Somebody please give me some reason to believe that Robbins is wrong in this assessment:
The Upper Hand
Yasser Arafat, leader for life.
The proposal by the Madrid Four (the U.S., Russia, the EU, and U.N.) to hold a peace conference this June to discuss the Israeli/Palestinian conflict generated a lot of discussion last weekend; maybe too much. The administration has already lowered expectations, for example when an unnamed senior official quoted in the Washington Post said that the term "conference" was a misnomer, that the proposed conclave is a "meeting," simply one of a number of forums, part of an ongoing process. Its purpose, according to State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, is "to bring together the ideas that the parties have about how to move forward." In other words, don't look for many Nobel Peace Prizes to come out of it.
The response from the Arab press has been lukewarm. Most reports view the meeting as the latest American plot to prop up Israel. But Yasser Arafat has welcomed the idea of a conference, though noting he has yet to hear the specifics, and why shouldn't he? It would be his meeting. He would be the center of attention. The gathering would be his to orchestrate, regardless of the official agenda. Arafat is a master showman. This would be his latest performance, after Ramallah, after Jenin, after town meetings with his grateful subjects, and after his personal interview with Geraldo Rivera. You can't buy that kind of publicity.
The central problem with the concept of the conference — the reason it will probably fail — is that it cannot be held on the basis of the equality of the main negotiating parties. No such meeting can possibly end in success so long as Yasser Arafat is the only person there who knows he cannot lose power. So far, the United States has given him this guarantee. Knowing this, he has no reason not to be intransigent. If there is a line the U.S. has stated it will not cross, or allow Israel to even approach, Arafat will move the conference to that line and sit on it. If he is not satisfied, he will walk out. It is a completely sensible negotiating tactic, and only a hypocrite or someone who has never bought a car could blame him.
Arafat has used this technique before. At the 2000 Camp David negotiations, he was the strongest person in the room. Ehud Barak faced the perennial problem of leading the fractious Israeli polity, and needed a peace agreement to survive politically. Bill Clinton, never very steady on the details of foreign policy, let his personal quest for a legacy become a point of advantage for Arafat. The Palestinian leader was the only one there who could emerge stronger by leaving, so when he did not get everything he wanted, he went home. Barak's government fell, Clinton's term expired, and Arafat moved on, continuing his decades-long quest for a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. The Saudi/Arab peace proposal is the frontrunner for the framing document for the June meeting, which would give Arafat basically what he wants, though the Jerusalem question will inevitably derail the discussion.
Statements Sunday by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice seemed to give hope that the U.S. was shifting its dogmatic position towards Arafat's continued position of unquestioned leadership. Palestinian Chief Negotiator Saib Urayqat called her criticism of the ability of the Palestinian Authority effectively to rule "a flagrant and unacceptable interference in the Palestinian people's affairs." Yasir Abd-Rabbuh, Palestinian Authority Minister of Culture and Information said that the need for political reform was unquestionable, but for the Americans to say so was a form of political blackmail aimed at Arafat. Ms. Rice later clarified her statement, stating that "clearly, Yasser Arafat is the person ... whom the Palestinian people have chosen to lead them," and Secretary of State Powell also stressed this point. Meanwhile Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is busy trying to tie Arafat to terrorism — which would seem to be about as difficult as tying a leopard to its spots — to no avail. What Sharon fails to grasp is that it does not matter what he can or cannot prove. The U.S. just does not care.
Like most parties, the question of who is not on the guest list for the June gathering will be as intriguing as who is. The proposals have yet to be fleshed out, but early reports indicate that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other important U.S. allies will be present, but less congenial states such as Syria, Iraq, and Iran will not. Alternative representatives of Palestinian aspirations, such as Hamas, probably will not get the invite either, especially after the recent statement by Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal that martyrdom operations would continue regardless. In fact, one would expect some attacks to take place in Israel during the conference, similar to the Netanya bombing during the Beirut Arab summit. Violence of this sort is not part of an irrational cycle, as is so often said. Rather, it is a means of communication whereby the terrorists show their displeasure and use the tools at their disposal to try to shape events. Such attacks would also serve to remind Arafat that, should he behave completely out of character and attempt some kind of compromise, the same fate would await him as befell Anwar Sadat and others who have collaborated with the "Zionist entity."
But Arafat need not compromise. He has no reason to. He is now and will forever be the Palestinian leader. We guarantee it.
— James S. Robbins is a national-security analyst & NRO contributor.
nationalreview.com |
