 |
M.J. Rosenberg is Director of Policy Analysis for , a long time Capitol Hill staffer and former editor of AIPAC's Near East Report.
|
|
|
|
By M.J. Rosenberg
December 23, 2004
At a White House Christmas party last week, President Bush pulled aside the Yedioth Achronoth reporter, Orly Azulai, to tell her that he is serious about helping Israelis and Palestinians achieve peace. "I want you to know," he said, "That I am going to devote a lot of time and creative thought so that there finally will be peace between Israel and the Palestinians. I am confident that I will succeed in bringing peace in this term. I know that it's possible."
This was not the first time Bush had spoken to Azulai about Middle East peace at a Christmas party. Last year Bush made a point of telling her that there would be no peace so long as Yasir Arafat was in power. This year the President was considerably more upbeat.
More than almost anyone, the President's optimism (or pessimism) can be borne out by actions he himself takes. If he and his administration seriously engage in Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy, it is safe to predict that his optimism will be warranted.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not like Iraq in which the best course is unclear. The Bush administration wants to see Iraq stabilized so that American troops can leave. But what is the best way to get to that point? Elections should help but they are also producing more violence. Would postponing elections make things better or worse? It's not apparent.
The US course vis a vis Israelis and Palestinians is much more obvious, especially with Arafat gone. We want to see free and fair Palestinian elections (both for the Presidency and the legislature) that will produce leadership that will put aside violence once and for all and enter into negotiations with Israel. We want the Gaza withdrawal plan to succeed and for Israelis and Palestinians to build upon that first step toward a comprehensive peace. We want to implement the President's vision of "two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security?."
Each one of those goals can be significantly advanced by US leadership. Woody Allen's old line applies. Most of life is just showing up. If the President really "shows up", he should be able to realize his vision by the time he leaves office in 2009 and perhaps sooner.
This is not to downplay the obstacles to seeing that vision implemented. Effective US involvement requires the personal involvement of the President with the support of foreign policymakers throughout the government. And those policymakers are fully occupied with Iraq. This was a terrible week for American forces in Iraq and no doubt the White House and State Department are both consumed with how to stabilize the situation before the Jan. 30th elections.
Addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict right now might seem to be a diversion from the main task. It isn't. In fact this week's revelations about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners provided a horrible metaphor attesting to the connections between Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian situation. The Washington Post reported: "Documents disclosed by a coalition of groups that had sued the government to obtain them make it clear that both regular and Special Forces soldiers took part in abuse, and that the misconduct included shocking detainees with electric guns, shackling them without food and water, and wrapping a detainee in an Israeli flag."
Forget for a minute that we are dealing here with the sick mentality of those who torture shackled prisoners. Just focus on the idea that the guys doing the torturing understand that wrapping an Iraqi in an Israeli flag is the ultimate humiliation.
The flag incident is not, in itself, all that significant. The reports are about physical torture. Being wrapped in a piece of cloth is far from torturous. But it does indicate that, whether we like it or not, the Palestinian situation is understood by virtually everyone to be very close to the center of Arab and Muslim antagonism toward America.
It does not take the proverbial rocket scientist to understand that addressing it -- working toward the President's two-state vision -- can only help America in Iraq and throughout the Arab and Muslim world. Doing so is not a diversion from the problems in Iraq. It can help ameliorate them.
Nevertheless, the administration is going to hear from influential people opposing high-level US involvement. This past Tuesday, columnist David Brooks of the New York Times argued at length that the present promising moment for Israelis and Palestinians derives not from diplomacy but from various unilateral actions undertaken by the United States and by Israel. His colleague, William Safire, went so far as to argue that it was the US decision to oust Saddam Hussein that produced the movement toward negotiations!
Not true. Even the unilateral moves Brooks cites -- like the proposed Gaza withdrawal -- derives from both peoples being thoroughly worn down by four years of war. Status quo policies produced not peace but 1040 Israeli and 3490 Palestinian dead since the collapse of the Oslo process. Neither side could, or would, take it anymore. The tragedy is that it took four years and so many dead to get to this point. The lesson is not that diplomacy is pointless; it is that diplomacy needs to be utilized earlier and with more persistence.
That it what President Bush is promising to do. He deserves our support.
Views expressed by the author do not
necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.
 
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
