Condoleezza Rice’s third visit to Israel and the occupied territories in the space of five months since becoming secretary of state clearly shows the urgency which the United States is placing on the impending Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. However, the results of the secretary’s talks were a mixed bag at best.
Her talks with Ariel Sharon and Mahmoud Abbas were held against the backdrop of a surge in violence between the two sides and mass protests by Israelis opposed to the withdrawal, set for mid-August. The two problems ensured that while Rice tried to underline America’s commitment that Israel’s withdrawal goes ahead as planned, she could barely conceal Washington’s limits.
Rice rehashed what she has said on her previous trips, calling for greater Palestinian-Israeli cooperation over the Gaza pullout. Believing it best not to ruffle feathers at this particular time she had only praise for Sharon for taking the “historic decision” to leave Gaza and four settlements in the West Bank. She also had encouraging words for Abbas for taking a stand against those on his own side who have resumed attacks but she did not fail to add the usual proviso that the Palestinian Authority should do more to stem the violence. Fearing the pullout could quickly deteriorate into bloodshed if activists attack Israeli troops engaged in evacuating the settlers, Rice firmly delivered Israel’s message to the Palestinians that security is the priority. But Palestinians have their own fears. Time is running out to resolve crucial problems in Gaza. And they were not at all sure their message was delivered to the Israeli government with the same force.
Rice did highlight an issue she had skirted in the past, urging Israel not to seal off the Gaza Strip following its withdrawal. Israel has not offered assurances over access, including the free movement of goods and people. Tel Aviv is reluctant to relinquish control over these facilities. However, Rice’s commitment to “connectivity between Gaza and the West Bank, to “openness and freedom of movement for the Palestinian people” was one loud and clear announcement that she did not share Israel’s plans about closing off Gaza as if it were one big prison.
On a lesser note was the floating of the idea of convening an international peace conference on the Middle East immediately after disengagement is completed. According to reports, the intention is to improve relations with some Arab countries which have been frozen since the start of the intifada in late 2000. Coming from the US, the idea is odd since Washington has openly rejected such conferences for fear they would replace America as the No. 1 power broker in the region. Perhaps Washington believes it needs at least a helping hand in the Middle East. While Rice wanted her trip to be seen as a sign that the US planned to keep up the pressure for progress, her previous comments that the United States would take a back seat as the Israelis and Palestinians work out their differences suggest that, indeed, Washington does not carry as much weight as is commonly perceived.
