Is the recent surge of speculation about new Arab-Israeli peace moves for real? Or is it just the usual posturing and posing?
So far, the signals are mixed, but they tend to point to the latter.
The sad fact is that none of the major actors in the Middle East drama is strong enough to make the kind of bold, risky compromises that any revived peace process will require.
That confluence of weaknesses could open the door to increased involvement by other regional powers, starting with Saudi Arabia.
On the surface, the long-dormant peace front appears to be reawakening.
During her last trip to the region, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pushed Israelis and Palestinians into starting a round of biweekly meetings to deal with practical, day-to-day issues — but not “final status” questions.
In Riyadh, the Arab League endorsed the 2002 Saudi Arabian peace plan, a move hailed in Europe — even though it requires Israel to agree up front to all Arab demands, including a pullback to 1967 borders and to accept a Palestinian right of return that could end the existence of the Jewish state.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert rejected the Saudi plan as-is, but went out of his way to praise the government in Riyadh for its efforts. He also suggested a regional peace conference that would include everybody from the Palestinians to the Saudis.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) went to Syria carrying a message that Israel is ready for peace talks with Damascus, if the Syrians will stop their support for terrorism and their efforts to undermine Lebanon.
Basic conditions
But for all that diplomatic churning, the basic conditions in the region remain unchanged.
Hamas is still in a dominant position in the Palestinian Authority and still vows to eradicate Israel, despite international sanctions.
Some of its political leaders may want to adjust to changing circumstances. But they are too weak in the face of the Damascus-based military wing, which rejects all hints of compromise.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is more impotent than ever, especially on issues of war and peace. European and U.S. leaders believe they can work with him, but in the wake of his Mecca cave-in and the creation of the unity government with Hamas, few believe he has the power or inclination to deliver.
Israel’s prime minister may be the only democratically-elected leader with poll ratings even lower than U.S. President Bush’s.
Olmert faces the continuing political fallout from last year’s wars in Lebanon and Gaza, an unending barrage of scandals and ruinous divisions within his own government. Recent polls show his approval ratings hovering in the low single digits.
The only reason his government hasn’t fallen is that all of Israel’s major parties are scared to stand before voters. Olmert’s only aim these days seems to be to win periodic pats on the head from his patron in Washington.
Then there’s Bush. At home, his Iraq war policies have generated opposition even within his own party. Around the world, the war has dragged U.S. credibility to new lows, undermining U.S. leadership.
His government, too, faces a rising tide of scandal. A growing number of Republicans consider him politically radioactive.
Breaking the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate will require strong, bold leaders willing and able to make politically risky compromises, and who can win the backing of a solid base of their citizens.
For the Palestinians, that means leaders capable of abandoning maximalist goals like an unrestricted “right of return” and willing to stop the incitement that has become a central theme in Palestinian culture and government.
For the Israelis, it means willingness to rein in a settlers’ movement that continues to erect new obstacles to territorial concessions, and willingness to commit Israel to specific steps for establishing a viable Palestinian state.
History shows that while Israelis and Palestinians have conducted back-channel talks on their own, it takes a forceful, committed administration in Washington — one with credibility as a world leader — to close the deal.
None of those conditions applies today. Each of the players needs to generate tangible examples of progress, but none has the resources or the wherewithal or maybe the desire to turn symbolism into reality.
That has created a vacuum that the Saudis have sought to fill. But they, too, are weak, increasingly pressed by an ascendant Iran and the rise of militant Shi’ite forces across the region, threatened by the very terrorist groups they help support.
So far, all the Saudis are offering is a non-negotiable plan meant to make them look like the regional leaders they aspire to be without risking anything — and without giving Israel anything to work with.
A test of whether they are serious will be whether they agree to open up all elements of their plan to negotiation. But in a region beset with political weakness, don’t hold your breath.
Former Madisonian James D. Besser has been Washington correspondent for the New York Jewish Week and Baltimore Jewish Times since 1987.
Loading ...