Analysis: Palestinian politics more important than Kadima primary

Most foreign journalists wonder how the Kadima primary will affect the diplomatic process.

By HERB KEINON
Abbas 248.88 (photo credit: AP [file])
Abbas 248.88
(photo credit: AP [file])
The question on the minds of many foreign journalists covering Wednesday's Kadima primary, whether they be from Denmark, Vietnam or Britain, is what impact it will have on the diplomatic process. That this election was brought about not as a referendum on the diplomatic process, nor as a vote of no-confidence in Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's handling of the Second Lebanon War, but rather because of a corruption scandal, does not seem to be making much of an impact on those observing our developments. Few are the questions about what forcing an election over corruption means, or says, about Israeli society. Many, however, are asking what the primary means for the Palestinians, the Syrians and even for the Iranians. "Who is better for the negotiations with the Palestinians," one leading Vietnamese television reporter asked in a video conference on Wednesday. That was a follow-up to his earlier question, "If you were Palestinian, who would you vote for?" The nature of the Vietnamese reporter's question revealed a premise that doesn't necessarily stand up to scrutiny - that if Israel just elected the "right" leader, peace would flow like the Jordan. Wrong. The Israeli leader might want a deal, but if the leadership of the other side doesn't want it, or can't impose a deal on the Palestinian population, then all the best intentions of the Israeli leader won't matter that much. The fate of Israeli-Palestinian diplomatic process will be determined more by whom the Palestinians select as their leader in January - if indeed elections in the Palestinian Authority are held - than on whom the 40,000 or so Kadima voters who troubled themselves to go to the polls Wednesday decided should succeed Olmert. We Israelis like to think we're in control, that we dictate the pace and outcome of events. But we don't. There is another side, and what is happening over there domestically is equally important, if not more important, to the fate of the diplomatic process than what is happening over here. The question of whether Hamas manages to wrangle control of the PA from Fatah or whether Fatah succeeds in wresting back control in Gaza is more important in the long run for the peace process than whether Tzipi Livni or Shaul Mofaz becomes Kadima's leader and - possibly - the prime minister for a few months. Because both Livni and Mofaz will - for continuity's sake and to keep up appearances - certainly carry on with the negotiations with the Palestinians. And Fatah will surely go through the motions with whomever the Israelis elect as their leader. But Hamas does not subscribe to such a stance, so who controls the Palestinian street is infinitely more important than who wins in the Kadima race. Regardless of the outcome of the Kadima primary, little is likely to transpire diplomatically over the next few months. A good indication of this came Wednesday when it became clear, after two weeks of uncertainty, that a fifth round of indirect Israel-Syrian talks will not take place on Thursday and Friday in Turkey as previously announced. While Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem said that Israel asked for a postponement in the talks, something neither Israel nor the Turks confirmed, it is obvious that the Syrians are not overly disappointed. For what use is it for Syrian President Bashar Assad to continue negotiations with an Israeli team led by Yoram Turbowicz, Olmert's most trusted adviser and until a month ago his chief of staff, without knowing whether Olmert's successor will continue to employ Turbowicz in this capacity, or even bless the whole indirect track. Assad obviously wants to wait, and the wait will likely go on into the spring, until such time as there is not only a new Israeli government in place, but a new administration in Washington. Olmert, meanwhile, was being overly optimistic Tuesday, after meeting with PA President Mahmoud Abbas, when he said he would continue on with the negotiating process until the Knesset swears in another government. That's great, and he undoubtedly means it and would love to work down to his last minute in office. But how about Abbas? Will he want to invest further time, energy, effort and his own political capital on reaching a deal with Olmert, knowing that - in Olmert's best-case scenario - the prime minister will only be around for the next five months, and even then with his authority limited because he may be prime minister, but not Kadima party head. That Olmert wants to continue until the end is one thing. But why should the other side want to play ball with him? And, yes, there is another side that does have this funny knack for influencing events. It's not all in our hands, not even in the hands of the 40,000 or so Kadima voters who went to the polls Wednesday.