Holding elections to choose a successor to a late and unlamented terrorist chieftain was really anticlimactic since the outcome was assured. While it was orderly enough, it was essentially a sham contest which drew a swarm of international monitors with really nothing to do. Such travesties are the way Arab dictatorships such as Egypt and Syria perpetuate themselves. Those Arab countries ruled by hereditary monarchs don't even have to bother going through the motions. So actually the Palestinian election, by comparison, was a step in the right direction.

The question now, with the selection of the great moderate hope, Mahmoud Abbas, is what should we expect? The short answer, unfortunately is - not much. In fact, the results of the elections were met in Israel with a big yawn, with President Bush's invitation to Abbas receiving the most attention. Given that the new raïs' own words on the coronation trail the past few weeks (when he should ostensibly have been on his best behavior) were indications of where he is headed, we can be quite certain we will not see any significant movement toward genuine peacemaking. Abbas made it clear that he will not use force against fellow Palestinians to halt terror attacks against Israel. His only criticism of armed attacks against Israel was that the timing was wrong and made for bad PR.

No doubt, however, Abu Mazen presents a kinder and gentler face to the world, as opposed to his predecessor, whose visage only a (nearsighted) mother could have loved. But it is highly doubtful that this Abu will be able to temper the Palestinian's maximalist demands and their penchant for terrorism to achieve their goals. Ignoring the experience of the past ten years of "peace processing", the danger to Israel is that even a well-meaning American administration will attempt to bolster Abu Mazen's stature and authority by pressing Israel for further unilateral concessions. The question, however, is to what end? The Palestinians have become masters at using their weakness and victimology to gain economic and political support. And even in Israel, there are still a sizable number who when it comes to dealing with the Palestinians fit into Churchill's description of entering into a second marriage - "the triumph of hope over experience." Despite their numerous solemn assurances to oppose terror and end incitement, good faith efforts by Palestinian leadership have been abysmally lacking.

But for the so-called "peace camp" in Israel, hope always springs eternal, despite the reality of having to coexist with an entire generation of Palestinians nurtured on the hatred of Israel and Jews. No one personifies the tenaciousness of this forlorn hope more than the 81-year-old comeback kid, Shimon Peres. A chance meeting with Peres earlier this week in Tel-Aviv found the new Deputy Prime Minister looking healthier, and sounding confident and more optimistic than ever that peace was at hand. For Peres, it seems peace is always just around the corner if only Israel would just try a bit harder and be willing to give away more.

Most of the commentary here in Washington on what is universally described as a window of opportunity has been focused on what Israel must do, since expectations about changes in Palestinian behavior are so low. There has been much talk about the advisability of an imposed settlement on both sides. But we have seen how such an agreement would invariably be based on Palestinian assurances that they would either be unwilling or unable to fulfill. The two most notable proponents recently of a get-tough approach with Israel have been Brent Scowcroft and Zbignew Brzezinski. As former National Security Advisers to Bush Senior and Jimmy Carter respectively, they have bipartisan appeal. This duo has been appearing together to publicly put the onus on Israel not only for being insufficiently forthcoming, but for dragging us into the war in Iraq.

Scowcroft recently publicly proclaimed that "Ariel Sharon has him [President Bush] wrapped around his finger." And Brzezinski, appearing with his new buddy on CNN's Late Edition, endorsed this view and charged that going to war in Iraq was pushed by "a bunch of fanatics" whom he described as "people who either for religious or strategic reasons have a very one-sided view of Iraq and of the Middle East." When pressed by the show's host, Wolf Blitzer, if Brzezinski was obviously talking about Jews here, Brzezinski, realizing he was getting mired too deep in overt anti-Semitism, demurred. But this unmistakable reference here to those neocon Jews dragging us into war in Iraq in order to help Israel is being increasingly echoed by the likes of Pat Buchanan and other Jew-haters who are finding it easier to crawl out of the woodwork.

Only a week later, the same pair appeared together at the "New American Foundation" where Brzezinski described the war in Iraq as a moral, political and military failure. Parenthetically, one notes that as Carter's National Security Adviser, "Zbig" should know a great deal about all manners of failure. Given this anti-war, anti-Israel mindset, it is not surprising that they are openly advocating a U.S. peace plan to be imposed on Israel. As Scowcroft bluntly put it, "We have got to say this is it... we are the ones that have to impose it."

So far, however, there is no indication that the second Bush administration is in any hurry to pursue this path. The President has said he will be looking to see what changes there will be in Palestinian behavior. But having to deal in the next six months with elections in Iraq and its aftermath along with Iran's pursuit of nukes (and its own "elections" in June) could forestall any great attention with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What happens between now and the end of the summer may well determine the shape of the Middle East for years to come. For a President who has expressed the desire to tackle domestic problems in his second term, it looks like developments overseas will dominate his agenda. And we have not even cited other problem areas in the Middle East - such as Saudi Arabia or Syria - and the various terrorist organizations.

Unfortunately, much of the reporting and analysis we will be receiving in the days ahead will be filtered through our media, which, with some notable exceptions (e.g. Fox News and the Wall St. Journal) reflects the "blame America first", "cycle of violence" and "both sides" mentalities when it comes to viewing the Middle East. So it is important not to lose sight of the big picture which has Israel continuing its quest for peace and accommodation, while facing Arab rejectionism and violence. But as long as a Tom Friedman can equate Arab terrorists with Israeli settlers lawfully opposing the disengagement plan, as he recently did, and still receive generous honoraria from Jewish audiences, it is obvious that many Jewish Americans professing to be supporters of Israel don't really get it. There may not be much good news in the months ahead as a number of grim scenarios unfold. But self-doubt (and self-flagellation) are poor substitutes for demonstrating pride in what two nations, the United States and Israel, will be trying to achieve during this gloomy period.

 
Morrie Amitay is a former Executive Director of AIPAC and founder of the pro-Israel Washington PAC (http://www.washingtonpac.com).

_________________________End of Story___________________________

HOME

Jam-Feb.2005 Featured Stories

January 2005 blog-eds

Background Information

News On The Web

Archives