Mideast Peace Talks: Only the U.S. Takes Them Seriously

A bit of political drama, a touch of Hollywood glamour — so far, everyone is staying in character during this latest Middle East stage show being performed in Washington. Mahmoud Abbas and Benjamin Netanyahu recite their lines concerning their positions; a smiling Hillary Clinton brings them together for the obligatory handshake in front of the cameras and lets them go after some well-meaning advice. This latest production can’t even be called peace talks — such a title doesn’t fit the eternal conflict this situation has degenerated into. The prospects for meaningful success in the current Middle East peace talks being held in Washington are low throughout the Arab world and among Israelis. This time, it seems the United States is the only motivating force behind them. Most people are reacting with a shrug of the shoulders as they watch the same old cart get stuck in the same old mud hole.

Powerful political forces opposed to relinquishing the West Bank and East Jerusalem have existed in Israel, not just since Benjamin Netanyahu, but as early as the June 1967 war. They are prepared to pay a predictable price in tension and chronic violence for themselves and for generations to come for that position. Yitzhak Rabin, the only Israeli leader prepared to discard that paradigm, paid for it with his life. A Jewish right-wing extremist assassinated him in 1995. His successor, Ehud Barak, came to Camp David in July 2000 with the Israeli coalition in tatters and has since come to be considered a political con man who led the United States down the primrose path, losing what credibility he may have had with the Americans.

The current leading man, Benjamin Netanyahu, is already recognized in the annals of the Middle East conflict as the man who sabotaged the Oslo Accords ten years ago and closed the Israeli settlement ring around East Jerusalem with the annexation of the Har Homa neighborhood. The monstrous dividing wall, the price of Israel’s territorial appetite that keeps settlement expansion manageable, also helps. The wall allows the Israeli people a measure of relatively undisturbed everyday life despite constant harassment of their troops by Palestinians. All surveys show that Israelis want to live in peace, but they are also unwilling to pay the price demanded by a treaty. The appeal of Israel’s treaties with Jordan and Egypt has long since faded. At best, a chilly coexistence with Israel’s two neighbors is all that exists and even that is no longer apparent when one looks at the balance of trade figures.

The Palestinians find it difficult to deal with Netanyahu’s strategy of verbose inactivity. Mahmoud Abbas is operating with only half a mandate since his differences with Hamas have become insurmountable. As the weaker of the two unequal negotiators, he must depend on outside help to win world opinion over to his side and to create political and moral pressure. His Hamas opponent, on the other hand, relies on time and violence; with their rockets and their assassins, they possess a permanent veto over compromise and reason.

So this time, it seems the United States is the sole driving force behind the talks. The time of sending political blank checks to Tel Aviv is over, according to people in Hillary Clinton’s inner circle. Since his Cairo speech, Barack Obama is on record in the Arab world as a critic of Jewish settlements. High-level U.S. military leaders like General Petraeus complain that more anti-American sentiment is created in the Arab world because the U.S. is seen as biased toward pro-Israeli positions.

In view of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, superpower America needs to redefine its own national interests in the Near and Middle East because it is losing more and more influence and prestige locally in those regions. What consequences that would have for Israel will become apparent over the next few months.