Carter engineered the Camp David Accords and Egypts recognition of the State of Israel. Nonetheless, Mubarak has not even paid a state visit to Israel. Clinton experienced a resounding failure when Arafat backpedaled and rejected Ehud Baraks generous concessions while the Bush-Condi tandem had a spectacular failure with their much- vaunted Annapolis peace process a plan nobody had asked for.
Peace in the Middle East is something more than just one more plan as Obama is bound to learn. Neither can it depend on more Israeli concessions.
If Obama thinks that it is only a matter of putting more pressure on Jerusalem, he is wrong. Ehud Barak granted so many concessions that it cost him his job. Sharon withdrew unilaterally from the Gaza Strip and his accomplishment was to split the Right and his country, but he got no peace. Olmert was willing to do anything, including dividing Jerusalem, but he ended up fighting in a Gaza Strip controlled by Hamas.
Thus, it is the same if the American counterpart is a Democrat or a Republican; the same can be said if the Israeli counterpart belongs to Labour, the Center, or the Right. Nobody, regardless of ideology, has obtained anything. Could it be that the problem lies with the other side?
Arafat promised the moon while at the same time he was planting the seeds of hatred; Mahmoud Abbas is different, but his voice is unable to inspire moderation among his followers. In fact, the most recent Fatah assembly has only served to revisit the party's radical issues -- a path that has not led Palestinians to achieve their own state but down the road to misery instead.
Any plan that does not take these facts into consideration even if it is Obama's brainchild is doomed to fail.
2009 Translated by Miryam Lindberg
This article was first published by the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratgicos / Strategic Studies Group.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Google+