Yesterday David Ignatius wrote:
The game-changing events in the 2008 campaign are issues of war and peace. Both may be in play between now and November, in ways that add extra volatility to the presidential race.
And of course the “game changing” event in the Middle East that he refers to is peace:
The other wild card in the campaign is, happy to say, the possibility of Middle East peace negotiations. Bush administration officials continue to insist they have a chance of reaching an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement while Bush is in office. By this, they mean an agreement on paper — one that would codify the outlines of the two-state solution that was negotiated but never finally concluded during the last days of the Clinton administration. This “shelf agreement” could be endorsed by the U.N. Security Council and provide a baseline for continuing talks next year about implementation.A peace agreement — even one that has no practical effect on the ground — would be a feather in the cap for President Bush. But its political benefits for the GOP would be limited. Even a full-fledged peace treaty between Egypt and Israel failed to save Jimmy Carter from defeat at the polls in 1980. In that election, as perhaps this year, the Iranians played the role of spoilers.
Finally, there are noises offstage from Israel and Syria about a possible peace treaty. This would be the ultimate pragmatic bargain — Israel likes the stability that Bashar al-Assad’s military regime provides in Damascus, and it regards Syrian hegemony in Lebanon as an acceptable and perhaps desirable price. An important feature of the Syrian-Israeli dickering is that they have used Turkey as the key intermediary. If Turkey can broker peace between these two, it would reattach Ankara firmly to the Arab world for the first time since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1918.
Why Syria’s hegemony over Lebanon is acceptable to Israel, Ignatius doesn’t bother to explain. Still the visions of an Israeli surrender of territory really excites him.
Daniel Pipes thinks a little caution is in order.
The Middle East’s deep and wide political sickness points to the error of seeing the Arab-Israeli conflict as the motor force behind its problems. More sensible is to see Israel’s plight as the result of the region’s toxic politics. Blaming the Middle East’s autocracy, radicalism, and violence on Israel is like blaming the diligent school child for the gangs. Conversely, resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict means only solving that conflict, not fixing the region.
To David Ignatius and many other Middle East navel gazers, an Israeli-Arab peace treaty (no matter how useless) will be a transformative event. To Daniel Pipes it is the transformation of the Middle East that is a prerequisite for peace.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
