force a solution. We cannot ordain or command the outcome. The parties themselves must resolve their differences.
BLITZER: But now, David, you reported in "The Washington Post" today there may be a significant change in that long time U.S. strategy of not trying to, quote, "impose a peace settlement on the Israelis and the Palestinians."
DAVID IGNATIUS, "WASHINGTON POST" COLUMNIST, AUTHOR: Well, in the end, you can't impose anything that the parties aren't prepared to accept. But I do think that the Obama administration has become frustrated with the incrementalism -- the step by step nature of its approach to the peace process, as adopted a year ago. Senator George Mitchell has been our emissary. Based on his experience in trying to -- and succeeding in negotiating peace in the Northern island, he argued, let's go carefully, talking to the two parties and only after that initial phase and getting some concessions, should we come in with bridging proposals of our own.
And a year later, I think the administration is -- is moving toward a decision that that approach just hasn't worked and it's time to be much more explicit about what the U.S. sees as the basic elements of a peace deal that will work.
BLITZER: Because I -- I've heard, David Ignatius, from my own sources in the administration -- and you're right, they are totally frustrated by all of this -- that, whereas in the past, they would want the Israelis and the Palestinians to get close, then they would finally come up with the bridging proposals and try to resolve it that way. What -- what I hear you saying and based on this extraordinary meeting that you reported that the president participated in recently at the White House, is that at this stage, they would come up with a U.S. blueprint and then try to shove it down?
IGNATIUS: I think the idea, Wolf, is to -- is to do two things. First, to summarize the basic elements of agreement that have been merged since the 2000 Camp David talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians that came very close to producing a deal and subsequent discussions that have -- that have further narrowed the differences.
As one senior administration official said to me when I was working on this -- on this story, everybody knows the basic outlines of the peace agreement that will work. I mean at this point, there are really no mysteries. It involves a very limited right of return for Palestinian refugees. It involves exchange of territory to get borders that work. It involves some kind of understanding about Jerusalem. And that's -- that's probably the toughest issue of all.
But everybody knows what the parameters of the agreement are. It's just a question of getting to that point.
I think the administration has concluded that you've got to push that harder. The second piece of this that I reported this morning was the administration wants to tie this to Israel's biggest security concern, which is Iran. As a senior official said to me, in a sense, these are really two halves of the same problem, that the Iranians use the Palestinian issue -- this sort of open wound in Arab and Muslim world -- as a -- as a rallying point. They don't deserve to have that. But the administration's idea is let's push together on both. Let's -- let's...
BLITZER: But...
IGNATIUS: -- let's be very tough with Iran and also try to -- to deal with the peace process.
BLITZER: But, David Gergen, as you know, there are political -- enormous political risks if the Obama administration wanted to go forward with what one senior official has told me privately, called some tough love, on the Israelis right now.
GERGEN: Absolutely, Wolf. And it will -- it will stir up the U.S. Congress, where there is a great deal of support for Israel. And after all, even though people may agree theoretically on what the parameters might be of an ultimate peace, there's been such a breakdown in Confederate History Month both sides that if you talk to Israelis, they will -- as you well know and David knows -- the Israeli will tell you, look, twice we've given up land for peace. We've -- we've sort of listened to this consensus and we tried to do it. And we withdrew -- and from Lebanon and we withdrew from Gaza.
And what happened in both cases?
They started shelling us and we put our citizens at risk. Until there's more confidence building, the Israelis will definitely see this as an important sign. Until they have more faith in the Palestinian leader.
And that's why I think a couple of officials are saying, David Ignatius, they do want to go through with the proximity talks first to see if they can get somewhere. But if those then fail, this would be down the road, then they're thinking they have to put something more on the table.
BLITZER: It's going to be a delicate dance, to be sure. The stakes here are enormous.
Guys, thanks very much, David Ignatius and David Gergen.
Let's talk about this with our guests.
David Ignatius is a columnist for "The Washington Post." He wrote that story. He's also the author of the book, "Body of Lies." And our senior political analyst, David Gergen. They're both here -- David Gergen, let me start with you.
And just to set the stage, because it's -- the U.S. policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is always to try to facilitate negotiations, but let the parties themselves negotiate and come up with a -- a final resolution, not to come up with a U.S. peace plan that would be imposed on the -- on the -- on the parties themselves. That has been repeatedly rejected by U.S. officials. But right now, there may be a change.
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: Well, you're absolutely right, Wolf. For president after president, the policy has been that the U.S. should play the role of a mediator -- of an even-handed mediator. And -- and that's because the Israelis, and, to some extent, the Palestinians -- but especially the Israelis -- have always said don't impose a peace upon us.
If you set conditions out there that you want to see met, here's what we want.
