The Metaphorical Bull

Radically Centrist is back! I'm not sure how long for, but I hope to keep posting regularly, if infrequently, for the foreseeable future.

It seems that somebody has decided to take the bull of stagnant peace negotiations by the horns of destiny and give themselves an ultimatum. The shock is, that somebody is Mahmoud Abbas. I say "shock", but a little analysis shows that Mr. Abbas is the only person in a position to do anything at the moment:

• Ehud Olmert is in the midst of a corruption investigation and is unlikely to win the coming Israeli elections.
• Ismail Haniyeh and Khaled Mashal (of Hamas) can't make any significant change without incurring the wrath of their membership.
• George W. Bush is fading into the famous "lame duck" stage of his presidency. (This was amply displayed by his rather limp speeches surrounding Israel's 60th anniversary celebrations.)
• Tony Blair doesn't seem to have the respect of anyone in the Middle East - certainly not the Palestinians. This is reflected in his lack of visible progress since his appointment as the Quartet's envoy in the region.

Thankfully, Mr. Abbas has realised the pivotal role he now has in the peace process, and this ultimatum should give Israeli negotiators a reason to exist once more: if Abbas resigns, his successor is unlikely to be a suitable "partner for peace", to use the Israeli phraseology. Given Mr. Abbas's lack of progress in recent years, both in the peace process and in improving the daily lives of Palestinians, the people of the West Bank may well elect a Hamas President in six months' time. This would almost certainly stall any ongoing negotiations indefinitely. However, there is no need for such pessimism, as independent candidates like Mustafa Barghouti gained a significant number of votes in the last Palestinian Presidential elections*, and I predict that they will do better again next time.

Mr. Abbas's acknowledgement that "regional extremists [are] coming out victorious [while] both the Israelis and the Palestinians are reluctant to make a deal" is also significant. I believe that this statement is the first time a Palestinian President has tacitly acknowledged his own negotiation team's reluctance to compromise with Israel. I do not believe that Yasser Arafat would ever have said such a thing.

In my opinion, little concrete progress will be made until Olmert, Abbas and Bush have all been replaced. I predict that their successors will be Binyamin Netanyahu, Mustafa Barghouti and Barack Obama, respectively. If this situation were to arise, Israel might once again be seen as the belligerent side, if Mr. Netanyahu's recent speeches in the Knesset, and elsewhere, are a good guide to his current philosophy. None of this bodes well in the short term, but once the current generation, known forever to me as a generation clinging to the status quo, is replaced, perhaps we will have reason to be more optimistic.

The Middle East's new buzzword: restraint

I have always been fascinated by politicians' use of language, and the word "restraint" has recently come to light as an interesting example of one of two terms having similar dictionary definitions but entirely different political nuances. The second term, in this case, which I believe has been replaced by "restraint" is "inaction". If a politician is accused of "inaction", he/she might as well resign; if however, a politician exercises "restraint", they might well be congratulated by many people as having avoided the second deadly sin of politics: being reactionary.

This wordplay has become all too apparent in the Middle East, particularly relating to the actions of the Israeli Government. Past Labour administrations, such as that of Ehud Barak, were often accused of inaction in the face of terrorist activity. However, the current Kadima-led government of Ehud Olmert has, according to recent reports, been exercising restraint. I think that this shows a shift in Israeli public opinion towards the Left (or, I should say, the Israeli Left, which is rather different to the Left as it is understood in other parts of the world). In my opinion, this can only be a good thing, as it means that the government can refuse to retaliate for Palestinian attacks and rely on being congratulated for their restraint rather than being lambasted for their inaction. Hopefully, this will lead to a situation where Israel no longer feels the need to retaliate for individual attacks, and can concentrate on preventing future loss of life on both sides.