Not since the collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks during former US president Bill Clinton’s last days in the White House has the Middle East seen such a frenetic pace of peace diplomacy as it is seeing today. A ceasefire has been brokered between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Israel and Syria have started peace negotiations, and Israel has offered Lebanon a chance to resolve the issues that block a bilateral settlement. Less dramatic perhaps, yet persistent nonetheless, are the peace talks between Israel and President Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority.
So is the Middle East at the gates of a lasting, comprehensive peace? Not quite.
Aside from the Annapolis talks, which seem to be going nowhere because of the parties’ irreconcilable differences over the core issues, all the other peace efforts are more tactical than strategic. In none of them do the conditions yet exist for an immediate leap from war to peace, nor do the parties themselves expect that to happen.
It would require bold statesmanship to turn the ceasefire with Hamas into a prelude to political talks. Indeed, both Israel and the US are adamant about excluding Hamas from the Annapolis process unless and until it recognizes Israel’s right to exist, while Hamas will not abandon its identity as a resistance movement merely to join negotiations that seem unlikely to satisfy the Palestinian people’s minimal requirements.
For Israel, the ceasefire with Hamas reflects its reluctance to become mired in another asymmetric war like the one it fought in Lebanon two summers ago, this time in the alleys of Gaza’s refugee camps. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, an especially unpopular figure whose days leading the government are probably numbered, lacks the legitimacy to throw the country into another bloody war, which given conditions in Gaza would be both costly and inconclusive. Israel’s leaders believe that the day of reckoning with Hamas will come only when the conditions for a major military showdown are riper.
The Syrian track — requiring Israel’s withdrawal from the strategically vital Golan Heights and the evacuation of tens of thousand of settlers — is hampered not only by the Israeli leadership’s legitimacy deficit, but also by US opposition to the talks. For the Syrians, the major objective in concluding peace with Israel is rapprochement with the US, but they will balk at the US’ demand that they stop flirting with terrorism as a precondition for talks. In fact, it is doubtful that they will ever agree to this.
As Buthaina Shaaban, a Syrian minister, put it, “To demand that Syria forsake Hamas and Hezbollah is like demanding that the United States forsake Israel.”
The US has been absent from Middle East peacemaking for too long. Indeed, for the first time in the history of its special relationship with Israel, the US is not speaking to Israel’s enemies, be they Syria, Iran, Hamas or Hezbollah. As a result, Israel, embattled and facing a gathering storm of regional threats, had to find its own way to talk, without the diplomatic assistance of its big brother.
The demarche with Lebanon, to which US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice devoted most of her recent surprise visit to Beirut, has much to do with the US’ desperate attempt to revive its role as the main regional peace broker. After all, it was tiny Qatar that brokered Lebanon’s domestic settlement, Egypt that mediated the Gaza ceasefire and Turkey that is facilitating the Israeli-Syrian talks. Shifts in policy towards Syria from Israel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy were powerful messages to the US that it should not miss the Lebanese train as well.
But the US’ dwindling leverage cannot match the influence of the region’s “axis of evil.” Lebanon is too vulnerable to pressure from Syria and Iran, neither of which wants to see their local clients relieve the Israelis of the burden of a “Lebanese front” before their own grievances are addressed. Nor is Hezbollah keen to see the end of Israel’s occupation of the Sheba Farms on the Lebanon border undermine its claim to the formidable independent military force that it has built with Iranian and Syrian help.
Tactical moves, however, can always develop into strategic shifts. The Gaza ceasefire should be allowed to facilitate reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas, which would make the Annapolis process more legitimate and inclusive. It was none other than the Hamas spokesman in Gaza, Salah al-Bardawil, who defined the ceasefire as “a historic opportunity for all the sides involved to live in peace, and to build a future for the next generations.”
Nor are the other peace tracks — Lebanon, Syria and maybe also Iran — doomed to permanent failure. But their success, so urgently needed to save the region from the politics of Doomsday, will have to wait for a new US administration to inject into them the necessary balance of realism and idealism, military power tempered by a genuine commitment to diplomacy.
Shlomo Ben-Ami is a former Israeli foreign minister who now serves as the vice-president of the Toledo International Centre for Peace in Spain.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Congressman Mike Gallagher (R-WI) and Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) led a bipartisan delegation to Taiwan in late February. During their various meetings with Taiwan’s leaders, this delegation never missed an opportunity to emphasize the strength of their cross-party consensus on issues relating to Taiwan and China. Gallagher and Krishnamoorthi are leaders of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. Their instruction upon taking the reins of the committee was to preserve China issues as a last bastion of bipartisanship in an otherwise deeply divided Washington. They have largely upheld their pledge. But in doing so, they have performed the
It is well known that Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) ambition is to rejuvenate the Chinese nation by unification of Taiwan, either peacefully or by force. The peaceful option has virtually gone out of the window with the last presidential elections in Taiwan. Taiwanese, especially the youth, are resolved not to be part of China. With time, this resolve has grown politically stronger. It leaves China with reunification by force as the default option. Everyone tells me how and when mighty China would invade and overpower tiny Taiwan. However, I have rarely been told that Taiwan could be defended to
It should have been Maestro’s night. It is hard to envision a film more Oscar-friendly than Bradley Cooper’s exploration of the life and loves of famed conductor and composer Leonard Bernstein. It was a prestige biopic, a longtime route to acting trophies and more (see Darkest Hour, Lincoln, and Milk). The film was a music biopic, a subgenre with an even richer history of award-winning films such as Ray, Walk the Line and Bohemian Rhapsody. What is more, it was the passion project of cowriter, producer, director and actor Bradley Cooper. That is the kind of multitasking -for-his-art overachievement that Oscar
Chinese villages are being built in the disputed zone between Bhutan and China. Last month, Chinese settlers, holding photographs of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), moved into their new homes on land that was not Xi’s to give. These residents are part of the Chinese government’s resettlement program, relocating Tibetan families into the territory China claims. China shares land borders with 15 countries and sea borders with eight, and is involved in many disputes. Land disputes include the ones with Bhutan (Doklam plateau), India (Arunachal Pradesh, Aksai Chin) and Nepal (near Dolakha and Solukhumbu districts). Maritime disputes in the South China