And the Palestinians can grasp a hold of those conditions and say, OK, that's the bottom line for the negotiations. We're not going to -- we're not going to retreat anywhere from those lines. And it puts enormous pressure on the Israelis.
But this president and his administration have met and, you know, have had high ambitions for the Middle East. They increasingly believe that the Palestinian/Israeli struggle is tied to the war on terrorism. The president is frustrated now. And so David Ignatius broke this important story that they are sure -- that they are now looking at that possibility. And "The New York Times" has now come along behind David and confirmed that -- his -- his story.
BLITZER: And David is here.
David, let's talk about this. But I want some context. And I'm going to play two clips for you -- the president of the United States last June and the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, more recently, in March.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP FROM JUNE 4, 2009)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We cannot impose peace, but privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state.
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE: The United States knows we cannot force a solution. We cannot ordain or command the outcome. The parties themselves must resolve their differences.
BLITZER: But now, David, you reported in "The Washington Post" today there may be a significant change in that long time U.S. strategy of not trying to, quote, "impose a peace settlement on the Israelis and the Palestinians."
DAVID IGNATIUS, "WASHINGTON POST" COLUMNIST, AUTHOR: Well, in the end, you can't impose anything that the parties aren't prepared to accept. But I do think that the Obama administration has become frustrated with the incrementalism -- the step by step nature of its approach to the peace process, as adopted a year ago. Senator George Mitchell has been our emissary. Based on his experience in trying to -- and succeeding in negotiating peace in the Northern island, he argued, let's go carefully, talking to the two parties and only after that initial phase and getting some concessions, should we come in with bridging proposals of our own.
And a year later, I think the administration is -- is moving toward a decision that that approach just hasn't worked and it's time to be much more explicit about what the U.S. sees as the basic elements of a peace deal that will work.
BLITZER: Because I -- I've heard, David Ignatius, from my own sources in the administration -- and you're right, they are totally frustrated by all of this -- that, whereas in the past, they would want the Israelis and the Palestinians to get close, then they would finally come up with the bridging proposals and try to resolve it that way. What -- what I hear you saying and based on this extraordinary meeting that you reported that the president participated in recently at the White House, is that at this stage, they would come up with a U.S. blueprint and then try to shove it down?
IGNATIUS: I think the idea, Wolf, is to -- is to do two things. First, to summarize the basic elements of agreement that have been merged since the 2000 Camp David talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians that came very close to producing a deal and subsequent discussions that have -- that have further narrowed the differences.
As one senior administration official said to me when I was working on this -- on this story, everybody knows the basic outlines of the peace agreement that will work. I mean at this point, there are really no mysteries. It involves a very limited right of return for Palestinian refugees. It involves exchange of territory to get borders that work. It involves some kind of understanding about Jerusalem. And that's -- that's probably the toughest issue of all.
But everybody knows what the parameters of the agreement are. It's just a question of getting to that point.
I think the administration has concluded that you've got to push that harder. The second piece of this that I reported this morning was the administration wants to tie this to Israel's biggest security concern, which is Iran. As a senior official said to me, in a sense, these are really two halves of the same problem, that the Iranians use the Palestinian issue -- this sort of open wound in Arab and Muslim world -- as a -- as a rallying point. They don't deserve to have that. But the administration's idea is let's push together on both. Let's -- let's...
BLITZER: But...
IGNATIUS: -- let's be very tough with Iran and also try to -- to deal with the peace process.
BLITZER: But, David Gergen, as you know, there are political -- enormous political risks if the Obama administration wanted to go forward with what one senior official has told me privately, called some tough love, on the Israelis right now.
GERGEN: Absolutely, Wolf. And it will -- it will stir up the U.S. Congress, where there is a great deal of support for Israel. And after all, even though people may agree theoretically on what the parameters might be of an ultimate peace, there's been such a breakdown in Confederate History Month both sides that if you talk to Israelis, they will -- as you well know and David knows -- the Israeli will tell you, look, twice we've given up land for peace. We've -- we've sort of listened to this consensus and we tried to do it. And we withdrew -- and from Lebanon and we withdrew from Gaza.
And what happened in both cases?
They started shelling us and we put our citizens at risk. Until there's more confidence building, the Israelis will definitely see this as an important sign. Until they have more faith in the Palestinian leader.
And that's why I think a couple of officials are saying, David Ignatius, they do want to go through with the proximity talks first to see if they can get somewhere. But if those then fail, this would be down the road, then they're thinking they have to put something more on the table.
BLITZER: It's going to be a delicate dance, to be sure. The stakes here are enormous.
Guys, thanks very much, David Ignatius and David Gergen.
Transcript from CNN's The Situation Room aired April 7,2010