Bush’s Middle East Juggling Act
The Bush administration is seeking a breakthrough in Israel-Palestinian negotiations during their conference in Annapolis later this month. Secretary Rice is shuttling back and forth to the Middle East in order to get all the relevant parties involved and moving towards a final peace negotiation. President Bush and Secretary Rice have gambled that this last-ditch, all out effort will result in an agreement that they can both leave as a legacy after their term expires in fourteen months. However, it is becoming plain that the other parties involved may not be ready to move at the quickened pace that the Bush administration is looking for.
Recent fighting between Hamas and Fatah in the Gaza strip shows that they are still not ready to cooperate in dealing with Israel. Because of this, the United States is going to have to perform an elaborate juggling act involving all of the players at the Annapolis conference. In order to accomplish the goals that Secretary Rice has set for this meeting, US diplomats will have to mediate a peace between Hamas and Fatah, between Israel and the Palestinians, and between Israel and the Arab/Muslim world. The conflict between Hamas and Fatah could ruin any agreement between the Palestinian Authority and the Israelis. If Hamas feels sidelined by the process, they could relish the role of spoiler and truly test the patience of the Israeli leadership. Indeed, the same perspective could be attributed to Iran. Should Iran feel marginalized by what they feel is a Saudi-led process towards normalization with Israel, they too could work to unleash violence in the Palestinian territories and Israel through one of their proxy groups. Therefore it is necessary to include Hamas and Iran in the strategic calculus during the Annapolis process and beyond. However, this may be beyond the capabilities and sensibilities of the United States, the Sunni Arab countries, and Israel. Getting all these moving part working in the same direction while preventing spoilers may be a task of Sysiphisian proportions.
Even if it were possible, this high-wire diplomatic act will be too tough to accomplish in the next two months. Indeed it will probably be too much for the Bush administration to accomplish in its last fourteen months in office. It is therefore vital that the United States, the Palestinian Authority, and everyone else involved reduce the expectations for the Annapolis conference. Should the expected progress be slow in materializing, there could be violent repercussions, similar to the second intifada which followed President Clinton’s failed attempt in 2000. However, with a longer-term view, the victories may be easier to imagine. A continued diplomatic initiative may be able to unravel these problems over time and present a more reasonable environment for a two-state solution. It is looking more likely that immediate answers to the Middle East will be impossible to grasp. I know it’s difficult to preach patience to those who live in a cycle of fear and violence (on both sides), but the quick fix will prove elusive, even with the renewed commitment of the Bush administration.
Related posts:
Not to sound any more pessimistic than I need to, but the last several administrations have made a diplomatic priority out of Israel-Palestinian reconciliation. I won’t deny that some progress has been made over the last half century or so — the PLO shifted its focus from terrorism to diplomacy, the Israeli government recognises that, at the very least, the Palestinians should have some form of representative governance, and the per decade rate of Arab-Israeli wars has plunged.
But let’s be honest — at the rate we’re going, the Earth will have fallen in to the sun by the time they come to a working, final agreement.
It seems to me that the problem is the insistence — all around — on KOing the whole thing in one wallop. Gathering representatives of every inclined party in Annapolis (or anywhere else) won’t accomplish anything towards solving something as contentious, long-standing, and deeply-ingrained as this.
Consider the most successful Israeli-Arab treaty, that with Egypt in 1979. It’s still in force — even though Tel Aviv and Cairo have had some terse moments/months/years, faced massive domestic resistance, and had a rock-solid mutual distrust, they never broke. The treaty’s genius was a very limited scope — they didn’t attempt to solve every single issue, going so far as to deliberately avoid a number of rocky areas… and thus, they didn’t end up derailing a sorely-needed agreement over a peripheral quarrel.
Now we’re trying to come up with an omnidimensional, all-encompassing document that will make everyone happy. There are so many minute details, and so many viewpoints, that even a good-faith effort by all sides — something I’m sure will be lacking — would require years.
To say that the Bush administration can’t do this in 14 months is true, but an understatement — the next administration could devote 8 solid years, and still come up empty-handed. I haven’t lost all hope that progress will be made, but I don’t expect to be planning a Gaza vacation in my lifetime.
Comment on November 19, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
[...] show some tangible results for all those involved in order to boost support for these efforts. Permalink| [...]
Pingback on November 26, 2007 @ 6:47 pm