(photo credit: AP)
The Middle East that the Quartet representatives will be discussing Saturday in
Munich is a vastly different region than the one they discussed at their last
meeting in September in New York.
RELATED:Egypt on the mind as Merkel brings ministers to Israel US: New leaks complicate efforts to forge peace deal
Then, the major issue facing the
Quartet officials – US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, EU foreign policy
chief Catherine Ashton, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and UN
Secretary-General Ban Kimoon – was whether or not Prime Minister Binyamin
Netanyahu would renew the 10-month settlement moratorium.
That issue now
seems like petty change in comparison to the chaos in Cairo and the uncertainty
it is casting over the entire region, let alone the Israeli- Palestinian
When the Quartet’s senior officials meet, they generally issue a
statement afterward. And, as usually happens in these meetings – as well as in
the periodic meetings of EU foreign ministers – the statement is often just a
roll-over of statements from previous meetings, with some tweaking here and
there depending on what is happening on the ground.
therefore, whether the Quartet will insert the following paragraph, taken from
its last statement in September, into the statement that will be issued from
Munich: “In the spirit of the Arab Peace Initiative, the Quartet called on Arab
States to support Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and progress on the other
tracks by taking bolder steps to foster positive relations throughout the region
and to combat violence and extremism.”
With the Arab world now
preoccupied with its own turmoil, “bolder steps” to foster positive relations
with Israel seems... well, like a pipe dream.
If the Saudi king would not
let Israeli civilian planes fly over his airspace on the way to Thailand as a
goodwill gesture before the Arab world was in foment, it is difficult to believe
he will do so now. Neither the Saudi King nor Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak
has exactly nourished a culture of acceptance and tolerance toward Israel and
Jews among the Arab masses who are now very much on the move and on the
One of the elements of the diplomatic process that US envoy George
Mitchell has been trying to push forward for months was a regional component –
getting the Arab countries to support the Israeli-Palestinian process. Part of
the rationale for this was the feeling that the Palestinians would only be
willing to make concessions if they got a strong backwind of support from the
And one of the key players in providing this back-wind was
Mubarak. Egypt, under Mubarak, was – for various reasons, including the
preservation of its relationship with the US – very supportive of the diplomatic
process and of the Palestinian Authority.
If Mubarak’s ouster ushers in a
government that is either neutral or negative toward the process, that would
signify a dramatic shift.
It is no coincidence that so many Middle East
parleys over the last few years were held in Sharm e-Sheikh under Mubarak’s
auspices. It was important for everyone involved to get Egypt – that most
important, powerful and influential of Arab countries – to place its umbrella
over the process.
It is also not coincidental that Israeli leaders made a
point of meeting Mubarak regularly – it was important to have him on board, and
he was a key conduit for relaying messages to other Arab leaders.
is no coincidence that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas met with
Mubarak repeatedly. He looked to Mubarak for legitimacy in negotiating with
But if Mubarak is gone, and his successor is lukewarm or negative
toward the process, from where will Abbas derive this legitimacy? From Syria?
From Lebanon? From Saudi Arabia? Mubarak’s Egypt played an important role in
supporting the more pragmatic elements in the Arab world, and – again out of
self-interest – provided real support in the struggle against Hamas. Mubarak
helped isolate the extremists, supported a two-state solution and created an
alternative narrative in the Arab world.
If an Egypt emerges that is not
part of the so-called “peace camp,” it is hard to imagine that Jordan – or the
Palestinians – would go it alone. If Egypt is not in this camp, then who in the
Arab world will serve as a counterbalance to Iran? There will surely be a
tendency among the Quartet representatives Saturday to issue a statement saying
that the events in Egypt just prove the need to redouble efforts to reach an
But one hopes that behind closed doors,
the Quartet representatives will also go beyond the predictable platitudes and
realize that the events in Egypt raise serious questions about some of the key
pillars upon which the whole process rests.