|
|
The American |
|
|
Write:
|
Some background is necessary to comprehend what was occurring at Annapolis, where President George W. Bush was hosting another in a series of Arab-Israeli summits that extends as far back as the 1970’s. Let’s drop back to the fading moments of the Clinton Administration, specifically to July 25, 2000, when every conceivable incentive and promise (and many that were secret and remain so) had been dangled before Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat and the politically-weak Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. The trio issued a so-called ‘Trilateral Statement’ that we can expect to see again as the current round of negotiations conclude. Arafat later rejected outright all offers, demanding all or nothing. The talks collapsed. Shortly thereafter, in September, 2000, Ariel Sharon led a delegation of Likud party members on a tour of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which visit incited Palestinian violence, followed by a cycle of reprisals and the outbreak of the al-Aqsa Intifada, which continues to the present day. In January, 2001, George Bush became President and, two months later, security-conscious Israeli voters dumped Barak, giving Likud control, and making Sharon the new Prime Minister. Six months later came September 11, 2001, then war in Afghanistan (2002) and the beginning of the Iraq War (2003). In 2004, Sharon began disengaging from Gaza by forcibly evicting Israelis from settlements in that area. Footnote: in response to the evictions, a group of conservative Rabbis, led by Rabbi Yosef Dayan, placed an ancient curse on Sharon known as the Pulsa diNura, calling on the Angel of Death to intervene and kill him. (Note, the Torah prohibits praying that something bad should happen to someone else. Rather, it offers the solution to pray that the bad in the person dies and he becomes a righteous person.). On November 11, 2004, Yasser Arafat died, and 14 months later (January, 2006), Ariel Sharon suffered a stroke and entered a comatose state, which continues to this day. Ehud Oelmert became Acting PM and succeeded to the position. He oversaw the Gaza pullout and transfer to the control of the Palestinian Authority in 2005, which by then was under the nominal control of Mahmoud Abbas, the successor to Arafat. This pullout and transfer would prove disastrous within two (2) years. In the summer of 2006, the Iranian-supported (via Syria) terrorist group, Hezbollah, initiated massive rocket attacks from its safe-haven in southern Lebanon, another Sharon-vacated region. Oelmert’s inept response caused his popularity with Israelis to sink and it has never recovered. His hold on office is due to the avoidance of new elections. Then, in June of 2007, the terrorist organization, Hamas, initiated an uprising and ousted the PA, transforming Gaza into a radical base, from which it began launching rockets at nearby Israeli settlements. This bombardment continues. PA leader Mahmoud Abbas barely escaped death and took refuge in the West Bank, where he set-up PA shop in an effort to stem the complete radicalization of the Palestinian people. That brings us to the present, where we have the situation, again, of another U.S. President, also at the ebb tide of his term, seeming to be in a legacy hunt, or, perhaps, boldly seeking an improbable Middle East trifectta by gambling (1) that the war in Iraq will break favorably (as it is now doing), (2) that Iran can be convinced to abandon its nuclear program (as seems highly unlikely without war), and (3) that the Arabs and Israelis will find more common ground than difference. Once again, we have a weak Israeli PM. This time, though, to make matters more difficult, we have a PA Chairman who is not really the leader of all Palestinians. Let us make an assumption, for purposes of analysis, that, perhaps, Oelmert and Abbas make a deal. We must ask, ‘what can Israel possibly give up, as it has given up everything except its existence, which is still challenged by all Arab and Islamic nations?’ If Israel further yields on its borders, or gives into the demand for a ‘right of return’ for millions of Palestinians, then it will be almost certain that Oelmert will not be able to deliver on any promise as he would place Israel’s existence in extreme danger. Such a failure to gain Knesset ratification of any such pact will create huge disappointment among Palestinians in both Gaza (no surprise) and the West Bank (small surprise) and may start yet another cycle of attacks on Israel, from the north (as Hezbollah waits, seeking any pretext to attack), from the south, out of Gaza, and, perhaps, even from the east, out of the West Bank, which is already at the tipping point towards extremism. Abbas’ promises would be no better. He cannot deliver or bind the Palestinians in Gaza, under Hamas control. Any treaty with the PA would not be worth the paper on which it is written. Surely President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice understand this reality. Thus, they must be careful that the so-called peace process proceed carefully and with limited, modest, realistic, and achievable objectives that can build confidence for even larger steps later.Most importantly, they must be aware of the risk of blow-back in two (2) key Arab states that have tentatively invested in the Annapolis process, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Egypt is on the verge of radical takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood, despite a police state imposed by President Hosni Mubarak, who has held power for 26 years. Mubarak is 79. Egypt will soon face a succession crisis that could be exacerbated if there is negative fallout from the Annapolis conference. Mubarak came to office upon the assassination of President Anwar Sadat, who famously agreed to make peace with Israel at Camp David in 1978, followed by a peace treaty in 1979. It was a death sentence for Sadat. If Mubarak endorses a Palestinian-Israeli deal, he could face a similar danger, as would his fast-rising son, Gamal, whom many think a likely successor. Saudi Arabia is also at some risk. Through its fabulous wealth, the royal Saudis play a central role in all Arab states and exercise great influence throughout the Muslim world. However, they face internal threats that are growing and could disrupt the kingdom, especially the vulnerable oil fields on which the economy of the West now deeply depends. The careful royals will not embrace Israel under any circumstance. They will continue to covertly finance extremist Wahabbi madrassahs that have spawned a generation of radicals which now threaten nuclear Pakistan, continue to keep Afghanistan unstable, and foment turbulence across the arc of Islam. A new Israeli conflict could conceivably induce an eruption even within Saudi Arabia as the royals may reap what they have sown. We should expect to see the return of former Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu, who presciently forecast these dangers and devised an outline for a genuine settlement between the Palestinians and Israelis in a book written in 2000, called A Durable Peace. It bears reading, again, and should be the central reference text for all who came to Annapolis.
|
