http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=1183
NEXT WEEK’S Annapolis conference will be more important in what happens afterwards, a leading expert has claimed.
Speaking to Religious Intelligence, Prof Shai Feldman, director of the Crown Center at Brandeis University, said that it was unrealistic to expect a ‘monumental drama’ to come out of the US-sponsored conference in Maryland aimed at re-starting the Middle East peace process.
“I think the hope is for a credible process in the months afterwards. The best to hope for is that it turns out to be a type of Madrid conference. The photo opportunity is important, because effective photos also send a signal that there is hope. But the real importance is whether it launches a serious process.”
He drew a parallel with the Madrid conference which set the scene for the Oslo Accords two years later. However, he said he believes that all the parties involved are already working behind the scenes on laying the ground for some sort of agreement. “The parties are hoping to conclude some kind of document. And if the US expectations are that they get the Saudis, Egyptians and Jordanians at the conference, then any agreement will have regional legitimacy.”
Prof Feldman argued that the best scenario was for those at the talks to concentrate on the practical applications. He said that these were more realistic than to go into the detail of an agreement on principles, largely because these were insurmountable in the short-term. As an example, he pointed out that in the ‘holy basin’ the question of principle was one of sovereignty. “The Palestinians demand that the Israelis recognise their sovereignty, but that is a non-starter for the Israelis. Just as the Palestinians will never accept Israeli sovereignty.”
One solution, he suggested, was to announce that God is sovereign over the holy basin. “In many ways that is the most elegant solution, so you go around the problem.” But he warned that to engage with the central principles, of sovereignty of Jerusalem, the right of return of refugees, and so on, the conference is likely to get bogged down.
Yesterday the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert signalled his hopes for the Annapolis conference after meeting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. “There will be difficult differences of opinion and crises and arguments, but I am optimistic that if we act with caution and responsibility, there is a chance that in the end we will reach an agreement.”
And the involvement of the new Israeli President, Shimon Peres, could be important, said Prof Feldman. “He is important, his attitude is very positive. Even though the Government leads the process, Israeli presidents tend to be mostly ceremonial. However, because of his unparalleled experience his is more than a ceremonial role. He has a global standing. I don’t expect him to play a major role, but he creates the kind of environment and atmospherics that it positive.”
But complicating the situation for the Palestinians is the power split between Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza. He believes that the chances of Fatah regaining the upper hand in the West Bank are ‘very slim’. “First of all, for the foreseeable future the anger in Fatah about what happened in Gaza doesn’t really yield the basis for rapprochement. Hamas first has to reverse situation they created on June 15 for a dialogue to start. The view in Fatah is that Hamas must first reverse the situation and then talk about how we co-exist.
“That view might not last forever, but right now the anger in Fatah is huge.” Central to this is the Islamist direction of Hamas, reflected in other Islamist movements in the region. Prof Feldman said that the question is whether the Islamic parties or movements can be engaged with. “Where are they heading: to enforce Sharia on society, which means that non-Muslims have no role in that society?
“This is a big issue in Egypt right now about the Muslim Brotherhood. There is a large Christian Coptic community in Egypt. In their last document the Muslim Brothers recognised certain religions but they refused to recognise others, like the Baha’i faith. The same question is whether Hamas will continue to adhere to idea of enforcing Sharia on Palestinian society. If not, what role do Christians have?”
Although the situation between the Palestinians and Israel is key to the Annapolis conference, America also has several other concerns in the region. And perhaps the most pressing concerns Iran’s determination to secure a nuclear capability. Prof Feldman says this poses a ‘big problem’.
He points out that in the last two years several developments have made matters worse. “While the previous Iranian government attempted to get to the same point, of the potential to get nuclear capability, they were more pragmatic. If they faced a united European front against them, they would call a freeze and have dialogue. From the Iranian standpoint they felt good that they didn’t face a total veto, but could still work towards their aims. This pressure from Europe — especially Europe — managed to persuade them to slow down this stampede.”
However, since then their negotiating position has become much more rigid. Their chief negotiator has been replaced by a more hardline mediator. And the previous, relatively reform-minded President has been replaced by Ahmadinejad. “When you look at what he has said about Israel’s destruction and denial of the Holocaust and so on, this is a serious turn for the negative when you have a leader who says that another state in the region is illegitimate. You have big problems there.”
However, he points out that Ahmadinejad is coming under increasing pressure at home, and not only from the students and reformers. The conservatives are also raising their concerns, mainly about the economic mismanagement of the country. “Here is a country that sits on top of one of the largest oil reserves, yet rations gasoline.” Prof Feldman adds that there is disquiet that the government’s commitment to the nuclear issue is isolating the country from the rest of the world.
That will not be on the agenda at Annapolis, but so far the West – and America in particular – has tried to deal with the Iranian issue through sanctions. But does he think that other, military, solutions might be addressed? “The only question is at what point the West will say ‘we have tried everything and it hasn’t been enough’. All this talk about war with Iran is premature. I don’t think America is eager to do it around the corner. They have enough problems with Iraq.
“But I actually do think that something might happen after the [American Presidential] elections and before the [current administration] leaves office. They will have to convince the American people they have done everything. But there seems to be growing support in America for military action – not a war – against Iran.”
But whatever happens to Iran, what are the options in terms of foreign policy on offer to the next American President? Prof Feldman points out that the current leading Democrat candidate, Hillary Clinton, is accused by her main rival, Barack Obama, of failing to offer an alternative Bush. “His standpoint is that she is not advocating any change that will allow a focus on domestic issues. He takes a different view from her, particularly in the issue on engaging with Iran. Which I take as basically saying he wants to figure out for himself whether he can do anything. He is not signalling any sort of isolationist policy.
“The biggest question for the next President is what to do with Iraq. Even if you accept that certain areas have been stabilised by the surge, and that casualties have been reduced, then none of these more positive developments would have occurred without America increasing its presence. But what happens if they start disengaging? How much of this will survive? “On that score none of them are offering any clear alternatives. Obama has said there are no good options. And none of the Republicans are saying anything interesting.”
He continued: “The second issue is what will happen before they take office regarding Iran. No president will have the option of disengaging from this problem. There is America’s real interest: oil. Everyone in the region is scared about Iran. The smaller GCC states will be saying we need you to be here. After the Iraq war Iran is the only major power in the region. Their message to Washington is ‘You made this problem, you fix it.’
