Holy Land awaits

JERUSALEM —  To: Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain

From: The Holy Land

Re: Well, it’s complicated. . .

So you’re competing to become the umpteenth American president burdened by the conflict over this hallowed patch of ground.

Like nearly every other candidate in recent decades, you make a pilgrimage here to show voters back home how much you care about peace and Israel’s security. Sen. McCain, your spring visit to Sderot, that rocket-battered Israeli town, was a striking gesture.

This week, Sen. Obama, the Holy Land awaits you. Israelis and Palestinians. Skeptical eyes and ears, tuned to every gesture and word. A verbal minefield for even the most adept campaigner.

You’ll get a helicopter tour, a feel for the intimacy of the land in dispute: Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip crowd a space smaller than Maryland between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.

Yet the conflict here is but one element, if indeed the centerpiece, of a wider regional crisis. Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon all impinge, in ways that make Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking more complicated than ever.

Here are 10 realities to keep in mind about the Holy Land, previous American efforts to pacify it, and the broader conundrum and choices one of you will face when President Bush leaves office six months from now:

1 It could be worse. At least some of the players are talking about peace.

President Bush took office amid a Palestinian uprising, just after Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Syrian peace talks had collapsed. The transition to your administration might not be as rough, thanks to a tentative cooling of the regional climate.

Over the last eight months, Israel has revived both sets of talks: with the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority (directly, brokered by the United States) and with Syria (indirectly, through Turkey). Israel has reached an Egyptian-mediated cease-fire with the militant group Hamas, which rules Gaza; swapped prisoners with Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon; and offered to trade a piece of land for peace with Lebanon. Most Arab nations are poised to recognize an Israel at peace with the Palestinians. None of these initiatives will come close to delivering peace before Bush leaves office, but they’re less likely to break down this time. Your administration will have an opportunity to push them forward.

2 The conflicts Israel faces have become maddeningly intertwined.

Here’s the flip side of this promising picture: Israel feels threatened by Iran’s nuclear program and fears that a U.S. troop pullout from Iraq would give Tehran a stronger hand there. Iran’s Islamist proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, have boosted their arsenals with logistical help from Syria and fought off Israel’s army. Despite the recent easing of tensions, they pose a lingering threat to Israel’s borders, giving Iran the power to sabotage any Israeli-Palestinian accord. Iran’s ties with the Syrian government and patronage of Hezbollah also help keep Syria and Lebanon formally hostile to Israel, delaying resolution of territorial disputes.

The Bush administration has focused, belatedly and almost solely, on Israeli-Palestinian talks while trying to isolate Iran and its allies. You could continue that course. Or you could try diplomacy on several fronts at once, as Israel is starting to do with Syria and Hamas. One risk: An opening to militant anti-Israel forces might give them prestige without moderating their behavior, and that would tarnish the authority of U.S.-backed Palestinian leaders.

3 Israel, which has nuclear weapons, and Iran, which might develop them, are openly threatening each other.

Iran’s president has said Israel should be wiped off the map; Israeli leaders have hinted that they might bomb Iran’s nuclear sites, with or without a green light from Washington. If diplomatic overtures fail to dissuade Iran from pursuing what the West alleges is a nuclear weapons program, military options -- by Israel or the United States or both -- could take center stage. You’ll no doubt be briefed on these grim scenarios even before taking office.

4 Diplomatic success here requires a mix of Arab or Israeli initiatives and American persistence.

Your influence will be limited, as President Clinton learned from the failure of his all-out push for a deal on Palestinian statehood. The region wasn’t ripe for a breakthrough; it invariably takes a decisive Arab or Israeli leader to help create one. Case in point: Anwar Sadat’s bold decision to break from the Soviet orbit led to Egypt’s 1979 peace accord with Israel.

But it was President Carter who sealed the Israeli-Egyptian agreement, showing that American diplomacy works best when adversaries are willing and the gap between them is small. Persistent U.S. engagement can pay off. If you’re looking for useful lessons, read veteran diplomat Aaron David Miller’s new book, “The Much Too Promised Land.” It details the methods of two secretaries of State he ranks with Carter as the most effective American peacemakers of the conflict -- Henry Kissinger for his work disengaging forces after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, and James A. Baker III for creating a broad framework for Arab-Israeli dialogue in 1991.

5 America’s “special relationship” with Israel can hurt its credibility as a mediator.

It’s a tricky balance. You both stand unequivocally for the security of Israel, as have American presidents since Harry Truman. But when do you stand up to Israel in the name of peaceful compromise? President Eisenhower and the first President Bush used threats of sanctions. President Carter and Secretary Baker were considered tough, evenhanded negotiators, yet many Israelis revile them for that approach. Clinton and the current President Bush disappointed the Palestinians, who say their mediation had a fatally flawed bias toward Israel. Even some Israelis say the current president’s inattention to diplomacy here until the final year of his term delayed the hard choices needed for peace and fed Palestinian militancy.

6 Expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank have soured the climate for peace.

Here’s a vivid example of the limits of American influence over the Jewish state. Israel for years has ignored its formal pledges to freeze settlement growth on territory claimed by the Palestinians, undermining their faith in U.S.-backed peace talks. The Bush administration’s objections have been mild and rarely public. Its critics, noting that most Israelis oppose further settlement growth, say a stronger U.S. stand could make a difference by weakening the settlers’ political clout.

7 Israeli-Palestinian talks, as usual, don’t look promising.

You might be tempted to put them on a back burner while you tackle the more timely issues of Iraq and Iran. The two sides are far apart on the big issues of borders, Palestinian refugees and the status of Jerusalem. Even if they strike a deal, who would carry it out? U.S.-backed Palestinian leaders can’t control militants in the West Bank and have no authority in Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert may be forced from office on corruption charges before your inauguration, and an Israeli election will probably produce a right-wing successor averse to peace talks.

But the conflict is relatively dormant, and a U.S. push to keep the talks going could help keep it that way.

8 Hamas wants in from the cold.

Hamas, which the United States and Israel list as a terrorist group, won Palestinian elections in 2006 and has run a de facto state on Israel’s border since last year. U.S. and Israeli sanctions have failed to weaken its grip. Israel’s month-old truce with Hamas acknowledges that reality. Now Hamas, downplaying a charter that calls for Israel’s destruction, says it’s willing to abide by any peace deal endorsed by Palestinians in a vote. An issue for your administration is whether to engage with Hamas or at least allow the West Bank Palestinians to try to restore their power-sharing government with the group.

9 Syria wants to talk, with you and the Israelis.

Syria wants a return of the Golan Heights, seized by Israel in the 1967 Middle East War. Israel wants Syria to stop aiding Hamas and Hezbollah. Direct talks can begin if the United States agrees to facilitate them, but that would require a decision to stop isolating Syria. If you favor the idea, you must then decide which set of talks holds more promise -- Israeli-Syrian or Israeli-Palestinian -- and make it a priority.

10 Presidential candidates tour the Holy Land to win votes back home, not to make peace.

Israelis and Palestinians understand this and don’t expect detailed policy prescriptions. Palestinians take it for granted that you’re trying to appeal to Jewish American voters. Both sides just want to size you up and decide whether they can trust you.

The real work, senators, will begin in January. After America decides, the Holy Land will inevitably draw you in.

So be careful what you wish for. If elected, you could be spending a lot of time here.

--

boudreaux@latimes.com