Prisoners of Politics

Jimmy Carter met with Hamas leaders earlier this month. Has his dialogue with them been beneficial to the peace efforts?
It hasn't had much of an effect. His visit was kind of like a key to an empty room, because I think he's not really relevant right now to the two potentially significant things that are underway … I don't think Carter is going to hurt or help either of those efforts. A lot of people think the sky is falling now that Carter has done what he's done. I don't think it's that consequential.

Over the past few months, is it possible to say when the talks broke down?
They never broke down, because they never got moving. It was easy to guess what would happen: the big, noisy event would go away and Abbas and Olmert would continue the discussions they started. In other words, Annapolis didn't even produce the Abbas-Olmert dialogue. That started five months before. But Annapolis gave greater weight in the real world to the visuals and the possibility that the Arab-Israeli peace process was back on track. It's a little more on track than it was, and if Olmert and Abbas actually do produce a few pages that lay out the broad principles on Jerusalem and security, it will be a breakthrough, but the U.S. will not have facilitated that process.

The administration couldn't have intended for U.S. mediation to simply fade away.
Well, for the first six years of his presidency, George W. Bush never invested significantly in this issue. Governing in Washington is about choosing your priorities. The administration chose different priorities. To give them the benefit of the doubt that he's now seriously interested in this process in the wake of Annapolis, it's becoming increasingly clear that they hope Abbas and Olmert will work out something on their own, they hope the Egyptians will broker some deal that brings a modicum of stability, and they hope they won't have to get involved in a messy, sticky problem that they know cannot be resolved right now.

What should America be doing to more effectively steer negotiations?
We could take a tougher position on settlements, but we won't do that, only because it's just not George Bush's way, intuitively and instinctively. There's not a whole lot we can do. But also I wouldn't call for a more robust American role right now. I think now and for the next six weeks Abbas and Olmert should see how far they can get. Let the Egyptians try to hammer out a ceasefire. Then make an assessment.

That sounds like a lot of time to sit idly by.
Look, at all costs this administration must avoid the fundamental mistakes of its predecessor, which is to do too much too late in the game, and call for some high-wire summit. Because if they do that and they fail, they will kill the idea of a two-state solution to this conflict.

Which other regional leaders could play a hand?
America is the key, because no other prospective mediator has relations with both sides. That's why the E.U., the Russians and the Brits have never been able to effect mediation. For 40 years the agreements that have been produced have all largely been done through American mediation, with others playing subsidiary or derivative roles. No one else really has the trust of both sides.

© 2008