The Siren Song of Peace
Belatedly, Rice embraces Israeli-Palestinian talks
Jerusalem—It is an administration that once banished the term "peace process" and poured scorn on holding meetings for their own sake. But Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's intensive shuttle diplomacy last week has sealed a decisive turnaround from the Bush administration's past aloofness from Middle East peacemaking. Suddenly, in the final quarter of the administration's lifespan, lack of activism is no longer an issue. Visiting the region monthly of late, Rice is behaving like a convert to the idea that American secretaries of state need to search for peace in the Holy Land. Not a grand risk-taker by instinct, Rice is now pinning much of her legacy on netting tangible progress toward that ever-elusive comprehensive peace in the Mideast. Hers is not a wager for the faint of heart.
Last week, she received a modest—if essential—payout for her recent efforts: an agreement between Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to meet every other week for confidence-building talks on humanitarian, security, and even political issues. The discussions will cover such topics as shoring up a ceasefire, stopping Palestinian arms smuggling, and easing the barriers to movement that Palestinians face at Israeli border crossings. "I'm delighted that they are going to talk, and they're going to talk often," an evidently pleased Rice announced here.
Rice had lobbied for another welcome development last week: the reaffirmation of an Arab League peace-for-land proposal that—though mostly ignored by the administration when first issued in 2002—is now touted as a signal of Arab receptivity to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that would lead to recognition of Israel. Despite its deal-breaker call for the return of Palestinian refugees and Israel's pullback to pre-1967 borders, the plan is getting a mostly polite reaction from once dismissive Israeli officials, who hope it will bring direct contacts between Israel and key Arab states.
But at the core of Rice's energetic mediation lies a paradox: U.S. activism has returned, arguably, at one of the least propitious moments for peacemaking in recent years.
The radical Hamas movement (which rejects past accords with Israel) dominates the new Palestinian "unity" government, leaving Fatah chief Abbas with limited authority. Hamas, an Islamist movement, has killed more than 200 Israelis in terrorist attacks. The United States and the European Union refuse to talk with or send humanitarian aid to it until it accedes to three demands: renounce terrorism, recognize Israel, and accept past peace agreements, including the U.S.-authored "roadmap" that envisions an independent Palestine at peace with Israel.
Hamas has done none of those things, though a politically weakened Abbas cut the power-sharing deal with it in hopes of halting fighting between Hamas and Fatah, a secular and nationalist group.
And these are tough times also for Olmert, assailed for Israel's poor military performance in last summer's Lebanon war and for corruption scandals touching key officials around him. His popularity has fallen to single digits.
And, finally, there is the problem of America's standing, diminished in Arab eyes by chaos in Iraq and by uneven pressures on authoritarian Arab states to democratize. Bush's closeness with Israel and earlier reluctance to embrace a peace process have ingrained Arab doubts. The possible lost opportunities, in this view, include the fleeting moment when the administration was riding high after the Iraq invasion and the period between Yasser Arafat's death and Hamas's electoral win. "It's definitely too little, too late," worries an Arab official friendly to the United States. "This administration has not lived up to its responsibility in advancing the peace process."
So, why now? The question intrigues many. "You've got to wonder why is Rice doing this," allows Martin Indyk, the former top U.S. diplomat for Mideast issues in the Clinton administration who now directs the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution. "I give her full credit for trying."
One reason is that administration officials sense a growing strategic challenge by radical forces, with Iran at its forefront. Rice argues that a "new alignment" is pitting moderate Arabs and Israel against Iran, Syria, and the militants in Hezbollah and Hamas. Being seen as active helps garner Arab support for attempts to stabilize Iraq and to blunt growing Iranian assertiveness across the region. Philip Zelikow, then the State Department counselor, cited this pragmatic rationale in a speech last September. Maintaining a regional "coalition" against the forces of extremism necessitates "that they see a common determination to sustain an active policy that tries to deal with the problems of Israel and the Palestinians."
Another factor is renewed Arab interest, spawned by hopes that U.S. activism can diminish radical forces in their own countries. Senior U.S. officials credit the push by Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, the originator of the Arab League proposal, as a key to opening more space for U.S. diplomacy to work. On the ground in Israel and the West Bank, U.S. officials last week also found both sides more attuned to restarting a process. "The mood is different," suggests one adviser.
A third reason, say Middle East hands, is the administration's—and Rice's—desire to forge some kind of peacemaking legacy. The recent exodus of several administration hard-liners, including Donald Rumsfeld, may give Rice more running room. "There's a desire to leave some kind of imprint," says Robert Malley, a former National Security Council aide now at the International Crisis Group. "It's certainly more promising than IraqÃÂÂ .My sense is the secretary herself is committed to this."
"Step by step." Rice's inherent caution, however, remains strong. Her advisers went out of their way to say she was "not preaching" at the Arabs—nor pushing hard on Israel. "The Israelis want the United States to be in lock-step with them in terms of the unity government, but the Bush administration has kept some wiggle room for itself," says Indyk.
A former professor who has studied her predecessors' peacemaking forays, Rice says she is helping the parties sketch out a "political horizon," the basis for subsequent peace talks. "My approach has been, I admit, careful," she says. "It's been step by step. I've not been willing to try for the big bang."
Though no breakthroughs are in sight, there is now a feeling at State that it is better to risk failure than to hold back. "In the absence of the effort," concludes an aide to Rice, "all the alternatives are worse."
This story appears in the April 9, 2007 print edition of U.S. News & World Report.