 |
 |
 |
|
|
U.S. President George W. Bush tells reporters that "a Palestinian state has always been a part of a vision, so long as the right of Israel to exist is respected."(Reuters)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| By israelinsider staff October 2, 2001 |
|
| |
United States officials have indicated that the Bush administration, facing difficulties in recruiting Arab states to its anti-terror coalition, is likely to announce a new Middle East policy designed to curry Arab favor before the expected attack on Afghanistan. The new policy may include explicit U.S. backing for the creation of a Palestinian state. If so, it would be the first time that a Republican President endorsed such a step.
President Bush said Tuesday morning that "the idea of a Palestinian state has always been a part of a vision, so long as the right of Israel to exist is respected." Following a meeting with congressional leaders in the White House, Bush told reporters, "First things first... we have to get to Mitchell first," referring to the cease-fire and negotiation plan offered by a U.S. committee led by former Senator George Mitchell. "We are working diligently with both sides to encourage a reduction of violence so that meaningful discussions can take place," he said. Bush did not directly relate to press reports of a high profile initiative been developed by his administration.
The delivery vehicle for the new policy is likely to be a speech being prepared for U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, drafts of which are reportedly circulating in the State Department for review, CNN reported. The speech, first reported by the New York Times, is expected to present the American view of the principles for settling the most difficult issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including determination of final borders between Israel and the Palestinian state, the disposition of Jerusalem, and the question of whether Palestinian refugees should be entitled to enter areas within Israel or only within the prospective Palestinian state.
There are also likely to be calls for a settlement freeze, although CNN reported that one issue still "hotly debated" is whether the freeze will apply to the building of new settlements or a much more sweeping "call for ending all settlement activity," including the natural growth of existing settlements, a step no previous U.S. administration has taken.
The Washington Post reported that Powell's speech was being drafted by William J. Burns, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern affairs, with assistance from U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer and Ron Schlicher, U.S. consul general in Jerusalem.
In an effort to show that the new policy was not the result of the terror attacks and U.S. distress at failing to convince Arab states to join its coalition, Bush administration officials are stressing, through the anonymous leaks, that a new Middle East policy was to be announced by Powell at the UN General Assembly meetings, which were postponed by the September 11th attacks. They also say that Bush was planning to meet around the same time with Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat. The Washington Post reported that the plan for a mid-September speech by Powell that would present the initiative was approved by the National Security Council at a meeting at the White House, days before the terrorist attacks. Bush reportedly also approved the decision.
However, reports from multiple sources indicate that the Powell speech has undergone major revisions since the attacks, and that foreign political interests, especially Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, significantly influenced its content. The Washington Post quoted an anonymous source "familiar with the speech's preparations" as saying: "The Saudis were very heavily involved in it. They were pushing very hard. The administration had received input from several European countries as well as from Egypt, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates."
The Washington Post also cited "several sources familiar with the preparations" as saying that the State Department, along with CIA Director George J. Tenet, were the driving forces calling for a major initiative that would "give Arafat some incentive to halt the violence that has lasted for more than a year." But the Post also cited a source who said that the decision on supporting Palestinian statehood was not final and that some members of the administration, especially at the White House, were still hesitant about the idea.
Middle East specialists at the State Department, CNN reported, said they had been frustrated in the weeks leading up to this decision because they felt the White House had been rebuffing their recommendations for a more vigorous U.S. role. CNN quoted "Powell's aides," as taking credit for implementing the Secretary of State's request for "major revisions [of the speech] to reflect the current situation." The speech "will go farther than we have ever gone," one official cited by the network said.
The official said the planned Powell speech would be a "powerful palliative" to the Arab world, adding, "It eases the pain" and will "end the perception we only move against Islam." By moving against Israel, the official hope to shore up Arab support for coalition action. "We are getting hammered in the Arab world. And it is not a mystery that one of the ways to diffuse this is to see some movement on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
CNN reported that officials are also debating whether the administration should invite Arafat to meet with Bush or Powell. Although Arafat has met Powell outside of Washington, he has yet to meet Bush. Some in the administration apparently believe that the invitation could give Arafat the "empowerment" he needs to deal with extremist factions of his Palestinian forces. "Arafat needs a visit," one official is quoted as saying, noting that Arafat has publicly condemned terrorism and called for a cease-fire.
