The most encouraging thing about the latest handshake between the leaders of Israel and Palestine is that it took place on the shores of the Red Sea and not on the White House lawn. There was not an American "mediator" in sight. Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, had left the region 24 hours earlier. Nobody talked about road maps, parameters or accords that had been dreamt up in Washington or London. Ariel Sharon and Mahmoud Abbas - representing peoples exhausted by decades of on-off conflict that has satisfied the aspirations of neither side - simply decided that they might, just about, be able to trust each other and grope their way towards a lasting accommodation. They got a helping hand from their neighbours Egypt and Jordan. This is how people resolve their differences and create a better world. They do it themselves, without the assistance of British prime ministers and US presidents, ex-presidents and senators, all drawing on the bottomless well of "historic moment" cliches. It is how South Africa ended apartheid and moved to majority rule. It is how eastern Europe ended years of tyranny. It is, indeed, how America ended its civil war 140 years ago.

Alas, none of this is obvious to Washington and London. Nobody seems to have noticed that the prospect of peace has crept up on us while President Bush has been following a hands-off policy. "Let's seize opportunity while we can," writes Richard N Haass, president of that well-meaning think-tank, the Council on Foreign Relations, within hours of the Abbas-Sharon handshake. We? Mr Haass, a former State Department man, no doubt has it in mind that assorted American bigwigs, experts and do-gooders fly to Tel Aviv and Ramallah to tell the parties how to proceed. "America is resolute," says Ms Rice. Resolute to milk the whole thing for photo opportunities, most likely. The day before the Sharm el-Sheikh meeting, Ms Rice appointed Lieutenant General William Ward, deputy commander of the US army in Europe, to "prevent friction and tension". The American faith in the fitness of military top brass for diplomatic missions is astonishing. Lieutenant General Ward is as improbable a peacemaker as the last special envoy to the Middle East, the retired marine general Anthony Zinni, and he is no more likely to achieve success. Still, he can claim credit for any progress the Israelis and Palestinians make, and that will suit the State Department nicely. Meanwhile, in Britain, Labour's high command must be salivating at the prospect of a London conference on "Palestinian reform", conveniently timed for March, just before a likely election campaign. Perhaps we shall have a Downing Street Accord.

The truth is that external "peacemakers" nearly always get in the way and nearly always prolong conflict. Each protagonist uses the mediator as a vehicle for extracting concessions from the other side. Why close the deal when you can ask Big Daddy to do you one more favour and twist the other side's arm one more time? (Or if that's not possible, to get you another grant, loan, arms delivery or other sweetener.) Why stick to a deal for which you do not bear the main responsibility? Why convince your own sceptical people of its justice when you can blame someone else? "Peace processes", when they are orchestrated by the big beasts of the international stage (who have their own electorates to impress and their own agendas to pursue), infantilise the political leaders of the warring parties. They allow them to abdicate responsibility and to posture both to their own followers and to the gallery of international opinion. That should be amply clear from Northern Ireland which, nearly seven years after the Good Friday Agreement, is no nearer stable self-government, and enjoys peace only in the sense that paramilitary violence is confined to each side's sectarian ghettoes. It should be clear, too, from the history of the Middle East, which has never lacked peacemakers. Of all possible mediators, the Americans - justifiably distrusted by Palestinians, pressured by vociferous domestic lobbies, and regarded by both sides as sources of potential subsidy - are the least appropriate.

Sharm el-Sheikh will lead to something if Mr Abbas and Mr Sharon learn to trust each other and if they can convey that trust to their voters. Trust will develop if they build peace together. It is they, not soundbite-addicted western politicians, who should feel the hand of history on their shoulders. It is each other they should learn to telephone when things go wrong, not some superannuated senator or general. This may turn out to be another failure. But hopes for permanent peace will most assuredly fail if the Americans and British, with their clumsy, megaphone diplomacy, arrive in town.

Sins ain't want they used to be

Since "wicked" became a term of approval, the pious have been certain that we live in a morally bankrupt age. A MORI poll, which reveals that, of Pope Gregory's original seven deadly sins, only avarice (or greed) survives, seems to confirm that belief. But Gregory's list was always suspect. Gordon Brown would no doubt wish sloth to have survived as a sin, but not lust and gluttony, without which several modern industries would collapse - with consequences for VAT receipts. As for pride, anger and envy, these were prissy sins surely invented only to give holy men and women something to confess. Today, the list includes adultery, bigotry, dishonesty, hypocrisy and selfishness, but to our eyes, by far the deadliest sin is cruelty. Cruelty didn't seem to bother Gregory in the least, even with all that flaying and disembowelling going on. We are more tender-hearted. Seven cheers for us, and may the Home Secretary take note.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website