Rice, the return of the bad cop?

At an official White House dinner party in honor of Saudi Arabia's Prince Fahd in May 1977, then U.S. president Jimmy Carter expressed his view on the Arab-Israeli conflict in the most clear-cut and troubling way. "Peace in the region," he said with reference to peace between Israel and its neighbors, "means, to a great degree a possibility peace throughout the world."

It was the most extreme expression of an all-encompassing linkage. Healing the Arab-Israeli infection is not only essential for bringing calm to the violent and troubled Middle East, but is also capable of providing a solution to the problems of the entire world.

Some 20 years have past and the linkage still exists. Anyone who followed the deliberations at the United Nations last week could have easily picked up on this. What's the connection between Venezuela President Hugo Chavez and the Palestinian problem? What is the link between Sudan's leader, who is fighting to prevent the deployment of a foreign force that would restore order in Darfur, and the government in Jerusalem? How does Iran's president explain his endless tirades against the "Zionist invader?" Israel is everyone's excuse - a hammer in the hands of despots throughout the world for slamming the U.S. administration, which supports it. The temptation to neutralize this excuse is as big as ever.

The same temptation is at the root of the possible renewal of American efforts to push forward a "diplomatic process" between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, as President George Bush promised in his speech at the United Nations, and as suggested by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's plan to visit the region "soon." Only this time there is an updated motive: The global war on terrorism requires support from states that have conditioned their involvement on a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

A more than likely scenario of how things will unfold looks like this: Rice will lead from the front, as was the case with a long line of secretaries of state who preceded her, from William Rogers and through to James Baker and Colin Powell, who were dispatched or showed up voluntarily to try their luck at solving the problem.

Every administration had its own plan, every secretary of state his/her own style, but nearly all efforts shared one quality: Relations with Jerusalem soured. A number of experienced observers in Washington believe that this is also likely to be the fate of Israel's relations with Rice.

A few weeks ago, a pro-Israel activist complained bitterly about the damaging influence of Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Karen Hughes on U.S. policy. On the whole, this is a complaint that should not come as a surprise. Hughes is in charge of improving the American image around the world, including the Arab world; and during her visits to Arab capitals, she hears, and then reports at home, that the U.S. has no chance of improving its position as long as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains unresolved. Hughes is from Texas, and is part of the president's inner circle, and thus he is on hand to hear her complaints. Passing visitors to the White House - from Europe, the Middle East and even Asia - tell Bush the same story.

Rice was angered by the Israeli government more than once during the war in Lebanon. Some of the requests she made to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert - concessions at Shaba Farms, for example - were rejected in a manner that left her feeling upset. She pushed Security Council Resolution 1701 with all her might, at times feeling that Israel was not helping. She also sometimes felt that those working in favor of Israel were not making her task easier.

Rice has never been suspected of being overly sentimental about Israel. She is a seasoned tactician, specializing in relations with the Soviet bloc; she has always believed that the calculations of a superpower should not focus on local conflicts, nor should they be excessively influenced by them. Her mentor was Brent Scowcroft, among the chief architects of the policies of the administration of Bush Sr., and it is not difficult to identify her clearly as a part of a dynasty of cool realists - a group that also includes other statesmen with greater or lesser experience in Israeli affairs, such as Henry Kissinger and John McCloy.

Using her expertise in U.S.-Soviet relations, which in theory is no longer relevant, Rice is formulating a program for building American relations with contemporary blocs - the European, Arab, Latin and Asian blocs. Stumbling blocks that undermine the stability of the inter-bloc arrangement, so important to American interests, will be dealt with and removed with high priority. The days of the frequent visits of Dov Weisglass to her office are over, and so are the jokes and the dinners. Wariness of contact with Yasser Arafat and a certain caution against a confrontation with the forceful Ariel Sharon have given way to sober practicality. Rice is more experienced now, stronger vis-a-vis her colleagues in the administration, and more clear about what she wants to do in her job.

In any case, taking root on the seventh floor of the State Department is an understanding that U.S. interests demand renewed diplomatic activity in the Israeli-Palestinian arena. And Rice does also not appear to be detered by the possibility that she will have to take on the traditional role of the secretary of state in this arena - that of the bad cop.

More Diplomacy on Rosner's Domain:

Rosner's Guest: Barak Ben Zur on Lebanon, Gaza and counter terrorism.

The Hamas Time Saver: Features, opinion, interviews, studies.