NEWSPAPER COLUMNS
 ¶ Most Recent
¶ Miscellany
|
COMMENTARY
November 28, 2007
Annapolis
It is enough to look at the photograph, of George W. Bush expansively embracing Mahmoud Abbas and Ehud Olmert at Annapolis -- in just the way Bill Clinton embraced Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak at Camp David. It's déjà vu all over again, in the words of that great Yogi, Berra. Must every American President do this in the twilight of his administration?Just to review: nothing essential has changed. The Palestinians, and the Arab powers who are not really behind them, still do not unambiguously recognize Israel's right to exist. They have got no closer to the position Anwar Sadat of Egypt took, very publicly, when he flew to Jerusalem and set the stage for the only Israel-Arab peace conference that ever made any difference. This is the stage of saying publicly, in Arabic to their own people, not only in English to foreign media, that, “Israel is there, she is Jewish, she will stay there, and it is in our common interest to make peace with her and get on with our lives.” As Bernard Lewis wrote on the weekend, repeating what I had said last week, repeating what Prof Lewis and many others have been repeating for many years, this is the key issue. It is simple, and it is insoluble in the foreseeable future. If Israel were to be accepted into the region as a normal and legitimate neighbour -- the way even the Crusader states were, for a while, back there in the 12th century -- then the discussion would only be about where to draw the borders, and a happy conclusion would be reached soon enough. But so long as the propaganda of the entire Arab and Muslim world is turned to demonizing “Zionism” (i.e. Jews and Israel), and the public fantasy continues of driving Israel into the sea, what is the point of discussing borders? As long as the conditions for even a temporary peace agreement -- a “hudna” in the Arabic lexicon, or cessation of open hostilities until the Arab side has had a chance to regroup -- must include Israel's recognition of the “right of return” for some millions of the descendants of Palestinians who were displaced in the late 'forties (and no reciprocal recognition of the Jews who were displaced across the Arab world at the same time) -- where can we get? The demand that a nation commit suicide can be no legitimate part of a peace conference. Or has something changed? Outward circumstances have changed, as they are constantly changing, not only in the Middle East. And one might hope for some chance constellation of factors that could be seized by wise statesmen. The chief such factor, at the moment, is Revolutionary Iran's bid for regional hegemony. While it continues, it creates a significant common interest for Israel and the Arabs. It is because of Iran, that Saudi Arabia is attending the conference at Annapolis, and other Arab foreign ministers are looking in. Even Syria (Iran's Arab ally, together with Hezbollah and Hamas among Israel's immediate neighbours), is hovering accipitridaically at the periphery of the conference in case the return of the Golan Heights might land suddenly on the table. These Arab foreign ministers are quite necessary to dignify the Palestinian delegation. For in truth, Mahmoud Abbas does not represent more than the old Fatah rump within the West Bank. Hamas has been in the ascendant, both electorally and by force of arms. Hamas now controls Gaza; and the struggle between Fatah and Hamas for the allegiance of the West Bank -- in words, imagery, and weaponry -- resembles the early stages of Fatah's loss of Gaza. Who can expect Israel to make peace with a Palestinian representative who is the figurehead of a dying regime? Verily, Prime Minister Olmert himself is in power, with approval ratings at the elevation of the Dead Sea, only because of a vacuum in contemporary Israeli politics. He is under investigation on serious criminal charges, he does not enjoy the confidence of his party or cabinet, and he will be gone the moment any credible character emerges to replace him. President Clinton's failed summit at Camp David was the prelude to a tremendous outpouring of violence. Rather than instill the slightest hope for progress towards some peaceful future, it tended to confirm to both sides that all hope was vain. It does not follow that the present round of chatter will end so catastrophically, but only because Iran is there, and because the Palestinians are too divided among themselves to launch another ambitious Intifada. In my view, the principal failure has been on the part of America and the West. This has consisted principally of the failure to insist on the “Sadat standard” of sincerity among participants in any peace round. We have an obligation to speak the painful truth to the Arabs: that Israel will remain “on their agenda” until they themselves agree to take it off. David Warren
© Ottawa Citizen
|
Top