Wild thoughts about the Palestinian issue

Philip Zelikow, an advisor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, has an appearance that manages to get on people's nerves. "What a nerd," said someone who did not like what he said last Friday at the Washington Institute's conference in Virginia. And he really is, how shall we say it, a nerd: his hair, combed and parted just so; his smooth cheeks, slightly rosy; the shy, somewhat superior smile of the smartest guy in the class.

In a monotone fitting for someone who does not believe in showing his feelings, Zelikow read the audience his "ten points." But it was only when he got to the last one, when his listeners were already exhausted from the late hour, the dinner and the wine, that he pulled the rabbit out of his suit pocket - progress in talks between Israel and the Palestinians is essential. Plain and simple.

Perhaps this is also good for Israel. Zelikow says that it is good for Israel - but that is not what is important. Progress in the talks is essential for America. This how he explained it, with cold logic: America is threatened; it needs a coalition to fight the threat; the coalition's members include Europe and the moderate Arab countries; these other members must be taken into account; and they want progress. Period. Whoever rejects this logic is apparently ready to compromise America's security. And after all, it is easier to look for a solution in Israel, which is so dependent on the United States, than to make an effort to force American policy on a recalcitrant Hamas or the obstinate Europeans.

Only time and President George Bush's decisions will tell whether Zelikow's statements correctly presage future events: whether they will translate into "American pressure" - that slippery concept of which everyone stands in awe - or melt away in the face of a reality stronger than they are. Much will depend on the new Palestinian government and its platform, and in no small measure also on Israel's ability to maneuver between the necessary minimum and the desirable maximum. Nevertheless, one important thing should be learned from Zelikow's speech: In Washington, in the last two years of Bush's term, and presumably in those that come after him, realpolitik is once again in play.

Zelikow called it "practical idealism," quoting Rice's formulation. "Progressive realism" is his own preferred term. But do not believe him. As with the "compassionate conservatism" produced by Bush in 2000, Zelikow also has one important word - "practical" or "realism" - while the second word is only meant to sound good. And if in Bush's case, it was meant to sound good to the voters, whose trust he sought to gain, in Zelikow's case, it is Bush himself who must be persuaded and calmed.

The ears of Zelikow's audience perked up, and rightly so. And there is no reason why they should lay flat again after hearing from Rice that policy "will not change," and after messages in that vein were transmitted from Washington to Jerusalem. That is the way of the world. When you withdraw, you declare victory, and when you change direction, you announce that it is a continuation. This is not to say, of course, that Zelikow will have his way. There are still no less powerful forces in the administration that will seek to implement a different policy. But one thing cannot be denied: The Palestinian issue is on the table again, and Israel will once again be asked to show action - even if it would be better for it sit quietly.

Some officials believe they have proven that their policy works: Hamas is softening up, which means that pressure has done its job. Others will say that pressure has not helped, and it is time to return to reality and talk with whoever is out there before things get worse. This reporter's notebook contains statements from a number of interviewees that are very similar: "find a thread," "find a breakthrough," "where we can begin to uproot the conflict." All use similar imagery to describe the same problem: How the devil do you solve this ongoing conflict, which is so burdensome not only to Israel, but also to the United States, which wants to be free to deal with more important issues?

It is this distress that is urging Zelikow to seek another way out. But it also invites ruminations about new, wilder solutions.

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni believes that there is no similarity between the West Bank and Lebanon, and that sending an international force to impose order, like that authorized by Security Council Resolution 1701 in Lebanon, is not feasible in the Palestinian Authority. Yet there are people in the U.S. who are looking ever more closely at this possibility.

The more daring go even further, in other directions, though so far, only in private discussions with each other. They are revisiting the old idea of "the West Bank to Jordan, the Gaza Strip to Egypt." That is how greatly they have despaired of their ability to help Israel and the Palestinians live in peace.