Arab-Israeli Peace -- Stuck in Neutral

Yasser Arafat lies buried in a parking lot in Ramallah, and prospects for the Palestinian cause seem as flat and black as the asphalt surrounding his makeshift tomb.

There are many who are still pressing for big-time, end-game diplomacy, but reality argues otherwise. Four years of bloody conflict have left Palestinians and Israelis wary and bitter, and both sides seem unable or unwilling at the moment to strike the grand bargain necessary to end their conflict.

If the Oslo peace process was a religion for believers, then the process launched at the Sharm el Sheik summit last month was more a business proposition for pragmatists. But such is the fate reserved for peoples whose leaders pass up or bungle the rare moments of opportunity history provides.

Right now, the Middle East is rocked by much bigger ideas and possibilities than ending the shepherds’ war between Israelis and Palestinians. A much criticized U.S. invasion has traumatized the entire region and awoken a political culture that’s been in a coma for half a century. That the fairest and freest elections ever held in the Arab world took place in Palestine and Iraq under Israeli and U.S. military occupations attest not only to the depth of dysfunction in Arab politics but also to the hunger for change.

The assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri has galvanized public opinion against the Syrian presence there. This turn of events may prove devastating to Syrian power and prestige. And it could trigger, over time, changes within Syria that could end the era of the Assads.

These new forces have been brewing in the Arab world for a while now. Transitions from fathers to sons in Syria, Jordan and Morocco have both raised expectations for change and weakened the capacity of traditional structures to resist it. The longtime debate between the haves and have-nots over economics has been joined by a new one between the cans and the cannots over politics -- those who can participate in choosing their legislators, politicians and leaders and those who cannot.

This conversation will be a long one and will play out in time, most likely with considerable trauma. But there’s no turning back now. Arab regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and elsewhere whose political legitimacy has been questioned will probably be forced to co-opt, suppress or give in to growing pressure for more transparency and participation in governance. Arab publics shudder in the face of the chaos and lawlessness of change in Iraq, but they are fascinated by the peaceful demonstrations in Lebanon that have forced a much stronger power to change its policies.

What do these changes mean for the Palestinian issue? On one level, the new focus on democratization may well impel some of these regimes to employ an old device: seeking to divert attention from meaningful reform by turning up the rhetoric on the Palestine issue.

But these tactics won’t succeed in returning the Palestinian issue to center stage anytime soon. Simply put, there’s almost no chance for a grand bargain now, and everyone, including the Arabs, knows it. Israel’s historic decision to leave Gaza will most likely lead to a period of consolidation, not dramatic advance. Israel will need time to heal the self-inflicted political wounds of withdrawal; Palestinians will have their hands full managing Gaza. And the Bush administration, whose policies during its first term helped downgrade the Palestinian issue, is not likely to go for broke during its second. The administration believes (with some justification) that its benign neglect and pressure on the Palestinians to reform helped set the stage for progress.

That the Palestinian issue has lost its centrality -- at least for now -- is undeniable. It will continue to resonate as a unifying force in a deeply divided Arab world. But in the absence of truly bold leadership from Israelis, Palestinians and Americans, the future looks pretty grim.

Consider the options: The old game -- pushing for a conflict-ending, two-state solution -- won’t work now. And the interim game, with its focus on gradualism, is a management strategy only. That leaves only the new game with its emphasis on drift, maneuver, unilateral actions and mounting demographic pressures. And how that game will likely end should not surprise anyone.