[Originally published in the Rutland Herald.]
In a recent presentation at Princeton, Jordan’s King Abdullah II made the following points: Fifty-seven out of 193 countries in the world with a total population greater than Europe and the United States combined, representing one-third of the members of the United Nations and for whose citizens the conflict in Palestine is the issue of their time, are not at peace with Israel today. He made no judgment, but simply asked, “What are the implications for global stability if this continues?”
In a subsequent comment Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made another strong pitch for the two-state solution of the Palestine problem. Given recent events, it would appear that this is simply another bit of wishful thinking from the Bush administration.
Israel professes to support a two-state solution, but don’t believe it. Their policy is driven by a desire not only to hold onto their existing West Bank settlements, which have been judged illegal under international law, but to continue to expand those settlements farther into the West Bank.
Palestinian policy is driven by Hamas, the group that wants bring an end to the existence of Israel — “to throw them into the sea.” The only party that really wants a solution to the problem is Fatah. They are the Palestinian group recognized by Israel and the United States as the rightful leaders of Palestine. As such, they are empowered, as far as the Israelis are concerned, to negotiate with them.
It’s important here not to forget or overlook the fact that Hamas won the most recent Palestine election, an election pushed on the reluctant Palestinians by the Bush administration. One might also recall that the Bush administration rejected the results, despite the fact that the election was judged independently to have been completely fair and democratic.
Fatah advocates the two-state solution, but they have a real problem. Hamas, which rules in Gaza, would prefer the end of the Jewish state and oppose negotiations. That means that any time Hamas feels threatened by what it sees to be progress toward the two-state solution, all it has to do is lob a few missiles into Israel, await the inevitable retaliatory Israeli air and ground attacks, and watch Fatah, the main negotiators with Israel, call off further negotiations. As much as they might like to continue the negotiations, under such conditions, Fatah has to call them off or appear totally insensitive to the woes of their Gazan cousins. Hamas has a de facto veto over the negotiations.
And we sit back and tell the antagonists that they have to negotiate a solution — preferably a two-state solution. We say this to the two main players, Israel and Hamas, neither of which wants any kind of solution at all. We do this because just about everyone in the world who cares what is really going on knows that the Palestine impasse, replete with rocketing and retaliatory incursions, is, as King Abdullah says, a major threat to global security. It is a threat because they are using live ammunition and killing each other. These kinds of spats have a way of getting out of hand, and they are happening in a part of the word where all of the people see these events as existential threats. None of that is a good bet for peace.
From an American perspective, this situation, with all its attendant emotionalism, is highly threatening to our interests in the region. It also fuels Muslim hatred of the United States, as they view us, rightly or wrongly, as the main protector of Israel. This is always listed as one of the major factors that spurred al-Qaida to its 9/11 attacks, so it really is in our interest to try to reach an equitable settlement.
The problem is that the antagonists will not negotiate a peace themselves. They will accept peace only if it is forced on them. There is no country in the world other than America that has the clout with Israel to urge them into a fair agreement, but it is difficult to see how, given the realities of our own internal politics, we would be prepared to do that. It seems strange to say, but unless we are prepared to act totally uncharacteristically, the world is probably doomed to an indefinite continuation of the highly dangerous and threatening status quo in the Palestine situation.
Haviland Smith is a retired CIA station chief who served in Eastern and Western Europe and the Middle East and as chief of the counterterrorism staff. He lives in Williston.
Rural Ruminations 