Looking for a mediator to fill an American vacancy

For nearly 40 years, the United States has fancied itself the most important "third party" in the Israel-Arab peace process. Some administrations have adopted ambitious approaches to peacemaking in which the US president or the secretary of state, or both, have involved themselves directly and in detail in negotiations. Other administrations have adopted less ambitious approaches, often the result of circumstances assessed to be unpropitious for achieving progress toward peace. US failures in the peace process during the past decade or more have given rise to the possibility of a gradual but fundamental reassessment by the US of its primary mediating role. If this gradual shift proves real, it will have profound consequences for Arabs and Israelis.

Several factors accounted for the US role in previous Arab-Israel peace efforts. First, Washington perceived such engagement as being vital to its national self-interest, that is, it was a means of extending US power and prestige and blocking the aggressive aims of adversaries such as the Soviet Union or, more recently, Iran. Second, the US believed that peace was desirable, possible and necessary for the long-term wellbeing of the Middle East, a region of significant strategic importance. Third, the US has enjoyed a special relationship with Israel, and always perceived a strong interest on the part of Israeli governments to reach peace accommodations with all its neighbors.

In seeking to fulfill these self-interests, the US always brought important assets to the table in its role as a mediator. American offers of economic and military assistance often helped seal a deal between the parties. Similarly, US political assurances were taken very seriously by all the parties, especially those that related to final-status issues such as the question of Palestinian self-determination, the necessity of a viable and territorially contiguous Palestinian state, the future of settlement blocs, the fate of Palestinian refugees, the issue of Jerusalem, and the best ways of enhancing security for Israel and its neighbors. The US also often brought ingenuity, creativity or muscle to the table, attributes that were no less important than the tangible economic, military and political commitments it was prepared to make.

Given this extended period of US primacy in mediation and the panoply of skills and assets the US mustered in support of its mediating role, the central question now is why the US no longer seems interested in helping the parties get to negotiations, implement agreements already reached and bring forth new agreements on the road to a final peace settlement. Has the US lost interest in the peace process? Has the US assessment of peace - its desirability, possibility and necessity - changed? And if the US does not play a key mediating role, can a peace settlement be reached? http://www.dailystar.com.lb

For the current administration, two primary considerations have underpinned a reticence to get too deeply involved in peacemaking. President George W. Bush believed that his predecessor, President Bill Clinton, had weakened the power of the presidency through repeated, failed efforts at peace. Bush assessed that presidents have only so much political capital to spend and from the outset he had other priorities. In this respect, 9/11 only reinforced Bush's predispositions in that he saw the Israel-Palestine conflict through the prism of terrorism-counterterrorism.

These considerations could have been subjected to review after the death of Yasser Arafat, when an opportunity arose to invest heavily not only in stopping the violence but also in getting Palestinians and Israelis back to the negotiating table. However, the Bush administration remained on the sidelines, supportive of Israel's disengagement policy, active in trying to resolve relatively small on-the-ground problems, but reluctant to touch more important issues, particularly those associated with final status.

It is this reticence - when the parties themselves and the Arab world appears anxious for a helping hand to back peacemaking - that suggests that the Bush administration is changing the US strategic outlook, not just hesitating to get involved while the two sides fight. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's latest foray into the Israel-Palestine dispute initially appeared to counter this strategic shift, but its lackadaisical style and limited ambition actually reinforce the trend of US policy.

With US elections in November 2008, the parties in the region will need to factor into their own strategies this evolving but increasingly clear American approach. They will face two stark choices between now and election time: either go it alone in bilateral engagements and bilateral negotiations, or find an alternative third party to provide the off-the-table benefits previously provided by the US. Neither of these appears very realistic, and thus the peace process has a vacancy for a mediator.

Daniel Kurtzer, the former United States ambassador to Egypt and Israel, currently holds a chair in Middle East policy studies at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. This commentary first appeared at bitterlemons-international.org, an online newsletter.

