Soccer Dad: A loaf of bread, a toga and no go

February 12, 2007

A loaf of bread, a toga and no go

In Saudi Arabia's Diplomacy, the Washington Post charges

ONE CONSEQUENCE of the Bush administration's recent decision to divide the Middle East between "extremists" and "moderates" was to marginalize U.S. diplomacy in the region. The administration refuses to talk to the "extremists" -- Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas -- but those governments and groups are at the center of every major conflict from Iraq to the Gaza Strip. Now one of the administration's "moderate" allies, Saudi Arabia, has stepped into the vacuum. The result has been a revealing demonstration of how talks with adversaries can sometimes be useful -- and a hint of what may be lost by Mr. Bush's inflexible policy.

Let's go back a few years to the Clinton administration. President Clinton did all he could to engage Hafez Assad to join the peace process. He invited him - actually begged him - to attend the grotesque Summit of the Peacemakers in 1996. Assad refused. In 2000 Clinton made a trip to Geneva to convince Assad to accept Israeli concessions. Assad again refused to be engaged.

Thoughout his terms in office Clinton honored Yasser Arafat by meeting with him more than any other head of state. Did Arafat change? What happened at Camp David in July 2000 when Clinton tried to push for a final deal between Israel and the Palestinians? Did all that investment of political capital pay off for President Clinton?

Really one's memory doesn't have to extend that far to call into question the utility of engaging extremists.

But leave it up to those nuance loving Saudis, they're about to get something done.

They could determine whether a Palestinian administration emerges that is both willing and able to settle with Israel, or whether recent Palestinian factional fighting escalates. Significantly, the Hamas representatives in Riyadh include Khaled Meshal, a militant leader based in Damascus who has blocked previous moves toward a Palestinian accord. Saudi relations with Mr. Meshal's sponsor, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, may be warming; Mr. Assad will soon be in Riyadh for a Saudi-hosted summit of the Arab League.

I can't wait for those dominos of friends to start falling. Really. Wait there's more.

Sunni-ruled Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran back opposite sides in the escalating sectarian conflicts in Iraq and Lebanon, but the talks show that both governments are interested in tamping them down. Though there have been no breakthroughs, the diplomacy seems to have succeeded, at least, in cooling the situation in Lebanon, where a Hezbollah campaign against the Saudi-supported, pro-Western government led to several days of violence last month.

A news story in the New York Times was scarcely less encouraging.

The Saudis, who have usually preferred to work quietly behind the scenes, have grown increasingly alarmed at the chaos engulfing the region and have stepped forward to try to use their religious credibility, and vast oil wealth, to try to preserve the status quo and serve as a counterpoint to Iran�s growing influence.

Prince Saud said his country had always been involved in regional diplomacy, but more recently had moved with more urgency.

The kingdom has grown concerned over the rise in sectarian tensions between Sunni and Shiite Muslims � which he said has been driven by the bloodshed in Iraq. It is fearful of a civil war in Lebanon, and he suggested that the kingdom was looking to limit Iran�s involvement in Arab affairs.

I'd actually be a little less generous to the Saudis. They see the Sunni hegemony threatened. They'd like to maintain their status and wealth. Who would want the Shi'a of Saudi Arabia to be encouraged by a nuclear Iran to demand their share of the oil wealth?

So what was the result of the talks in Saudi Arabia followed by a wholesome toga party? (Or here.)

According to the AP, Palestinians celebrate in Gaza after agreement announced in Mecca

Gazans welcomed the deal with euphoria and celebratory gunfire, hoping it will end the internal feuding that has kept them huddled in their homes in fear.
However, it quickly grew clear that Hamas might have trouble selling the accord - with its vague, implicit recognition of Israel - to its supporters, who have long called for the Jewish state's destruction.

Ah yes, another implicit recognition of Israel. Or was it?

The, devil, according to the Washington Post is in the details. In A Palestinian Pact the Washington Post opines

Whether the deal serves to advance an Israeli-Palestinian peace process is another and considerably more uncertain question. Because his main aim was to stop bloodshed among the Palestinians, Mr. Abbas didn't insist that Hamas meet the three conditions set by Israel, the United States and other outside powers for a resumption of aid. Hamas still hasn't recognized Israel or sworn off violence, and the "respect" for "international resolutions" and previous Palestinian-Israeli agreements included in the pact falls short of a commitment to compliance. Consequently, a cloud has fallen over the three-way meeting of Mr. Abbas, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice planned for Feb. 19.

The Post goes on to take another shot at the Bush administration.

For now, the accord has confounded an already confused U.S. policy in the Middle East. Having recently divided the region into "moderates" and "extremists," the Bush administration was attempting to strengthen the "moderate" Mr. Abbas against the "extremist" Hamas. Now another of the "moderates," Saudi Arabia, has stepped into the diplomatic vacuum created by American policy and brokered a deal across a divide that only the Bush administration and Israel perceived; as the Saudis see it, the dividing line in the region is sectarian, not ideological. Unable to embrace the Palestinian accord but reluctant to offend a Saudi ally it has been counting on for help against Iran, the Bush administration adopted an awkward wait-and-see position. As events unfold in the coming days, it will watch from the sidelines, to which it has been relegated by its own ineptitude.

It would appear that the division between "moderates" and "extremists" is not as clear as the Post (or the Bush administration) would have it. In the end the "moderate" Abbas encouraged by the "moderate" Saudis moved close to the position of the "extremist" Hamas. It's hard to see what the Bush adminstration would gain from having played a role in this agreement. But I'd still say that the Bush adminstration's refusal to deal with extremists is certainly less damaging than the Post's belief in engaging everyone.

The New York Times though was even further removed from reality in A very Partial Palestinian Peace.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is set to meet with Israel�s prime minister, Ehud Olmert, and Mr. Abbas a week from tomorrow. Her past trips to the region have been empty exercises. By recognizing last week�s minimal Palestinian pact as a potential starting point, the White House could give her a chance to improve on that dismal record.

"a potential starting point?" for what? Good Grief. 13 1/2 years ago Yasser Arafat renounced terror to gain legitimacy. He gained the legitimacy but failed to keep up his end of the bargain, resorting to terror every time he didn't get his way. Now his successor has agreed with Hamas. The Washington Post may spin the agreement in his favor by saying that he was attempting to stop the bloodshed, but in the end the so-called "moderate" Abbas adopted the Hamas position not vice versa. I would argue that this is not a starting point for anything but rather the end of the illusion of Palestinian moderation.

What is it about the Middle East that has intelligent people looking for moderation in all the wrong places.

Blogdigger tags: Mahmoud Abbas, Ismail Haniyeh, Palestinians, Saudi Arabia, Togas.