"Desperation"...

"Weakness"...

These are common denominators that may surface when delving into the mindsets of U.S. President George W. Bush, Israeli PM Ehud Olmert, and PA President Mahmoud Abbas in the days leading up to the highly-maligned Annapolis peace summit. Given the dire nature and lethal repercussions vis-à-vis an Arab-Israeli "peace" process that has a penchant for jumping the tracks, one can, with every certainty, come to the conclusion that the ingredients of "weakness" and "desperation", when thrown into the "kettle" of Middle Eastern diplomacy, yield unmitigated disaster. Still, the kettle has been lit and when the three leaders, as well as representatives from 46 other countries who simply could not pass up the invitation, convene in Annapolis next week, let it be known that the bargaining chips are not on the table with the hope that peace, as it were, will be achieved. On the contrary, Bush, Olmert, and Abbas merely require a peace that will be perceived. 

Even so, it begets the question: Is desperation a result of their weakness, or is it the catalyst? Regardless of the answer, it will pale in comparison to what is already known: Abbas has no control; Olmert, no credibility; Bush, no clue. Ironically, all three predicaments have emerged on the heels of military conflicts in which the "upper hand" was relegated to the enemy.

In June, 2007, Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah organization was ousted from the Gaza Strip by Hamas, who have now brought the conflict to the "Palestinian" Authority's doorstep in the "West Bank". To sustain his newly-acquired label as a "suitable peace partner" with whom Israel can negotiate, Abbas is required only to show a recognizable effort to combat terror and violence from within his factions.

He has failed miserably.

As per agreement with the Israelis, Abbas stated he would seize the weapons of over 200 fugitives from within his own Fatah organization. No such weapons have been confiscated. Moreover, the Al-Aqsa Brigades--members of Abbas' Fatah organization--continue to exist among the more radical purveyors of terror in Israel. There has been virtually no change in the level of "Palestinian" control of violence against the Jewish state.

In August, 2006, Israeli PM Ehud Olmert facilitated what has been called one of the most shameful displays of military force ever recorded in the history of modern warfare, as the Israeli clash with Hezbollah forces in Lebanon was botched to a level that yielded both the preventable loss of Jewish lives and the perception of the Israeli military as a formidable "deterrent" in the Middle East. As a result,  Olmert's approval rating plummeted into the single digit range.

Now in the final 14 months of his Presidential tenure, George W. Bush has only a colossal military failure in Iraq upon which to build his legacy in a war involving an enemy whose primary dwelling place can be found not within the boundaries of ancient Babylon, but in the very heartland of what was once the Persian Empire. While routinely thumbing its nose at international condemnation, Iran continues to fight a proxy war against US forces in Iraq while at the same time nurturing the global perception and fear that it could, at any moment, become a nuclear power. For Bush, this presents a
formidable obstacle--the kind of obstacle that can damn a Presidential legacy. No president wants to be "that president" whose tenure witnessed the dawn of a nuclear Middle East. While his administration maintains that "all options are on the table", Bush has chosen a course of action that involves confronting Iran with the support of other Middle Eastern countries, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, who are most agitated by the prospect of their Shi'ite neighbor becoming a nuclear power. Bush knows the only way in which he can get the Arab nations "in his corner" is to acquiesce.

To this end, Israel has emerged as a most expendable "bone" for Bush to toss to the Arab world.

This effectively explains the fervor and sense of urgency with which the Bush administration--mainly, Condoleezza Rice--has worked to facilitate the Annapolis peace summit set to take place on November 27, 2007. In fact, Rice facilitated the Annapolis summit with such haste that both Abbas and Olmert have expressed their concerns over the insufficient time given in which to prepare for such a monumental undertaking.  And so, the past few months have seen a frenzied Condoleezza Rice shuttling back and forth between Jerusalem, Ramallah, and the State Department under the guise of "peacemaker". With each visit, she has effectively turned up the heat on the Israelis to concede to international demands for a "Palestinian" state that encompasses not only Judea and Samaria, but East Jerusalem, as well.

Although the likelihood of success in Annapolis remains unlikely, the United States has undoubtedly solidified its position regarding its relationship with Israel. In so doing, the US has shown that it supports the interests of the Jewish state only when said interests coincide with their own.

"Weakness" and "Desperation" have no business negotiating for that which is unprocurable.

Sadly, both will assume their places at the bargaining table in Annapolis.

 

U.S. Middle East Policy: From Failure in Baghdad to Desperation in Jerusalem