How To Hand Off the Peace Process to Our Next President

Opinion

By Steven L. Spiegel

Published September 04, 2008, issue of September 12, 2008.
  • Print
  • Share Share

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just finished her seventh visit to Israel of 2008 to try to press the Israelis and Palestinians to reach some sort of agreement — one of the last major efforts of the Bush administration in its final months. But can the administration make any progress on this critical issue in the time it has left in office? Should it even try?

Last January a framework agreement between the two sides seemed possible with the help of a serious and apparently productive working relationship between Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Now, however, the project appears doomed to failure. Olmert and Abbas have reportedly come closer than any Palestinian and Israeli leaders in history to some kind of framework agreement. But whatever points of agreement they have achieved remain secret. Widespread reports suggest that they are near agreement on provisional borders for the Palestinian state but have made little or no progress on the tougher issues of refugees and Jerusalem. What’s more, Olmert is set to resign, probably in October, when his successor as head of Kadima forms a government after this month’s party primary. Meanwhile, Abbas has repeatedly threatened to resign as the split between the Fatah-controlled West Bank and Hamas-ruled Gaza deepens.

One option left for the Bush administration is to craft a Bush-Olmert-Abbas statement detailing agreements reached to date. That would represent a critical achievement for a much-maligned administration if the progress were significant enough that the Palestinian and Israeli publics would regard it as encouraging. The possibility of an accord on provisional Palestinian borders, including Israeli withdrawal from most of the West Bank, cannot be ruled out. But it seems unlikely that the Palestinians would be willing to conclude an agreement with an outgoing, unpopular and compromised Israeli prime minister, because they would fear it might not be pursued by his successor. More important, the Palestinians have made it clear that they do not want to announce even a framework agreement in which outstanding issues such as Jerusalem and refugees are left out. Besides, there does not seem to be sufficient time left to complete enough details, even if the parties were prepared to do so.

The question then becomes whether a new Israeli prime minister, facing a tough election campaign in 2009 or 2010, would be prepared to risk negotiating a difficult and probably tenuous agreement in his or her first four months in office. He or she would then have to run on that accord, with his or her fate resting in the hands of the Palestinians. The last prime ministers who played that game — Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak — lost their jobs.

It is no wonder that most analysts give Bush and Rice almost no chance of achieving an Israeli-Palestinian agreement of any substance before they leave office. They are likely correct. And yet, there is still a lot that the Bush administration can — and should — do to advance prospects for an eventual peace accord.

The transition between administrations is critically important. It is vital for a president to leave his successor a positive atmosphere for shaping the next administration’s early attitudes and approaches. The Madrid Conference of October 1991, designed by the first President Bush and Secretary of State James Baker, and the bilateral and multilateral talks that followed gave the new Clinton administration’s Middle East team solid reason to believe that something could be accomplished in the peace process. Conversely, the failure of Clinton’s diplomacy in his last six months led the new Bush administration to avoid Arab-Israeli peace efforts like the plague. It has been widely reported that Clinton spent a good part of the drive with Bush from the White House to the inauguration urging the incoming president to be wary of Yasser Arafat.

The most important contribution Bush and Rice can make in their final months is to bequeath to their successors the sense that progress is possible in the Israeli-Palestinian arena if they quickly devote time, attention and political and diplomatic capital to it. In fact, it would be better for Bush and Rice to set the stage for future progress than to try to end their administration on a risky, and possibly tragic, note. A positive series of joint messages — either public or confidential — by the Palestinians and Israelis that communicated confidence in the future and invited the new president to continue and even accelerate his activities on their behalf would be critical in shaping the thinking of the transition team. Both sides could thank Bush and Rice, but urge further intensified steps.

The search for Middle East peace is long and arduous. We know from experience, however, that progress down that path can be hastened by successfully managing presidential transitions, so that a new administration can build on the work of its predecessor, rather than beginning again from square one.

Steven L. Spiegel is a professor of political science and director of the Center for Middle East Development at the University of California, Los Angeles. He is a national scholar of the Israel Policy Forum.


The Jewish Daily Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, The Jewish Daily Forwardrequires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, our spam filter prevents most links and certain key words from being posted and The Jewish Daily Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.





Find us on Facebook!
  • Could Spider-Man be Jewish? Andrew Garfield thinks so.
  • Most tasteless video ever? A new video shows Jesus Christ dying at Auschwitz.
  • "It’s the smell that hits me first — musty, almost sweet, emanating from the green felt that cradles each piece of silver cutlery in its own place." Only one week left to submit! Tell us the story of your family's Jewish heirloom.
  • Mazel tov to Chelsea Clinton and Marc Mezvinsky!
  • If it's true, it's pretty terrifying news.
  • “My mom went to cook at the White House and all I got was this tiny piece of leftover raspberry ganache."
  • Planning on catching "Fading Gigolo" this weekend? Read our review.
  • A new initiative will spend $300 million a year towards strengthening Israel's relationship with the Diaspora. http://jd.fo/q3Iaj Is this money spent wisely?
  • Lusia Horowitz left pre-state Israel to fight fascism in Spain — and wound up being captured by the Nazis and sent to die at Auschwitz. Share her remarkable story — told in her letters.
  • Vered Guttman doesn't usually get nervous about cooking for 20 people, even for Passover. But last night was a bit different. She was cooking for the Obamas at the White House Seder.
  • A grumpy Jewish grandfather is wary of his granddaughter's celebrating Easter with the in-laws. But the Seesaw says it might just make her appreciate Judaism more. What do you think?
  • “Twist and Shout.” “Under the Boardwalk.” “Brown-Eyed Girl.” What do these great songs have in common? A forgotten Jewish songwriter. We tracked him down.
  • What can we learn from tragedies like the rampage in suburban Kansas City? For one thing, we must keep our eyes on the real threats that we as Jews face.
  • When is a legume not necessarily a legume? Philologos has the answer.
  • from-cache

Would you like to receive updates about new stories?




















We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.