One fails to understand the value of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s frequent visits to Israel and the Palestinian Territories. Her latest tour is a boring rerun of her earlier ones characterized by the uttering of the usual sound bites that have lost much of their bite. Her hosts, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President Mahmoud Abbas appear to be as lame, politically speaking, as President Bush himself. The game plan, if there was ever one, to achieve peace in the holy land by the end of this year has floundered. So much for breakthroughs in US foreign policy, which Rice has been in charge of for years. The Middle East today is being tossed into the murky waters of her “creative chaos” approach, and America’s friends are having a tough time staying afloat.
While Rice was in the region, Israel announced further settlement activities in East Jerusalem, short-circuiting any possible deal on the toughest obstacle on the negotiations table. Abbas could not but protest the Israeli action, and Rice, the honest broker she claims to be, could not but appease the two sides. Lip service is all what the Palestinians have managed to get from putting all their proverbial eggs in the US basket.
Is it possible that Rice was really attempting to derail a possible resumption of PNA-Hamas dialogue that has now become a Palestinian priority above anything else, including the peace process? Having failed to present Abbas with anything but a pat on the shoulder, and failing yet again to put pressure on Israel to halt settlement activities or even loosen the security measures in the West Bank, the only thing that she could hope to achieve was to prevent an inter-Palestinian accord from taking off.
It is difficult to appreciate Rice’s sense of optimism with regard to the future of the peace process. Abbas has no wall to fall back to if this process fumbles, as it is now expected to. Clearly, he cannot accept less than what his predecessor has rejected, wrongly or rightly, back in 2000. And if he does so, which is doubtful, his people, and those among them who have doubted the integrity of the process from the beginning, will surely reject it.
On the other hand, Olmert’s immediate concern is to save his office and prolong the term of his premiership which has been doused by allegations of corruption and ineptitude. Surely he cannot dare make “concessions” on Jerusalem, among other things, at this 11th hour of his political life. His longevity as premier is doubtful and he may not outlast both Abbas and Bush. On the contrary, early general elections are now more possible than before. Rice may be hoping for a framework agreement by both sides that could at least commit Olmert’s successor and give the Bush presidency the humble legacy that it is looking for. Olmert is so weak now that his government cannot agree on whether to sign on to a truce with Hamas, negotiated through the Egyptians, or launch a major strike on Gaza. The US will not want to give Hamas any breathing space, especially after it had lost its bid to contain Hezbollah in Lebanon.
And then there are the Israeli-Syrian negotiations, which have so far been shrouded in secrecy under Turkey’s auspices. Again the Americans have not shown real interest in giving this peace track the boost it now needs. Damascus will think twice before giving the beleaguered Olmert a political lifeline in the absence of guarantees that the negotiations will lead to an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights.
Finally, there is the Iranian dilemma which Israel would like to see dealt with by the Americans. The Bush administration has calculated that diplomacy, at least for now, will have to suffice. Bush has neither the political support nor the resources to drag the United States into another open-ended conflict in the Middle East. Such perception may change at any time, but Rice knows where the Arab world, especially the Gulf States, stands on the issue of dealing a military strike against Tehran.
