No deal

The Washington Post reports that the White House now acknowledges that there will be no Israeli-Palestinian deal before the end of the Bush administration. The Post describes some of what went on during the past year:

After the summit, Rice made nearly monthly trips to Israel and the Palestinian territories to encourage the two sides in their efforts, though she never appeared to be a hands-on negotiator. She also appointed three U.S. generals to assist with building up Palestinian security forces, to assess whether the two sides were meeting their commitments and to consider long-term security needs in a peace deal.

But the results were fairly opaque. Israeli and Palestinian officials said the talks were frank and open, but a written outline of an agreement never emerged. The work of the generals remained largely hidden from public review; one report said to be highly critical of Israel was never released.

Yes, the generals never like it when Israel keeps checkpoints. But they work! Nor do generals much care about how the PA encourages its citizens to live peacefully with Israel. Not.

The New York Times presents a slightly different perspective.

The Bush administration now seems reconciled to the idea of a less ambitious legacy.

“It is our expectation that the Annapolis process has laid groundwork which should make possible the establishment of a Palestinian state when the political circumstances permit,” Ms. Rice said.

Further the article notes:

At a joint news conference at the residence of the United States ambassador, both noted that when Mr. Bush entered office eight years ago, the second intifada, or Palestinian uprising, was raging. The importance of the Annapolis process lies not only in the political negotiations, they said, but in the efforts to build the institutions of Palestinian statehood as well.

“I think we need to remember that Annapolis came after seven years of intifada and terror, and after Hamas took control of Gaza,” Ms. Livni said.

If there’s a need to build Palestinian institutions, that doesn’t require Israel. But how well the institution building is going isn’t mentioned. So what does the future hold?

Ms. Livni is embarking on a campaign to replace Ehud Olmert, the departing prime minister. Mr. Olmert was forced to resign as the result of a growing corruption investigation. As leader of the centrist Kadima Party, Ms. Livni is likely to run on a peace process ticket.

Her main challenger is Benjamin Netanyahu, a former prime minister and the leader of Likud, the right-wing opposition party. Mr. Netanyahu does not favor the model of negotiating a two-state solution, arguing instead for building an “economic peace” between Israelis and Palestinians from the bottom up.

In other words Netanyahu does not trust the “top down” model of negotiating peace with the corrupt and ineffective PA. This would be consistent with what we saw from Netanyahu when he was PM, when he tried to advance the economic fortunes of the Palestinians. Whether or not President Obama will cooperate with this approach is unclear.

Finally there’s this:

Fatah and Hamas are supposed to start talks under Egyptian auspices aimed at reconciliation this weekend. A successful conclusion would probably mean some form of power-sharing, which could further complicate peace efforts; in the past, Israel has refused to deal with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas. But on Thursday, a top Hamas official said the group might boycott the talks because too few of its proposals were on the agenda, Reuters reported.

There’s another way to present that, “… Hams remains committed to Israel’s destruction so it’s hard to see how its cooperation with Fatah improves the chances for peace.”

See more at Daled Amos.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.