I’ll take the job, as long as the pay is $250k american per year. How hard can it be to get 2 mortal enemies in the same room and then agree to something? It’s basically impossible, and so the job would last forever and I would keep issuing press releases that say, “we have hope for progress, or we’ve made a lot of progress, or it’s encouraging to see both sides taking this seriously”. Then I’ll just fly around the middle east and look at stuff and make stupid comments and that’s that. Simple job, really.

For nearly 40 years, the United States has fancied itself the most important "third party" in the Israel-Arab peace process

Nice, except that there is no such thing as a "peace process"

There is war, there is armistice, there is victory, there is surrender, there is defeat.

One of those will be the outcome of the Arab-Jewish wars.

People who use the term "peace process" are people with no sense of history and thus, no idea about what futures are possible.

"This commentary first appeared at bitterlemons-international.org, an online newsletter."

Not surprising that a guy who is not embarrassed to write such drivel would have it appear at a site called "bitterlemons"..... maybe he ought to get his first clue from the fact that he refers to the so-called peacemaking/mediation process as 40+ years in duration!!! (60 years, really, from the time that the stuff really hit the fan). Maybe, just maybe, the US is finally taking a more rational stance, in effect that it is not worth trying to pursue a fake "peace process" so long as it is merely an excuse for Pali-fascists and Euro-twits to force more Israeli concessions while never stopping their terrorism and incitement, etc.

Me. ME!!!
M-E!!!!!!!!!!!!! I’ll do it! I’ll do it!
I am VERY knowledgeable about the history of the area and the conflict.
And, I work cheaply. I am familiar with the main and many secondary players on all sides of the dispute.
I have a proven ability to speak clearly, record events and research in the hunt for a stable and lasting peace.
I also know how to kick those Jew murdering ,thieving Ragster’s criminal asses and present opportunities to seek a lasting peace, living in harmony with their neighbors, a la Don Vito and Luca Brasi. I guarentee good results in that I do not take any bullshit and am not easily fooled. I have dealt with dissemblers all of my adult life and I know when to shut someone down. I am also skilled and able to utilize many tactics and strategies in applied force and intimidation. So pick me. Me1 ME!!!!!

I know this is going to sound naive, but just why is making peace between the Pals and the Israelis OUR job?

Seem the UN and the Eurotrash and every little tin pot third world thug these days is all so gung ho to tell us how we “have” to conduct ourselves, why don’t all the various self important twits around the world step up to the plate and take on this job?

Ah but that right, it not about trying to actually solve the problem, it merely the latest excuse for various Leftist around the world to rant and rave at the USA.

Cut ‘em loose and let Allah, Jehovah, Zeus or whatever higher being one subscribes to sort it out. I am sick and tired of our hard earned money going to foreign countries.

We have enough problems here where our dollars would be better spent. We owe them nothing!

Who was it that said, “Commerce with all nations, alliance with none”?

"Given this extended period of US primacy in mediation and the panoply of skills and assets the US mustered in support of its mediating role, the central question now is why the US no longer seems interested in helping the parties get to negotiations, implement agreements already reached and bring forth new agreements on the road to a final peace settlement."

This guy is a perfect example of how and why liberals fail in foreign policy, even in their publicly acclaimed "achievements".

How about he recognize that: "Given this extended period" (almost 60 years), with all the diplomatic and material investment that the U.S. has made in various forms of a "peace process" in the Middle East, Israel is no closer today than 1948 in having neighbors who will leave it in peace. So, how about he considered just what the actual fruits of the U.S. effort have been - practically nil - and why - because Israel's neighbors still do not want to leave it in peace.

The real questions are not: "Has the US lost interest in the peace process? Has the US assessment of peace - its desirability, possibility and necessity - changed? And if the US does not play a key mediating role, can a peace settlement be reached?

The real questions are: Are the Arabs yet more interested in a "peace process" than the destruction of Israel? Have the Arabs "assessment of peace" "changed", to acceptance of "its desirability, possibility and necessity?" And, if that Arab assessment does not change, does it really matter whether or not "the US does.." or "does not play a key mediating role" between Israel and the Arabs.

But, leave it to a liberal to believe that the U.S. can demand from Israel alone what the Arabs are unwilling to make - peace.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.