President Bush and his Secretary of State Dr. Rice are searching for a positive legacy as their administration moves into its final year. They have decided to tackle the intractable Israeli-Palestinian problem. Some of Bush’s predecessors inched toward a resolution only to have it elude them at the last moment. Such was the case when Bill Clinton met with the late Yassir Arafat at Camp David.
It is an historical and psychological problem, covered with thick layers of civilization magma; Israel and Palestine claiming a sliver of land no bigger than Lake Ontario, each with hardened positions in a region not known for traditional solutions. Some believe there can be a general settlement that can meet the needs of each side: the creation of a Palestinian state; the final disposition of Jerusalem, Gaza, and the Golan Heights; the refugee question or what the Palestinians call “the right of return;” and the uprooting of Jewish settlements on the West Bank. Others believe each question will have to be settled separately, all the more so since Gaza is in the hands of Hamas, which has not been invited to Maryland and would not have come if invited. Looming in the background is Iran, whose leader has promised to exterminate Israel.
By inviting the leaders of the major Sunni Muslim states in the region to Annapolis, Washington hopes to defuse some of the tension since it knows that most Arab states believe that the Israeli-Palestinian problem has been the epicenter of nearly all of the tension in the region since the creation of Israel in May 1948.
The final disposition of Jerusalem has always been a sticking point since East Jerusalem was conquered in the 1967 war. Ironically it may be the easiest of the problems to resolve. The Palestinians want East Jerusalem as their capital. At Camp David, Clinton, Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Barak appear to have agreed to an enlarged definition of the city and the Israelis apparently agreed to open access to the Dome of the Rock. If there is a piecemeal and staged solution, Jerusalem may soon become the capital of a future Palestinians state, at least on paper. In this region, the devil is always in the details.
As Saudi Arabia and 14 other Islamic states sit down in Annapolis this week, Syria will raise the issue of getting back the Golan Heights, which it lost in 1967. But it is unlikely the future of the Golan will rise to the top of the agenda, all the more so since Syria is allied with Iran and supports Hezbollah. On the other hand, Tel-Aviv may agree to some sort of joint administration on what has been the quietest front since 1967, providing Syria recognizes Israel’s right to exist and relations are normalized. But Syria would need a green light from Tehran, which is unlikely. Yes, stranger things have happened in this region and with nearly all of the Sunni Muslim states in Annapolis, Tehran must feel isolated.
Bush is looking for a positive legacy and the purpose of the meeting is to set a timed agenda for peace, not solve all of the problems in five days. It would be ironic if Bush, who after the mess in Iraq and years of neglecting the Israeli-Palestinian issue, affects a solution. However, the meeting in Annapolis may be less about Israelis and the Palestinians than the looming threat of Iran and its challenge to both Saudi and Egyptian leadership in the Middle East. They, like Israel, are fearful of a nuclear Iran lead by Muslim Sh’ia Fundamentalists.
History takes odds twists and turns as we witnessed with the opening of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the reunification of the two Germanys in October 1990, and the collapse of the USSR in December 1991. Now that the threat of Iran looms large, the Israelis and the Palestinians may sign-off on a deal overnight and by doing so defuse the intractable issue once and for all. In time, a Sunni-Turkish-Israeli coalition may become a reality to contain the aspiration of Iran. Fear of the future just may be more powerful than the legacy of the past and it must be remembered that Saudi Arabia has a peace proposal on the table: Arab recognition of Israel and normalization of relations in exchange for a Palestinian State. So simple and yet, the delegates will have to cut through 2000 years of history to get there. They just may and the pundits here at home will eat their negative assessments.
-- Sander A. Diamond, professor of history
