Jim Hoagland writes in A small outbreak of Mideast Hope
Hopes for an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal that will isolate the Hamas radicals who control the Gaza Strip have brightened measurably in recent days, according to European officials visiting here. The real news is that the Europeans report this possible outcome without a frown.
So the point of “peace” then, is not peace between Israel and the Palestinians, but rather strengthening Fatah at the expense of Hamas. A deal between Israel and Fatah will “save Gaza.” There’s something rather cynical about this. There’s no word on how this will help Israel or the PA. But it will isolate Hamas. That’s a step but that should be a goal irrespective of peace. (Or part of a goal as the destruction of Hamas and Fatah should be preconditions for peace.)
Abbas is said by diplomatic sources to be resigned to such an accord being his swan song as leader. He will be ready to step aside in a generational change that would accelerate if Israel then releases the popular imprisoned Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti, who is serving five life sentences for murders committed under his command.
Yes, swapping a long term aider and abettor for an actual murderer will go a long way toward enhancing peace in the Middle East. Nothing Hoagland’s written suggests any obligation on the part of the Palestinians.
Olmert’s motivation for dealing is to stay, not to go. A peace accord is his best bet to reverse woefully low approval ratings sparked by the mishandled military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon last year. If he can get Abbas to acknowledge the inevitable — to grant formally that Israel will have a decisive say in the administering of a “right of return” by Palestinian refugees to Israel — Olmert could be the peace candidate in Israel’s next elections.
The first obligation or compromise asked of the Palestinians: Allow Israel to “administer” the right of return. And say that happens, and Abbas or Barghouti or whomever succeeds Abbas isn’t happy with Israel’s decisions, will he say, “sure whatever you say” or will he say “Israel is violating our agreements” and unleash a terror attack until the world prevails upon Israel to be more “reasonable.” (i.e. to accede to every Palestinian demand regardless of the risk to Israel.) We know that the unpopular Olmert continues to govern because there’s not enough members of his government are so dissatisfied with him to risk losing their positions by bringing the government down. But that last sentence reeks. I’m not going to say that Olmert thinks that way, but that Hoagland suggests it is disturbing. Olmert wants an agreement so that he can be the “peace candidate.” Not that any agreement will enhance Israel’s security or diplomatic standing, but so that he could win re-election. That’s what the peace process has been reduced to: a campaign jingle. (What would Olmert’s slogan be? “I know how to use the IDF effectively against our own citizens but not our enemies?”) Hoagland’s observations about Europe are also telling.
Arab officials are dismayed by the dramatic change that has occurred in France since Nicolas Sarkozy’s election as president in May. Sarkozy has openly expressed his intent to offer Israel greater support internationally. He has also indicated that he will move away from the pro-Arab policy established by Charles de Gaulle in 1967 and pursued with vigor by Sarkozy’s predecessor, Jacques Chirac. But it is not only France. When Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi visited Israel this summer, he made clear his coalition government’s backing of the Quartet’s initiative, which now features former British prime minister Tony Blair as a special envoy. “We see exactly what you are doing,” Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak told a European official recently in a dismissive manner, according to notes of the conversation taken by the official. “You will lose a lot in the Arab world.”
I haven’t been following Sarkozy enough, though he seems more reasonable than Chirac whom even Hoagland characterizes as pro-Arab. Prodi says that he support the Quartet, which could hardly qualify as being pro-Israel. And yet Hosni Mubarak, the leader of the largest Arab country to make peace with Israel, considers it an affront that European nations are no longer fully on the Arab side of diplomacy. The implication is that the “peace process” championed by the Arab world had nothing to do with “peace” and plenty to with pressure – on Israel. Hoagland concludes:
The Saudis at least seem to have a more activist approach. Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal told reporters in New York on Wednesday that an Israeli “moratorium on the building of settlements” in the West Bank “will be a good signal to show a serious intent” to reach peace. He suggested it would enable Saudi Arabia to come to the conference. U.S. encouragement of a meaningful moratorium by Israel now is a key step in rescuing Gaza from Hamas this winter. So is full U.S. support for Blair’s ambitious effort to engage moderate forces in Gaza. Circumstances may be just desperate enough for reason and good will to break out suddenly.
Now a moratorium that would meet with Saudi Arabia’s approval would include Sanhedria, Ramot, French Hill and Gilo. (Somehow, withdrawing from Gaza didn’t show “serious intent.” Maybe the Saudis ought to show that they’re not funding anti-Israel terror before their commitment to peace is considered “serious.”) And what moderates are there to engage in Gaza? Hoagland’s column demonstrates what’s wrong with the peace process. It’s not about peace. It’s about bringing pressure to bear on Israel. It’s about re-labeling terrorists. It’s about diplomatically playing ball with the Arab world. It’s about “peace” that only a cynic could love.
Related thoughts: The Hashmonean, This Ongoing War, Solomonia, Mere Rhetoric, Daled Amos.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad
israel, 
peace process.
