BICOM

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week visited Israel and the Palestinian territories.  Her visit included meetings with key officials from the government of Israel, and from the new Palestinian Authority government created on the West Bank.  On the Israeli side, Secretary Rice met with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, President Shimon Peres, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defence Minister Ehud Barak.  From the new PA government, she met with Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and sat in on a meeting with the new PA Cabinet.  What were the key aspects of the Rice visit, and should the visit be considered of significance in terms of efforts to revive the peace process? 

Key aspects of the visit 

Condoleezza Rice’s visit to the Middle East lasted four days, of which a day was spent in Israel (Wednesday, 1/8), and a day was spent in the West Bank (Thursday, 2/8).  Prior to her arrival in Israel, she visited Egypt and Saudi Arabia.  Her arrival in Israel coincided with an encouraging statement by Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal that Saudi Arabia supported the US initiative to hold a major peace conference on the Middle-East conflict.¹ Saudi Arabia, al-Faisal said, would be keen to attend such a conference.  Since Saudi Arabia has not recognised Israel, and has hitherto avoided all open contact with Israeli representatives, this statement was understood to indicate a significant shift in the kingdom’s stance.  The statement followed an announcement of a major US-Saudi arms deal worth $11 billion.² 

In Israel, officials were cautiously enthusiastic regarding the chances for a successful return to the diplomatic process between Israelis and Palestinians.  President Shimon Peres contended that with US help and guidance, he believed that Israelis and Palestinians could now begin the ‘conclusive chapter’ of negotiations.  Other senior Israeli officials took a more careful tone.  Both Prime Minister Olmert and Foreign Minister Livni noted the goodwill gestures that Israel has already taken vis-à-vis the new PA government – namely, the recent release of a number of prisoners, and the release of tax monies held by Israel since the Hamas election victory in January 2006.  PM Olmert made clear that handing over security control of any part of the West Bank to the new PA government would depend on Israel receiving the appropriate security guarantees.³ 

At the same time, the prime minister introduced the idea that he could make genuine progress with Chairman Abbas in the build-up to the conference by working together on a joint ‘declaration of principles’, which would form the basis for later negotiations on a final status accord.  As envisaged by Olmert, the declaration of principles would outline the contours of a future Palestinian state – while leaving for later the negotiations on key issues such as the 1948 Palestinian refugees, and the future status of Jerusalem.  Foreign Minister Livni also stated that in her view, it was essential that dialogue between the sides commenced, while at the same time it would be unwise to put ‘the most sensitive issues first.’⁴ 

In the days preceding the visit, a substantial increase of US military aid to Israel was announced, totaling $30 billion over the next decade. 

In the PA areas, Chairman Abbas expressed his willingness to work on the ‘declaration of principles’, but made clear that for Palestinians, it was ‘important to know what the result will be, what the end game will be.’  While in Ramallah, Rice signed off on a pledge of aid worth $80 million, to help the new PA government develop its security structures.⁵ 

Significance of the visit 

The Rice visit is being seen as part of an ambitious new US strategy in the Middle East.  This strategy centres on a perception of a renewed ‘cold war’ in the region between the US and its allies on the one hand, and Iran and its clients on the other.  The US wishes to create a bloc of moderate, stable pro-western states in the region to contain Iran and its ambitions.  Finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or at least building up a credible, popular alternative on the West Bank to the Hamas entity in Gaza, is an essential part of this strategy.

The international conference on the conflict, expected to take place in the late autumn, as well as the (already achieved) initiation of regular meetings between PM Olmert and Chairman Abbas form essential aspects of this strategy.  Whether real progress will be made in this area depends on a number of factors.   

In the first place, the success of the new Palestinian Authority government in extending its authority throughout the fractured Palestinian political scene, and crucially in carrying out security reform, will have a key impact in terms of making possible Israeli goodwill gestures in the area of freedom of movement and access on the West Bank.  Such gestures from Israel, in turn, will play an important part in solidifying popular support for the Fayyad government.  Senior Palestinian officials are not currently optimistic regarding the ability of Fatah to deliver reforms.  Indeed, there remains a high level of frustration at the inability to carry out even basic changes.⁶

Secondly, while neither side currently has an interest in stressing this, there is a significant divide between the position of the government of Israel, which does not wish to move swiftly toward talks on final status issues, and that of the Abbas/Fayyad government, which wants to move quickly toward such talks.  This issue may prove a complicating factor once form turns to substance in the contacts between Olmert and Abbas.  Neither Abbas nor Olmert are leaders possessing very great credibility among their publics.  Could they sell the kind of concessions necessary to produce a final status accord – for example, on such issues as the 1948 refugees and the future status of Jerusalem?⁷ On the other hand, some analysts consider that the relative weakness of the internal positions of the two leaders may actually prove advantageous.  Both leaders need success on the issue, and each needs the other to achieve this.  Perhaps, therefore, a dynamic of cooperation may develop which may take the process forward, in spite of the current modest expectations of the leading actors.  

Thirdly, the problematic continued existence of Hamas rule in Gaza serves to complicate any renewed negotiation, since it raises the issue of who exactly is represented by the Abbas/Fayyad government.  Would a deal reached with them mark the end of the conflict? Or would the government find itself vulnerable to claims from Hamas that it had proved excessively conciliatory, and that it had no authority to negotiate with Israel?

All these issues remain as potential tripwires. Yet the visit of Condoleezza Rice, and the broader new US regional strategy of which they form a part, constitute the boldest move toward a revival of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process since its collapse seven years ago. 

---

¹ “Rice urges deeper Mid-East talks,” Reuters, 2/8. www.reuters.com

² Leslie Susser, “Isral on board with US arms plan,” JTA, 3/8. www.virtualjerusalem.com

³ Eric Silver, “Rice: Israel ready to discuss fundamental issues with Fatah,” Independent on Sunday, 3/8. news.independent.co.uk

⁴ “Rice urges push on Mid-East peace,” BBC News Online, 1/8. news.bbc.co.uk

⁵ “US promises Palestinians a conference of substance,” Associated Press, 2/8. http://www.iht.com

⁶ Conversation with senior PA official, July, 2007. 

⁷ Silver.