Monday, March 04, 2002
President Bush needs to admit that he has no coherent policy with respect to the Israeli/Palestinian situation rather than undermining through apathy the peace initiative proposed by the Saudis. The Bush administration's rather tired refrain has been that Arafat needs to do more to rein in Palestinian terrorists. This ignores, of course, how little control Arafat has over his own people after a decade without managing a peace agreement with Israel, and the lack of credibility which results from Israeli soldiers who regularly bulldoze houses in the occupied territories or kill Palestinians at checkpoints. Sharon's tactics have changed little since as Defence Minister he oversaw the invasion of Lebanon in 1982 (which lead to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, and Sharon’s removal in 1983). He believed that a military solution to the Palestinian question worked then, and still believes it today.
Mr. Sharon, unfortunately, viewed America’s response to the attacks of Sept. 11th as granting implicit support to an increased military offensive against Palestinian terrorists. Bush seems to have agreed, though one questions how well thought out that response has been given how short a time Admiral Zinni (Bush’s peace envoy) spent in the middle east and how little Bush speaks about the situation in Israel. There is NO COMPARISON between the attacks of Sept. 11th and Israel’s military offensive against the Palestinians. The Palestinians are, essentially, an occupied people, and like occupied people in other areas of the world (Algeria, Vietnam (under the French), India, etc), will respond as such.
President Bush needs to consider why past attempts at peace failed. Much of that failure was due to the fact that Arafat negotiates from a position of powerlessness. It is RIGHT for him to expect a territorially intact Palestinian homeland, one free of Jewish "settlers" or checkpoints which chop the territories into a patchwork quilt. Unfortunately, Arafat has zero leverage to make that happen.
The Saudi proposal is a great idea at a number of levels. First, it provides Arafat the bargaining chip (peace between Israel and the entire Middle East) he needs to extract the concessions the Palestinian people deserve. Second, the idea comes from the Saudis, which gives it a much better chance of acceptance in an area which, however unfairly, views America as their enemy. Third, it provides America the chance to show support for an Arab initiative, which is important given America's track record of rubber stamping Israel's position at the UN. Fourth, it comes at a "good" time, if you define "good" as being a point at which Palestinians and Israelis are so desperate to end the violence that they are willing to make the hard concessions (including on the Palestinian side, who ought to trade control over Jerusalem for an intact Palestinian homeland).
With a Democratic party doing everything in their power to erode support for a popular Republican president in preparation for elections this Fall, President Bush's reluctance to state that someone else (particularly Saudi Arabia) has a better idea may make sense. It only makes sense, however, if politics trumps statesmanship. It's hard to view the Saudi proposal as a "bad" idea, unless you happen to be someone who sees value in Israeli control over the occupied territories. The Palestinians deserve a homeland under their control as much as the current generation of Israelis, most of whom were born in Israel, have to theirs.
Mr. Sharon, unfortunately, viewed America’s response to the attacks of Sept. 11th as granting implicit support to an increased military offensive against Palestinian terrorists. Bush seems to have agreed, though one questions how well thought out that response has been given how short a time Admiral Zinni (Bush’s peace envoy) spent in the middle east and how little Bush speaks about the situation in Israel. There is NO COMPARISON between the attacks of Sept. 11th and Israel’s military offensive against the Palestinians. The Palestinians are, essentially, an occupied people, and like occupied people in other areas of the world (Algeria, Vietnam (under the French), India, etc), will respond as such.
President Bush needs to consider why past attempts at peace failed. Much of that failure was due to the fact that Arafat negotiates from a position of powerlessness. It is RIGHT for him to expect a territorially intact Palestinian homeland, one free of Jewish "settlers" or checkpoints which chop the territories into a patchwork quilt. Unfortunately, Arafat has zero leverage to make that happen.
The Saudi proposal is a great idea at a number of levels. First, it provides Arafat the bargaining chip (peace between Israel and the entire Middle East) he needs to extract the concessions the Palestinian people deserve. Second, the idea comes from the Saudis, which gives it a much better chance of acceptance in an area which, however unfairly, views America as their enemy. Third, it provides America the chance to show support for an Arab initiative, which is important given America's track record of rubber stamping Israel's position at the UN. Fourth, it comes at a "good" time, if you define "good" as being a point at which Palestinians and Israelis are so desperate to end the violence that they are willing to make the hard concessions (including on the Palestinian side, who ought to trade control over Jerusalem for an intact Palestinian homeland).
With a Democratic party doing everything in their power to erode support for a popular Republican president in preparation for elections this Fall, President Bush's reluctance to state that someone else (particularly Saudi Arabia) has a better idea may make sense. It only makes sense, however, if politics trumps statesmanship. It's hard to view the Saudi proposal as a "bad" idea, unless you happen to be someone who sees value in Israeli control over the occupied territories. The Palestinians deserve a homeland under their control as much as the current generation of Israelis, most of whom were born in Israel, have to theirs.
