30 May 2007

It is a matter of history that direct Palestinian-Israeli peace talks have never come close to resolving the two sides' conflict since it began in 1947-1948. With Palestinians and Israelis so far apart on the fundamentals in terms of settling their conflict, it has always been necessary to inject a third party to jumpstart negotiations, even if this too has not met with great success.

Indeed, the first such attempt met with violent failure. The United Nations mediator, Count Folke Bernadotte, made a daring effort in 1948 to mediate the differences between the two antagonists and propose an equitable solution. He was assassinated by a Jewish terrorist group because his plan would have ended the Zionist dream of further expansion and usurpation of Palestinian land.

Yet those were years when emotions on both sides ran high and there was no room for compromise. While emotions still run high, current conditions are more favorable for arbitration, especially with both peoples worn out from decades of conflict, suffering and instability. In the intervening years, furthermore, mediation has succeeded between Egypt and Israel.

What put the seal of approval on the Camp David accords was not only the intervention of US President Jimmy Carter, but also the two countries' conviction that war was no longer a tenable strategic option. Israel wanted Egypt out of the Arab-Israel equation due to its conviction that a regional war would never take place without Egypt. With Egypt effectively neutralized, Israel no longer had any real fear of a wider war. Egypt was also tired of war and wanted to look inward for change to address the colossal problems that its increasing population was posing. Poverty and unemployment became the real enemy of Egypt.

But Israel forgot one important thing: while regional war is not likely without Egypt, regional peace is also not probable without Syria. In fact, the wider Arab dimension is important if any future mediation between the two sides is going to bear fruit.

The last serious attempt at mediation between the Palestinians and Israel was when US President Bill Clinton used his good offices to attempt to broker a peace plan. He did not get far in his efforts, essentially because he did not enjoy the total confidence of the Palestinian side and because the two peoples were not yet ready for the necessary compromises. Clinton built on the Oslo accords. Oslo, however, failed partly because neither Palestinians nor Israelis offered their full support; but also because the accords left the core issues for later, in the false hope that momentum generated by solving smaller issues would prepare the ground.

Does this mean that Israelis and Palestinians can never get their act together without third-party intervention or mediation? The answer must be yes, even if the two sides have tried foreign mediation and failed. Perhaps, then, the time is ripe for Arab mediation.

Jordan is in a unique position to mediate between Israel and the Palestinians. Bolstered by an Arab peace initiative that was endorsed by the entire Arab world during the recent Riyadh summit, King Abdullah II can now convincingly approach the table with a comprehensive Arab mandate to broker peace.

It is a role the Arab world should endorse. Unlike other Arab countries except Egypt, Jordan already has a peace treaty and diplomatic relations with Israel. Furthermore, Jordan's own national strategic interests are at stake and will be immeasurably bolstered by a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Jordan wants its western flank secured as soon as possible.

Furthermore, Jordanian and Palestinian national interests coincide. Palestinians want an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza, while Jordan wants stability and security in the Palestinian territories and Israel. Abdullah, like his father King Hussein, enjoys the confidence of the Israelis who know peace between Jordan and Israel serves the strategic interests of both countries, and that Jordan therefore wants nothing less than a secure Israel.

Thus, if anyone is in a position to mediate in good faith, it is Jordan. Abdullah was on the verge of traveling to Israel last month to advance peace talks between the Palestinians and Israelis. Freak weather conditions led to the cancellation of the visit, but the king seems ready to resume the effort, once political (and weather) conditions are more favorable.

However, to be an effective mediator, Abdullah must cultivate warmer relations with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Ismail Haniyya. The deep divisions between Fatah and Hamas render any attempt at mediation between the Palestinians and Israelis impossible. If Abdullah can seal an understanding with the Hamas-led Palestinian government and win its confidence, the king would be well positioned to act as mediator between the two factions. This would enhance his credibility to be a mediator between Palestinians and Israelis.

To this end, the Syrian dimension has to be invoked. Damascus has strong leverage with the Palestinians and its consent to mediation efforts by Jordan is indispensable. This means there should be a parallel peace process on the Syrian front. While leaving the Palestinian-Israeli track in the hands of Jordanian mediators, a mediation effort needs to be launched on the Syrian front by another Arab state, which is where Egypt plays an important role.

Abdullah is desperate to convince Israel to accept the Arab peace plan. In his talks with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Aqaba recently, the Jordanian monarch tried his best to sell the plan by pointing out its virtues for both Israel and the Palestinians. Time is not on the side of either party, the king warned Olmert.

Olmert in turn may want to salvage his own political fortunes in Israel after the setback of last summer's war in Lebanon. The best way to do so would be by attempting peace for his own people and giving a chance to the most promising peace plan on the table. Olmert appears hesitant. But with more prodding, especially from Jordan, he might be amenable to well-intentioned advice.

Waleed Sadi is a former Jordanian ambassador to Turkey and the United Nations and other international organizations in Geneva. He is currently a columnist for The Jordan Times and Al-Rai newspapers. This commentary first appeared at bitterlemons-international.org, an online newsletter.