Style
Or Substance Following
Riyadh Summit?
By Michael F. Brown
04 April, 2007
The
Electronic Intifada
The
Arab League peace initiative is back in play after an Israeli and American-imposed
five-year hiatus. The return to the previously shunted aside proposal
comes only because the Bush administration has utterly fouled the region
-- from the bloody sectarian turmoil of Baghdad to the tsunami of human
waste that recently swept through part of northern Gaza -- and has evidently
concluded there is now a better hope of "fixing" Israel and
Palestine than Iraq.
In an ironic twist, the Bush
administration claim that the road to Middle East peace runs through
Baghdad has been inverted by the total collapse in Iraq. Now Jerusalem,
borders and Palestinian refugees are on the agenda. Only the growing
strength of Iran and desperation for some success in the region could
lead the White House to its current position and the risk of failure
similar to that of President Clinton in the final days of an eight-year
run in office.
The administration, represented
by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, reaches this juncture out of
weakness and not strength. They have been cornered by the shortcomings
of their own belligerence. Washington's weak Middle East hand actually
provides a better-than-usual opportunity for positive peacemaking headway
-- though the chances of success remain exceedingly slim. With Iran
strengthened, the Bush family and its allies are reluctant to undercut
Saudi Arabia. And the Saudis have started to handle changing circumstances
with some adroitness. The Saudis' success in pushing through the Hamas-Fateh
unity government/authority has evidently led to their recalibrating
what the Bush administration will tolerate and to a testing of the fracture
lines running between the United States, Europe and Israel. "It
has become necessary," King Abdullah noted on the principal economic
fault line, "to end the unjust blockade imposed on the Palestinian
people as soon as possible so that the peace process can move in an
atmosphere far from oppression and force."
It remains to be seen, however,
what the repercussions will be of King Abdullah's comment at the opening
of the Riyadh summit that the American presence in Iraq constitutes
"an illegal foreign occupation." To date the administration's
public response has been quite restrained. State Department spokesman
Sean McCormack stated, "... We want to understand more clearly
what it is exactly that he had in mind when he talked about an illegal
occupation." McCormack also stressed the excellent personal relationship
between President Bush and King Abdullah. Others, however, in Congress
and think tanks are certain to be vociferous in their condemnation of
King Abdullah and Saudi Arabia. Already, The New York Times notes that
Simon Henderson, director of gulf and energy policy at the Washington
Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), claimed that King Abdullah's
remarks legitimize attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq. Defenders of an expansionist
Israel are likely to try injecting 9/11 reminders into any discussion
of Saudi involvement in Middle East peacemaking.
The growing clamor for substantive
talks surely has Olmert's government reeling. He is now in the delicate
position of having to engage and not appear intransigent. Cognizant
of this, he played a weak hand well during Rice's most recent visit.
At the end of that visit, Olmert agreed to meet with Palestinian President
Mahmoud Abbas every two weeks to discuss security and economic issues,
but not final status issues. In his view, he wins points for the style
of talks while avoiding core-issue substance. Rice certainly did not
publicly rebuke Olmert for resisting serious talks, but instead put
the blame for slow movement on the unexpected Hamas-Fateh accord.
Now, however, the Riyadh
summit has ratcheted up the pressure on Olmert. A comprehensive peace
offer from the Arab League is on the table. Olmert presumably realizes
that some sort of counter-offer is mandatory following the political
evisceration of Yasser Arafat when he offered a merely implicit counterproposal
at Camp David. The Israeli prime minister aims for talks with the Saudis
on Arab recognition of Israel while again sidestepping the substance
of Palestinian demands. The Saudis are sure to see right through this.
They are, after all, familiar with similar scripts.
Current circumstances highlight
once again the vital importance of being on the offensive in talking
peace and establishing the framework for substantive talks. The Arab
League has re-established its seriousness and has appropriately seconded
Palestinian rights on Jerusalem, borders and refugees. Past Israeli
peace forays have ignored or hedged on these issues, but have won in
the court of American public opinion by being put forward loudly and
with winning rhetorical catchphrases such as the ubiquitous "generous
offer" terminology of the Barak era. That these proposals had little
to do with fulfilling Palestinian rights and basic principles of justice
was insignificant in much media coverage. The only thing that mattered
was talks were underway and the Israelis were seen as initiators rather
than responders. This time, however, the Arab League has the upper hand
over the Israeli government as the former has offered a deal rooted
in rights and international law -- quickly derided by Thomas Friedman
who backed an earlier version of the Saudi plan in 2002 -- while the
latter is widely viewed as attempting to fend off serious talks.
As ever, more powerful players
appear at the moment to be determining the Palestinians' fate. Yet any
settlement, no matter how remote the chances, reportedly requires Palestinian
approval through a referendum. Prior to a distant referendum, however,
is the overwhelming necessity for Palestinians to put their own house
in order as internecine bloodshed continues, albeit at a lower level
since the Saudi intervention. With a new unity government/authority
there is also a window for advancing any new thinking of the Palestinian
leadership. This provides yet another opportunity for a "peace
offensive" in which the Palestinians can put forward their legitimate
rights and claims in a thoughtful manner to the international community.
Further delay in conveying
these views will only play into the hands of Israeli officials by enabling
them to define the terms of a peace accord as compatible with Israeli
expansionism and ethnic cleansing (by denying the right of return).
Camp David achieved this perverse success. Olmert is almost sure to
rally and attempt to do no less. He has, of course, strong allies in
Congress and the administration.
The verbal beating down of
the Saudis and the Palestinians will soon begin in earnest -- once again.
This time, however, the deteriorating regional climate may lead to a
bit more debate. Nevertheless, when Democrats stripped out language
requiring congressional approval for an American attack on Iran, they
signaled -- at least temporarily -- not just implicit Democratic backing
for any such strike, but the grim reality that after four years of failure
in the region the Democratic leadership is still unprepared for a frank
discussion about the Middle East, Israel and Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.
The Republican base, for its part, can be counted on to soon make known
its opposition to the timid steps taken to date by Secretary Rice. AIPAC,
never far from such matters, will likely call on the administration
and Congress not to "sacrifice" Israel for the interests of
Saudi Arabia and certainly will issue reminders that demands should
not be made of Israel that jeopardize its security.
If the Bush administration
does not immediately abandon or verbally savage the Arab League plan
as a consequence of Republican and AIPAC pressure then something new
will be afoot, something worthy of very close attention. Until then,
Rice is simply following the Olmert model: style over substance.
Michael F. Brown
is a fellow at the Palestine
Center, which published a version of this same article,
and on the board of Interfaith Peace-Builders. Previously, he was executive
director of Partners for Peace and Washington correspondent for Middle
East International. The views expressed in this report are those of
the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Jerusalem Fund.
Published today on Tom Paine,
this article may be used without permission but with proper attribution
to the author.
Click
here to comment
on this article