Impasse Begs American Involvement

If you want a glimpse of the gulf that separates Israelis and Palestinians these days, consider the two groups’ differing perceptions of Israel’s bombing of Hamas leader Salah Shehada last month.

Shehada, along with 14 innocent bystanders, nine of them children, was killed and his residence leveled when the Israelis dropped a one-ton bomb from an F-16 fighter jet. For many Israelis and their supporters worldwide, the bombing was a legitimate response to the ongoing wave of suicide bombings.

Palestinians, along with many critics of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Israel and elsewhere, saw the attack as a deliberate attempt to torpedo the Palestinian cease-fire. They asserted that the Gaza strike offered more evidence that Sharon is opposed to peace and will subvert any move that could lead to a demand for Israeli concessions.

One sad irony of the current impasse is a report that, 90 minutes before the attack, members of the Tanzim militant organization, an offshoot of Fatah with connections to suicide bombings inside Israel, agreed to announce a cease-fire.

Of course many Israelis believe that the cease-fire report was yet another case of Palestinian trickery--or, at best, well-meaning talk by powerless and irrelevant figures. But regardless of perception, many ask why Israel did not take this latest initiative seriously enough to at least pause before carrying out the bombing.

Sharon insists that Shehada had a history of ignoring Palestinian calls for cessation of attacks on civilians and that at the time of his death he was actively preparing major attacks against Israeli civilian targets. And the prime minister did not order this strike on his own; Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, both of the left-wing opposition Labor Party, gave full support to the operation.

The simple truth here is that after two years of violence, an unprecedented 12 months of constant suicide bombings and a daily stream of foiled terror attacks that do not make headlines, the Israelis no longer trust talk of a cease-fire. Nor do Palestinians see much cause to trust that things will get better.

All of which raises an important question: Could U.S. diplomacy have changed the course of events leading up to the Shehada bombing? While it’s hard to be sure, the details of that incident expose a dangerous vacuum of communication, one that might well be filled by a hands-on American team in the region.

Lack of trust is not limited to relations between the Israelis and Palestinians. A European Union representative had briefed the Israeli government on the cease-fire talks before the strike. But the EU, which in recent months has swung its sympathies solidly behind the Palestinians, has little credibility in Israel. (One recent poll asking whom the Israelis would accept as participants in a possible international mediation force found the French ranking lower than the Egyptians, Jordanians and Saudis.) There is no question that Israeli leaders would have looked differently at the Palestinian negotiations had they been briefed by an American rather than a European.

Since President Bush called for a change in the Palestinian leadership in late June, the United States has stepped back from involvement in day-to-day negotiations on the ground. We are ostensibly waiting until the Palestinians restructure their institutions and hold new elections, but it’s hard to say how elections would change anything, as the winner would most likely be Yasser Arafat. In the absence of U.S. engagement, any promising openings are left to the mediation of the EU or the United Nations, both of which are currently unable to effectively communicate with the Israelis.

The result is the sort of diplomatic chaos that lends itself to disasters like the Gaza bombing and allows potential opportunities to be destroyed before they’re given a chance. While it’s not certain that a strong American presence could have changed the course of events, it might have made a real difference.

One idea would be to have a permanent, American-led, multilateral delegation on the ground, which would consist of representatives of the new “quartet” (the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia) as well as other countries like Japan, Canada or Australia--possibly even Egypt and Jordan--contributing to Palestinian welfare. They would form a team that would coordinate the various security, diplomatic, political and economic initiatives now underway and monitor compliance with any practical measures--however limited--one or both sides undertook.

Both parties would have an incentive to cooperate. Israel, which remains in charge in the territories, clearly has an interest in seeing security measures enhanced, humanitarian assistance to Palestinians improved and institutional reforms established. The government has voiced support for each of these policies and has started taking practical measures, such as the increased access to Palestinian areas for international aid groups announced last week.

The Palestinians have always favored international involvement--the more the better. Moreover, their plight is so severe now that any potential assistance can only improve things.

An American-led delegation might not have prevented the bombing, but if a U.S. representative on the ground had concluded that the Palestinian cease-fire effort was genuine, that American mediator certainly would have held more sway with Sharon than the Europeans. This official, speaking with the full backing of the president and secretary of State, might have asked Sharon to at least delay the military action. It’s unlikely an Israeli prime minister would have refused such a request, even if he had doubts--especially now, when Israel is receiving strong support from the Bush administration.

From then on, the situation might have been different. Perhaps the Palestinian effort would have come to naught. But if it had been serious, an opportunity for progress could have been nurtured.

The U.S., as leader of a multinational delegation, could also play a more active role in preventing the continuing violence, in protecting Israel’s security, in improving Palestinian living conditions and in helping to reshape the Palestinian Authority. It might also help avoid the next mind-numbing disaster.