Against all odds, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's hope that Israelis and Palestinians should move beyond a "peace process" and agree on a "political horizon" reflects a lesson about the failure of previous peace efforts. A "political horizon" that offers hope for peace and defines it in a way acceptable to both sides would create political momentum for implementing negotiations to succeed. Without such hope, extremist minorities--Palestinians and Israelis- who oppose a two state peace--will continue to dictate the agenda, as they did in destroying the open-ended Oslo peace process. Major issues such as refugee status will be relegated as unending debates over opening or closing another military check point dominates the talks.
Israeli and Palestinian leaders have thus far proved themselves unable to agree on a clear "political horizon" that would break the logjam, notwithstanding polls showing that majorities on both sides would welcome an agreement along the lines of the Clinton parameters, the Taba agreement, and the Geneva Accords. In the run-up to President Bush's fall meeting, Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas are still far apart on the basic issues these former plans address--Jerusalem, settlements, borders, and refugees. To show his seriousness, Abbas, for his part, has threatened to resign his presidency if the conference does not succeed. He knows too well that a failed conference will translate into a victory for Hamas, which wants nothing to do with U.S.-sponsored meetings.
This commitment will require marshalling all the necessary supportive packages, including economic, diplomatic, and security-related incentives – a matter that will inevitably require complex diplomatic wrangling well after the conference is ended. Both Olmert and Abbas would be obliged to take this decisive stand seriously. The President must push for a more comprehensive agreement eclipsing the vague joint "declaration of interests" statement that Prime Minister Olmert is seeking. The outcome must be a complete departure from procedural concessions to substantive compromises- all based on the already well-known two-state and land for peace formulas. There has to be a dramatic move from conceptual discussions to enforceable and practical agreements. .
President Bush should seek the most unequivocal, unambiguous statement possible for the advancement of Palestinian statehood. The negotiations have been stalled for so long that a broad-brush declaration will do nothing to change the status quo. However, if concrete, achievable goals are the result of this conference, there is a much greater chance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process can be rescued from its current stagnation. With increased feasibility for Palestinian statehood comes a boost for moderate Arab governments in the region.
Until and unless the U.S. views a just and comprehensive peace in the troubled Middle East as a strategic interest , peace between Arab and Israel will remain an elusive goal. The November conference must succeed. The Palestinians and the Israelis deserve no less. President Bush's legacy will be forever tarnished absent any such dramatic and history-changing stand.
Aref Assaf, PhD, is president of American Arab Forum, a think tank based in Paterson, NJ
Click here to a read a Palestinian's 'Open Letter" to Secretary Rice
Click here to read recommendations to Secretary Rice from former U.S. Diplomats.