The Very Crux

new_york_times:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/opinion/30mon1.html

Published: June 30, 2008
Few countries can afford the luxury of limiting their diplomacy to friendly countries and peace-loving parties. National security often requires negotiating with dangerous enemies. Fortunately, Israel’s prime minister, Ehud Olmert, is now displaying a clearer grasp of such realities than President Bush has mustered.

Israel is increasingly willing to explore conversations with states and groups Washington would prefer to ignore and isolate. In recent weeks it has agreed to a limited, Egyptian-brokered cease-fire with the Hamas authorities in Gaza and is engaged in indirect peace talks with Syria, sponsored by Turkey. It is attempting to start similar discussions with the Lebanese government, despite — or more likely because of — Hezbollah’s growing political influence.
There are clear risks. Hamas may not respect or enforce the cease-fire; there have been almost daily violations. Syria may be as unbudging as it has been in past negotiations. Hezbollah may block talks with Lebanon or use them to buy time to build up its armaments and political leverage. Mr. Olmert, politically weak and legally besieged, may not have the staying power to see any of these initiatives through.
Israel is still right to try. With its security and even survival at stake, it would have been irresponsible to continue to let Washington’s ideological blinders constrain Israeli diplomacy.
To its credit, the administration has given belated support to Israel’s diplomatic initiatives.
This new burst of diplomatic activity has revived a long-running Mideast policy debate. Does real progress toward peace require constant American nudging and nurturing? Or do the parties only move ahead when their own sense of self-interest propels them?
It is a question with no one simple answer. True, it was Anwar el-Sadat’s surprise 1977 visit to Jerusalem that led to the breakthrough peace treaty between Egypt and Israel two years later. And it was secret talks in Oslo that truly began the historic, if failed, Israeli-Palestinian peace process of the 1990s. In neither case was America trying to discourage negotiations. And in both, subsequent progress depended heavily on very active United States involvement.
Even when there is a strong mutual desire for peace, the history of distrust and the weakness of political leaders can be overcome only with the kind of outside help the United States can uniquely offer. Syria might be much more willing to make peace with Israel — and cut its ties to Iran — if it were offered the same kind of step-by-step diplomatic and economic rehabilitation that Washington has recently used to induce more constructive behavior from Libya and North Korea.
Israel’s latest diplomatic initiatives come despite, not because of, seven years of malign Mideast neglect by the Bush administration. If any long-term good is to come of them, the next American administration will need to be truly committed to diplomacy — and a lot more adept at it.
More Articles in Opinion »