Halting the dance of death
Patrick Seale

After Israel’s savage assault on the Palestinians over the past six weeks ­ the hundreds killed, the thousands wounded or brutally herded into detention, the cities shattered, the ministries vandalized ­ it was perhaps inevitable that a suicide bomber would hit back.

Defiance and revenge are powerful motives. Israel cannot break the Palestinians’ spirit or stifle their cry for freedom. Nor can it demand immunity for its civilians when it kills Palestinian civilians at will. A terrorist state breeds terrorist enemies. The outrage at Rishon Letsion is the answer to the outrage at Jenin.
But this macabre dance of death must be halted before it destroys both peoples and engulfs the whole region in war. This is today the single most urgent task of the international community, led by the United States.

In the past year President George W. Bush has faced much criticism, even contempt, from Arabs and Europeans for his neglect of the Middle East and his apparent tolerance of Israel’s crimes. To the disbelief and derision of the entire world, he even called Ariel Sharon, Israel’s recklessly violent and war-mongering Prime Minister, a “man of peace!”

But the world needs to recognize that things are changing. Slowly but surely the United States is re-engaging in the Middle East. It has articulated a vision of a peaceful settlement and it is at last beginning to grapple with the difficult problem of how to implement it. Credit must be given to Secretary of State Colin Powell, and to President Bush himself, for their belated, but welcome, efforts.

There is no doubt that the United States has been made acutely aware of the threat to its interests and to its friends in the Arab world posed by its unbalanced pro-Israeli policies. Vice-President Richard Cheney heard the message very clearly during his Middle East tour, as did Secretary Powell. Every American ambassador and intelligence source in the region has delivered the same message.

It must also be recognized, however, that Bush’s freedom of maneuver is limited. He must tread very carefully. The mid-term elections are looming.

His administration contains powerful champions of Israeli interests, notably in the Defense Department. The US Congress is overwhelmingly pro-Israel, the result of decades of assiduous Israeli lobbying and of Arab neglect.

On a visit to Israel this week, a US congressional delegation urged the Israeli government to resist pressure from the American administration! This is a measure of the domestic political danger Bush faces as he navigates the dangerous rapids of the Middle East. He dare not forget that his father, George Bush Senior, victor of the Gulf War, was punished at the polls for seeming to lean on Israel to make peace.
These rival pressures, from the Arab and Israeli camps, must be borne in mind when we judge the present Middle East diplomacy of George Bush Junior. But, to appreciate the evolution of Bush’s thinking, one should take note of the important and positive developments that are taking place.

In recent months, the United States has repeatedly declared its commitment to a two-state solution, that is to say to a settlement in which Israel and Palestine live side by side “in peace and security.” First articulated by Secretary Powell last September, this “vision” was repeated by President Bush in his address to the UN General Assembly in November, and again on April 4 of this year when he launched Powell on his Middle East tour. It was embodied in UN Security Council Resolution 1375, drafted and sponsored by the United States itself.

Washington is now actively seeking to organize an international conference this summer in the search for what Secretary Powell has called a “political horizon.”

To dampen expectations, the Americans prefer to call it a “meeting” rather than a “conference.” Held at the foreign minister level, it would get around the insuperable difficulty of  Sharon and Arafat facing each other across the same table. But whatever the conference is called, and whoever attends, it represents a clear recognition that efforts to stop “terrorism” ­ in other words to end the intifada ­ will not succeed without clear progress toward Palestinian statehood.

The US is no longer seeking to monopolize the peace process, but recognizes its need for partners. It is working closely with the European Union, the Russians and the United Nations in what has become a formal structure of consultation. The “Quartet” ­ of Powell, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov,  and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan ­ last week announced the convening of the proposed international conference.

Building on the meeting at Crawford, Texas, between President Bush and Crown Prince Abdullah, the United States and Saudi Arabia have developed a pattern of close and frank consultation. The administration has been impressed by the kingdom’s diplomatic efforts, and by the ideas and courage of the Crown Prince.
A noteworthy element in the present crisis is the involvement of third parties in helping to resolve difficult confrontations. For example, the US-brokered deal to lift the Israeli siege of Yasser Arafat’s headquarters in Ramallah involved a role for British and American security officials who oversaw the transfer of Palestinian prisoners out of the complex and their detention in a Jericho jail. This satisfied Israel’s demand to see the men behind bars and the Palestinians’ insistence that their sovereign authority be respected.

With the agreement of both parties, the embryo of an international monitoring mechanism was put in place, and was seen to be effective. It could be a harbinger of things to come.

Geneva and London have been mentioned as possible venues for the conference, but Ankara is emerging as the front-runner. Turkey is a NATO member, a candidate for EU membership and a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. It has improved its relations with both Syria and Iraq, while remaining Israel’s strategic ally. If an international peacekeeping force is ever formed, and if outside guarantors are ever required, Turkey could play a positive role.

CIA director George Tenet is returning to the region to advise on the rebuilding and rationalization of Arafat’s various security bodies. The aim is to merge them into a single force. The plan is to rebuild and reform the institutions of the Palestinian Authority, in part to reassure the Israelis, traumatized by Palestinian attacks, that their Palestinian neighbours will be well-governed; in part to reassure international donors that their contributions to Palestinian projects will not be wasted or destroyed by Israeli action, as in the recent past; and in part to prepare the Palestinian Authority for the responsibilities of statehood.

Needless to say, many obstacles remain. The battle within the American administration is far from resolved. In American eyes, Arafat lacks a minimum of credibility. Above all, it is recognized that Sharon wants to dictate terms to the Palestinians without conceding their sovereign rights. He will do everything to sabotage their aspirations for a state.

There is some evidence that the Bush administration is already looking beyond Sharon to the next Israeli government. Labor leader Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, defense minister is Sharon’s unity government, is talking of quitting the government in September-October in order to position himself and prepare the party for general elections next year.

It is doubtful, however, whether Ben-Eliezer has the brains or the stature to reconstitute the Labor Party, shattered by the failed diplomacy of former Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s and by Shimon Peres’ fatal cohabitation with Sharon’s Likud this past year.

The truth is that Israel’s political leadership needs as much reform and renewal as the Palestinian Authority. Just as the Palestinians need to be given hope and a clear vision of their future state, so Israelis, too, need to be given a different vision of their future from the racist, blood-stained, hate-filled nightmare of Sharon and his far-right settlers.

There is much for the United States and its international partners to do. But the Palestinians, too, need to ponder whether suicide bombing is leading them to national suicide rather than to national rebirth.

Patrick Seale is the author of Asad (1988), the biography of the late Syrian President Hafez Assad. He wrote this commentary for The Daily Star

Copyright © The Daily Star