Guarding optimism
Ziad Asali
WASHINGTON—The skeptics have unassailable arguments: History and a consistent record of failure are on their side.
Expectations of success for the Middle East summit in Annapolis are further dampened by weak Israeli and Palestinian
governments, an American president in the last stretch of his second term, dysfunctional Israeli and Palestinian body
politics, and cynical media coverage.
Yet Annapolis is the last realistic hope for a two-state solution and the possibility of peace it offers.
This is a sobering thought that should focus the attention of leaders involved and that of all global forces interested
in peace. The worst players in the Middle East, on every side, are waiting, rubbing their hands in glee, and
anticipating its failure.
Fear of failure takes precedence in people’s minds, fear overshadows the possibilities of success. For that reason,
Annapolis has to be a process, not an event.
Success should not be measured by any one variable, like the document currently being negotiated between the
Palestinians and Israelis. The conference should be preceded and followed by palpable changes on the ground. It must be
crowned by a robust follow-up process that binds participants to serious negotiations and defined landmarks for
implementation that lead to a viable Palestinian state.
Success can thus be measured by progress on three interrelated tracks: (1) documents, (2) deliverables on the ground,
and (3) mechanisms for follow-up. This definition of success will deny easy victory for the enemies of a two-state
solution.
Lest we yield to despair as we contemplate the compelling arguments for pessimism, let us examine the elements that give
us reasons for guarded optimism: The White House and State Department are communicating the same message of seriousness
in American policy.
We hear a cacophony of voices raising doubts about the administration's intentions after years of silence, enough
objections that the question can be legitimately asked: Are the skeptics more wedded to vilifying the administration
than to working for the only available opportunity for peace? Is continued conflict preferable to giving credit to this
administration? While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other officials are talking publicly about the national
interest of our country in establishing the state of Palestine alongside Israel, skeptics are talking about salvaging a
legacy. What of it? It certainly would be a great legacy and, if achieved, it would be well earned.
Another reason for guarded optimism is that Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad cannot be dismissed. No better Palestinian
team can be imagined. Have they been tested? Have they been helped? Can they be empowered to deliver? The answers are
not long in coming.
A third reason for hope lies in a new Israeli political scene altered by the Iraq and post-Lebanon wars. New strategic
considerations have prompted leading officials to proclaim that a Palestinian state is in Israel's national interest.
And while the presently dysfunctional Israeli political situation might preclude immediate strategic concessions,
Israeli leaders can work to serve the national interest. Nothing will replace the need for political courage and
statesmanship, but Israel's friends must show their support. Arab leaders who signed the Arab League Initiative can also
help by convincing the Israeli public of their serious intentions, by reiterating their commitment to Israel’s security.
What of the big picture? Borders, Jerusalem and refugees? The answers lie in whether leaders sustain a partnership that
survives negotiations. The partners must make and implement the painful concessions they readily talk about. Their
entrenched and powerful opponents at home will use every trick in the book, as they often have, to frustrate
understanding and progress. If there is one job that only the United States can do, it is to hold the partnership
together and make it succeed. The ultimate contours of the solution cannot be far removed from UN Resolution 242, the
Clinton Parameters, the Geneva Accord, the vision of President Bush, and the Arab League Initiative.
Those opposed to such an outcome anywhere are on the other side of peace. Those who think ganging up on Israel and
making it yield to pressure should abandon their counterproductive counsel. Those who think that humiliating the
Palestinians into submission must unequivocally comprehend how consistently they have been proven wrong.
We must find language clear enough to answer the big issues, welcoming enough to convene and invite partners to the
conference, and ambiguous enough to keep political leaders in the game. Such language is not magical. It is already in
currency and the subject of scrutiny. But the real challenge is for leaders to work their way together through the
thicket of obstacles in their way beyond the meeting. The follow-up process must be structured to interlock
understandings and interests of several parties, parties committed to delivering an outcome that Israelis and
Palestinians can live with: a Palestine living in peace alongside a secure Israel.
For the rest of us, the first thing to do is primum non nocere—first do no harm. Cynics and experts can do us a great
favor by drawing attention to potential problems and pitfalls, while sparing us their sanctimonious pronouncements that
our efforts are all in vain, that we have been here before.
Low expectations are in order—they can easily be met. Nihilism and cynicism, however, are not.
Ultimately, a negotiated agreement between Palestinians and Israelis to build a joint future and end the conflict will
be an act of statesmanship. The Bush administration is rising to the occasion by calling for a conference to lay the
tracks for such an agreement. No effort should be spared to extend support. Never has a global public-private
partnership been more needed to achieve a more reasonable goal.
###
* Ziad Asali is president of the American Task Force on Palestine. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News
Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Washington Times, 6 November 2007, www.washingtontimes.com
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication. |
