22 October, 2007: Washington, DC -- Condoleezza Rice’s recent Middle East tour has come to an end, leaving more doubt than confidence that a U.S. proposed conference will revive the long stalled peace process. Her most recent pronouncement, that there is a “reasonable chance of success,” does not appear overly optimistic, especially given already present arguments over a document meant to serve as the basis for negotiations. The conference, slated for November 15, in Annapolis, Maryland may well have to be postponed if the Israeli and Palestinian negotiators are unable to agree on the substance of the text and continue to blame each other for the delay. Meanwhile the rest of the world has not yet bought into the Bush administration as a born-again Middle East broker, given that for the past seven years the White House has shown zero interest or urgency in resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. Rice has a long way to go before anyone takes this new initiative as anything more serious than a photo op—it will take time to build up credibility and time is one of many factors not on her side.

Currently, Israeli and Palestinian negotiating teams are working on a joint document for the conference, but the process has proven difficult. Palestinians will only attend the talks if the discussion revolves around the key final status issues, namely: settlements, borders, water, refugees and East Jerusalem. President Abbas wants a clearly stated document that includes detailed agreements and timelines for implementation. Israelis have no desire for pre-agreed timelines or specificity in the text, because Prime Minister Olmert cannot commit to compromises on sensitive issues, which could lead his coalition government to collapse. Palestinians are trying to obtain gains ahead of the conference, because Abbas knows it will likely have little relevant outcome, whereas Israeli concessions in the document might boost his political position. Israelis see the conference as a “foundation for negotiations,” not the document, and for the moment everything hangs on this issue.

The real challenges lie not in the most recent negotiation dispute but in the domestic problems faced by Mahmoud Abbas and Ehud Olmert at home. Olmert himself is weak after the politically damaging outcome of the war in Lebanon and three ongoing probes into alleged improper conduct while serving as trade and finance minister previously in the government. The governing coalition is shaky and he is in no position to push controversial compromises on final status issues through the Knesset—right wing coalition cabinet members may quit over the document text alone. Abbas, however, is in an even worse position after Fatah lost control of the Gaza Strip in a humiliating coup by Hamas, leaving him with no authority outside the West Bank. Public support of Hamas, which trounced Fatah in the 2006 parliamentary election, remains strong while the Western strategy intended to isolate it is has yet to show signs of working. Even if Abbas’ Fatah negotiates a settlement, it is guaranteed that Hamas would spoil its implementation, raising questions as to the relevance of any conference to negotiate a two state solution prior to reuniting the two warring Palestinian fiefdoms. 

Hopes remain that the peace process can be revived and the U.S. has thrown its full weight behind this conference. Abbas and Olmert both need a political success given their current domestic problems, perhaps rivaled by those of the beleaguered Bush administration. These, however, are reasons to hold a conference not to attempt serious negotiations intended to restore peace and create a sovereign Palestinian state. Having spent seven years avoiding any role in the Arab-Israeli conflict the Bush administration has chosen to deal with it at a time when U.S. credibility as a peace broker is at its lowest. Thus, the political expediency of this effort stands in dire contrast to the conditions necessary for it to succeed and a failure now could set back future efforts, just as it did in 2000. For the first time, sadly, the three main parties to this proposed conference have something in common; a lack of credibility and little capacity to implement anything that is agreed to.

--

Michael Kofman is a Washington, DC based Correspondent and regular contributor to the Diplomatic Courier Magazine. His blog is posted on Mondays.