Middle East specialists, however, cautioned that a new initiative now might be perceived as a concession to terrorism, indicating that terrorist acts can influence American policy. The Washington Post quoted Dennis Ross, President Clinton's special Middle East coordinator: "I think in this context to formally recognize a Palestinian statehood would have been a mistake in my judgment, because it emerges in the aftermath of violence and our response to that violence shouldn't be to change the position of the United States." Ross also told the New York Times that the timing was inopportune due to bad feelings caused by the repeatedly crumbling cease-fires. "The mood of the Israeli and Palestinian public is all wrong for that because you have got a situation where neither side thinks he has a partner for peace."
Before the attack on the United States, senior members of the Bush administration had been critical of Clinton's aggressive efforts to broker a Middle East deal, saying the United States could not impose a peace on the parties. But the plan Secretary Powell was preparing to present reportedly includes proposals for a comprehensive settlement and a forceful American role in carrying it out. "Many moderate Arab states," the Times reported, "have made clear that a serious American engagement in resolving the Israeli- Palestinian conflict is a condition for their support of the administration's drive to crush terrorism."
The New York Times reported that the State Department is still undecided on the timing of the Powell speech, but it quoted officials favoring an announcement before military operations are launched against Afghanistan. In that way, the Times said, "the administration could more successfully defuse criticism that officials know is bound to come from Israel and from American Jews that the United States was pandering to the Arab states by pushing for a peace settlement now." The report quoted the unnamed official as rhetorically asking: "would we have more leverage" now, or after any military action. The official reportedly answered the rhetorical question. "The answer is now."
The new initiative, the Times reported, "would take into account the progress made at the failed Camp David negotiations during the Clinton administration last year but would stop well short of the specifics that Mr. Clinton made in January in a New York speech just before leaving office. In that speech, Clinton said there could be no resolution of the conflict without a 'sovereign and viable Palestinian state.'" He outlined a vision of an open and undivided Jerusalem that would be the recognized capital of two states, Israel and Palestine. The United States, he claimed, should have embassies in both capitals. Clinton said Israel could not be expected to accept the unlimited right of return of Palestinian refugees, which could overwhelm Israel with hundreds of thousands of hostile new citizens.
The New York Times quoted Arab diplomats as saying that they did not expect the Bush administration's initiative to go as far as Clinton's, but they did expect it to "target the Arab audience" and to specifically address the disposition of Jerusalem.
The Times also said that the administration was also considering whether to appoint a special Middle East envoy. The assistant secretary of state for Near East Affairs in the first Bush administration, Edward P. Djerejian, has been considered for the job, officials said. The Time reported that Djerejian, who has expressed concern about what he sees as Washington's deteriorating relationship with the Arab world, met with Powell and his staff last week.
Zalman Shoval, former Israeli Ambassador to the United States, told CNN that the vision of a Palestinian state was less important than the character of such a state, its borders, and the degree of its militarization. He expressed concern that any sudden shift in U.S. policy regarding the Middle East may be "counter-productive" because Arab states might say that "bin Laden brought this about, not America." In the past, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has welcomed Bush's hands-off approach to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. However, last week Sharon surprised observers by noting that Israel had offered Palestinians a chance to create a state of their own, unlike other countries that had ruled the West Bank and Gaza.
Former Justice Minister Yossi Beilin (Labor) said that the Bush administration had seriously erred in its first months by its policy of "letting both sides bleed." Correcting that mistake, he said, was critical today for forming a coalition against terror, and to end what he called "the bloody cycle of violence in the Middle East."
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
Click on the blue headline to read a Talkback comment and respond to it. Click on the  icon to send a private email to the talkback writer. The icon appears only if the writer has decided to be contacted. If no popup window appears, please make sure your popup blocker allows israelinsider.com.
|
|
| |
|
|
