A New Realism on the Mideast

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright didn’t quite slam the door behind her after she ended her unproductive talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders the other day, but she did vent her frustrations with a message that refreshingly refused to pretend the tottering peace process had been propped up by her on-site diplomacy. There was, she said, no point in her again trying to bridge the gaping differences between the two sides until they themselves were ready to take steps to rebuild mutual confidence. “I am not going to come back here just to tread water,” she said, reflecting a new and notable realism in U.S. policy.

This was softened, though not reversed, by Albright’s statements Monday that spun a more favorable outlook. Speaking to reporters, she said, “We are moving in the right direction.”

The realism that marked the secretary’s earlier remarks grows from a sense that until Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority head Yasser Arafat show they are unalterably committed to reaching a feasible settlement, the American role as sponsor of the peace process can be little more than symbolic.

Netanyahu and Arafat both, of course, insist they are dedicated to ending the conflict. And, deep down, maybe each accepts the pragmatic imperative to make compromises, to share disputed land, to erect the framework for two peoples to live side by side in peace, if not immediately in amity. But their words and deeds repeatedly contradict this. Arafat condemns terrorism even as he publicly kisses the leader of Hamas. Netanyahu promises to respect the Oslo accords and then ignores key provisions for the timely turnover of tax revenues and land to the Palestinian Authority.

Although Washington continues to strongly encourage Israeli-Palestinian peace, the sense of strategic urgency that once made this conflict a central concern of American diplomacy has subsided. The end of the Cold War has all but erased the risk of a major new Arab-Israeli war and the dangers to U.S. regional and even global interests it might produce. The greater threat to peace and to U.S. interests now comes from farther east, from the ambitions of Iran and Iraq and what these might bode for the stability of the Persian Gulf and the security of its oil supplies.

The United States of course wants an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it stands ready to facilitate that process. But only, as Albright has properly made clear, when the leaders of the two peoples have finally produced a climate in which the mediator can work.