What’s so funny about peace, love and responsibility?

American efforts to bridge the gaps between Israel and the Palestinians to culminate in a summit at the end of November are being met by skepticism in the Arab and Muslim worlds according to Jeffrey Fleishman of the LA Times.

Posturing and recrimination often characterize such negotiations, but Arab nations, including Washington’s closest allies, are criticizing the November conference as a miscalculated photo op by a Bush administration desperate to repair its image in the Middle East.

“This is not an effort to save the Palestinians, it’s an attempt to prop up the administration’s very low standing in the Arab world,” said Mustafa Alani, an analyst with the Gulf Research Center in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. “Saudi Arabia and other Washington allies will lose a lot of credibility if this is just to take part in an American show.”Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice plans a visit to the region this week aimed at persuading Arab countries to send at least ministry-level officials to the meeting in Annapolis, Md. But analysts and media in the Middle East complain that the U.S. has not done the diplomatic legwork needed to advance peace between Palestinians and Israelis. Preliminary talks between the two sides are at an impasse.

The article emphasizes the Arab weakness and parrots the line that the failure of the summit would only “embolden the extremists.” (It seems that every “successful” Israeli peace effort – such as withdrawing from Lebanon or from Gaza, or allowing Fatah into Gaza and Jericho – has “emboldened the extremists” too, so how failure would differ from success is unclear.)

The New York Times reports

With time running out on his tenure, President Bush has called for an international conference to be held in the United States this fall as part of a renewed push to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, trying to leave a legacy that has enticed and eluded his predecessors.In Ramallah, Ms. Rice, on her seventh trip to the region this year, described Mr. Bush’s initiative as “the most serious effort to end this conflict in many, many years.” In some of her strongest language yet, she said, “Frankly, it’s time for the establishment of a Palestinian state.”

The Times also includes this gratuitous bit:

Appearing with Ms. Rice at the Palestinian Authority compound in Ramallah — which Israeli forces battered in 2002 as his predecessor, Yasir Arafat, was holed up inside, and which has been partly rebuilt — Mr. Abbas reiterated that even the initial document must address the most contentious issues.

Israel did not simply batter the “muqata.” It was fighting a war that was instigated by Arafat and the Palestinian Authority.

The Washington Post reports

Rice arrived this week facing deep skepticism among Arabs and Israelis about such lofty statements, especially given what many here regard as the administration’s past disengagement from the issue — a position Rice flatly rejected today. With great interest by both sides in her visit, Rice and senior American officials are trying to tamp down expectations about what can be accomplished in the near term, nervous that a conspicuous failure to pull off the peace conference could spark new violence in the Palestinian territories or have other unforeseen consequences.

The fear that a summit’s failure would spark violence, again, is indicative of what’s wrong with all these “peace efforts.” If these “peace efforts” were to be successful, violence would not be a problem in the event of failure, as, officially, the Palestinians have abjured violence and committed themselves to the political process. Of course that never happened. While it’s certainly not unreasonable to fear Hamas now, it was Arafat of the “moderate” PA who decided to keep violence as an option despite his signed commitment to the contrary.

The other reason that “peace efforts” fail, is that they’re not synonymous with coming to an acceptable resolution between the two parties, but with America pressuring Israel into concessions. The Palestinians (and the Arab and Muslim worlds supporting them) want to avoid negotiation. They will claim that they are too weak for concessions and demand that Israel accede to all their demands. In fact, they (and especially the Palestinians) are too weak for anything, as Deja Vu notes:

Worried Israelis listening to their hapless prime minister announce that Jerusalem is on the table cannot but join Barry Rubin in asking: And what do we get? “After all,” as he points out, “Israel is negotiating with people who have no control over much of the territory or people on whose behalf they speak.” So how can it give Israel what it wants, security, i.e., peace? It cannot even if it wanted and it is doubtful it wants.

And that’s because the “peace process” is never about Israel. It’s defined solely by the creation of a Palestinian according Palestinian specifications. So why doesn’t the State Department take a step and ask what the United States gains from a Palestinian state that is handed to the PA on a silver platter? Why are Palestinian demands sacrosanct and Israeli concerns dismissed? Why is nothing of substance required of the Palestinians?

Four years ago 3 State Department employees were killed in Gaza. To date nothing has been done to bring their murderers to justice. Wouldn’t this be a good time for the American government to insist on justice?

The American government missed the opportunity to threaten the closure of the PLO office for not fighting terror. But the American government ought to use the failure of the PLO (the “moderates”) to hold the murderers accountable as leverage.

The government can argue that a Palestinian state is in American interests. But that rings hollow when American aid workers are killed by Palestinians with impunity. It can argue that a Palestinian state will lead to peace. But that argument doesn’t withstand the fact that the Palestinians allow immunity to terrorists. And it can argue that a Palestinian state is good for the Palestinians. But that also doesn’t stand up if the Palestinian can’t govern themselves.

Making the satisfactory resolution of this case a basis for any further diplomatic recognition of the PA would be a necessary step in the right direction. More than anything else it would show that the American government is serious about peace and a Palestinian state. It would add the element of Palestinian responsibility to the list of requirement necessary for mid-East peace.

Unfortunately, it looks like the American government is more interested in pacifying the Arab palaces than in creating the conditions necessary for peace in the Middle East.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.