Not since Bill Clinton’s last-gasp peace effort in 2000 has a Mideast summit, or at least the promise of one, stirred so much anticipation. The forthcoming U.S.-hosted peace parley between Israel and the Palestinians hasn’t even been officially scheduled. But if all goes well, leaders of Israel, the Palestinians and perhaps some Arab nations will gather for the conference in Annapolis, Md., as early as late November.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in the Middle East Monday, promoting the idea of a Palestinian state while tamping down unrealistic expectations that it will materialize immediately.
“Frankly, it’s time for the establishment of a Palestinian state,” she said. “I wanted to say in my own voice — to be able to say to as many people as possible — that the United States sees the establishment of a Palestinian state and a two-state solution as absolutely essential for the future, not just of Palestinians and Israelis but also for the Middle East and indeed to American interests.”
And she is surely right about the need for a two-state solution. But being right doesn’t mean a deal will get done. So far, there’s only talk, albeit a lot of it.
Handicapping this summit-to-be is hard. For one thing, there’s been no buy-in yet from most of the Arab states. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas needs widespread Arab support to be able to compromise with the Israelis on what Palestinians claim is their refugees’ “right of return” to Israel. That means, above all, that the Saudis must show up for the summit. Saudi Arabia has called for a peace deal and has promoted a formula to achieve it. What’s more, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert wants diplomatic recognition from the Saudis to help convince his fellow Israelis to back a deal that could include dividing Jerusalem.
As with all Israeli-Palestinian summits, powerful forces are arrayed against a deal.
Iran’s supreme leader recently called for all Muslim countries to boycott the summit. Syrian President Bashar Assad has all but ruled out his country’s participation in the conference, suggesting that it has no chance to succeed.
But the biggest stumbling block is likely to be the militant group Hamas, which seized control of Gaza earlier this year in what Abbas called a coup d’etat. Hamas stands ready, willing and able to sabotage any progress, to send the message that there will be no comprehensive peace deal without its imprimatur.
The best thing this proposed summit has going for it is that Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat isn’t sitting across the table from an Israeli prime minister. Arafat, who died in 2004, was never serious about reaching a peace deal because achieving something other than a standoff threatened his grip on power.
Abbas is no Arafat, thankfully. By all accounts, he believes in a two-state solution. Unlike Arafat, however, his hold on power is weak and he may or may not be able to deliver the serious concessions necessary for any deal. But he’s got plenty of incentive. Among other things, a peace deal between Abbas and Olmert would create huge new pressures on Hamas: Most Palestinians would see Abbas as successful, Hamas as obstructionist.
Both the Israelis and the Palestinians have plenty of reasons to try to reach a deal. But this won’t get done with the U.S. alone playing matchmaker. All the Arab states that have urged such a solution need to step forward and at least attend the conference. Well-placed nudges from European capitals would help, too.
The odds of reaching a peace deal are always long. But Rice said Monday that “We are not going to quit until I have given it my last ounce of energy and my last moment in office.”
That sounds like what happened in 2000 with former President Clinton. We hope that the outcome this time is success.
