To surrender completely to memory is dangerous, especially in the Middle East. To search for the future without pausing at the lessons of memory is also dangerous. No observer in this part of the world can escape the trap of making comparisons and observations. It is probable that the current Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in Washington are taking place in another world and are seeking peace in a Middle East that has changed. It would be worrisome if the old rules are still followed when events practically show that the rules of the game have changed. Seventeen years ago, in September, the White House hosted the signature of the Oslo Accords. Israel was represented by one of its founding generals, Yitzhak Rabin. His historic legitimacy was not debated in his country. The Palestinians were represented by their incontestable leader, Yasser Arafat. His historic legitimacy was not doubted by his people, despite all the artificial fabrications. Rabin paid with his life the price of that signature. An Israeli extremist eliminated the legitimate Israeli partner of the Palestinians in the search for peace. The Palestinians did not find later on another Rabin. The large number of medals on Ehud Barak's chest did not enable him to recognize long-term dangers and choose to take the risk of peace, which is more dangerous than the risks of war. In the following decade, Yasser Arafat would be eliminated so that the Israelis would pretext the partner's absence, knowing that his elimination was complicated and was facilitated by the bids witnessed during the second Intifada. Making peace in the Middle East is an extremely dangerous profession that resembles demining. Sometimes a landmine explodes in the face of the person seeking to remove it. It is also recalled here that Egyptian President Anwar Sadat paid with his life the price of his signature, despite his success in retrieving all the occupied Egyptian territories in exchange of getting out of the military facet of the conflict and making diplomatic talks. There is another development that cannot be ignored by anyone wishing to make the Washington negotiations succeed. In the end of the 1970s, Egypt was coming out of the conflict when Khomeini's revolution chose to use it to strengthen its presence in the region and export the revolution to it. Today it can be said that Iran is present in the Middle East through the rockets of Hezbollah and Hamas and its alliance with Syria. Iran, which celebrates today Jerusalem Day, made no secret of its stance regarding the ongoing negotiations in Washington and did not hesitate to denigrate the Arab participants. America, the sponsor of the current negotiations, is also not the same America that hosted the Oslo Accords. When Arafat and Rabin went to the White House lawn, America had destroyed the Soviet Union without so much as firing a bullet, and had liberated Kuwait from Saddam Hussein's forces and called the conflicting parties to the Madrid conference. America today is weakened. It pulls out its forces from Iraq without announcing victory and struggles in the Afghan mud. Its economy is also weakened due to crises and costly wars. President Mahmud Abbas negotiates based on the decision of the PLO. He cannot deny that his signature cannot bind the “Republic of Hamas” or its emirate in Gaza. He knows deep inside that Hamas will not suffice itself with Gaza. It also wants the Gaza Strip and the PLO, and to be the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Hamas translated its objection to the Washington negotiations on the Gaza Strip and against the settlers. It is as if it wishes to show the limits of Abbas' ability to sign or to commit to what he can sign. Netanyahu will use the latest attacks to put back the security issue on the carpet and to increase Abbas's troubles. Benjamin Netanyahu is not Yitzhak Rabin. His record shows his brilliance in stalling and draining peace agreements and hopes. His current government's cohesion is linked to continued settlements and staying away from “painful decisions”. There is nothing that suggests his wish to turn alliances and take a risk that would open the door to the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. Such is the scene. America has changed, and each of the negotiating parties suffers from great troubles. Hamas is active on the ground and yet it is absent. Iran holds objection and explosion cards. To involve the Syrian track is not possible. The visit of George Mitchel's deputy Frederick Hoff to Damascus is timid and insufficient. As for Lebanon, it has changed, and its involvement now needs the use of both the Syrian and Iranian keys. It should also be noted that the role of the Turkish intermediary is currently invalidated. There is a difference between the need to negotiate and the readiness to pay the price of peace. The Middle East has changed, and so have the rules of the game. Thus, it is feared that what is taking place is an attempt to use old keys to deal with new and complex locks.
