It is doubtful that the failure will erase the modern superstition that wise and enlightened diplomacy and sustained negotiations can solve any problem in the world. But it might be healthier precisely to let time run away from them. This suggestion doesn t rule out the possibility, of course, that the immediate aftermath of the Camp David failure might involve some rioting, violence and general instability. But to the extent that the interests of both sides are served by minimizing violence, people will find ways to get along, even if with little warmth. And if both sides have little interest in getting along, any agreement reached by leaders closeted with the Boy President will be a phony peace.
Some signs are relatively hopeful.
When I talked to the British historian Sir Martin Gilbert a few years ago, when his useful history of Israel had just been published, he explained that when he went to Israel and traveled, for example, to Bethlehem, he moved quite smoothly between Israeli and Palestinian jurisdictions with little trouble or fanfare. The Palestinians might not have a de jure state, but there are Palestinian border guards, Palestinian police and Palestinian authorities in the territories over which Arafat and his minions have sway. As the divisive issues become less important because the sides have lived with minimal mutual violence for a while, perhaps they can be resolved. But the cessation of violence is more important than having a diplomatic package tied into a neat little bundle. The world seldom resolves itself into neat little bundles.