In Israel, Bush Punts Posted by Moran Banai

While I agree with my colleagues on this site that President Bush’s appeasement comments were both ridiculous and inappropriate, they were only one aspect of what was wrong with his speech. Bush was in Israel, for the second time in his presidency and also the second time this year, at the halfway point between the launching of the Annapolis process and the end of his term, speaking to the Knesset and, in effect, to the whole region, and all he had to say about the peace process, about the Palestinians and about the U.S. role was that in 60 years, “[t]he Palestinian people will have the homeland they have long dreamed of and deserved -- a democratic state that is governed by law, and respects human rights, and rejects terror.” It was left to Israeli Prime Minister Olmert to mention that the visit “provided another important opportunity for us to discuss the advancement of a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

I think Bush’s silence on this issue speaks volumes about his efforts on the peace process. After seven years of malignant neglect the administration was able to bring 49 countries together at Annapolis to support the beginning of a bilateral negotiating process between the Israelis and Palestinians with the goal of reaching an agreement by the end of 2008. President Bush elicited an agreement from the two sides that they would tackle “all core issues, without exception” in their negotiations and that the “United States will monitor and judge the fulfillment of the commitments of both sides of the Roadmap.” These were serious breakthroughs.

A major problem according to those who have worked on this issue (see here and here) has been the implementation, or really, the lack of thereof. Just one example: General William Fraser, assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, was assigned the role of monitor of implementation of the road map (one of four envoys, along with General Jim Jones, General Keith Dayton and the Quartet’s special envoy, former British PM Tony Blair). Not only was it hard to comprehend how he could accomplish this as a part-time envoy with no real staff on the ground, but now he’s been nominated as the new commander of United States Transportation Command, a job that seriously calls into question his ability to continue as monitor.  Without a monitor on the ground day in and day out there is no one to ensure that progress is made on the very difficult issues that generate distrust between the two sides- settlement building, movement and access and Palestinian security reform - and make a final agreement all the more unlikely.

Yesterday’s speech provided an opportunity for Bush to stand up and say “Israel has achieved a lot in 60 years and as we look forward, I want to help it achieve greater security through peace with the Palestinians. We’ve got nine months left, we’ve got a process going, it’s floundering and we need to do some heavy lifting to make sure that whether a final agreement in 2008 is possible or not, we will have created the mechanisms necessary to ensure that this moves forward, rather than backward. I will use all the powers of my office and of the United States to do this and this is exactly how.” But that, of course, is not what we heard.

This type of silence sends the message to the parties involved and to the region that the process is not that important, that it is only an afterthought. And that makes his speech not just a missed opportunity, but a net negative. 

Comments

[peace]

I believe that the greatest mistake that the Bush administration made wss not to recognize the results of the 2006 Palestinian election by not talking to Hamas. This not only impeded any progress in the Israeli-Palestinian talks it also added to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Plus it made Bush's talk about democracy prmotion in the Middle East seem like empty rhetoric.

[Dan Kervick]

I fear you're in dreamland, Moran. Why are Israelis always looking to the US for some sort of miracle cure for their 75-year war? The Israelis can't even agree among themselves to implement UN 242. The US isn't going to do it for them.

In any case, the United States is simply incapable of pushing, brokering. or underwriting any kind of deal that could achieve the support of both sides. The US is weighed down by far too much domestic political baggage. This isn't like the Irish conflict, where there were lots of Irish-Americans and lots of Anglo-Americans, and deep cultural roots running from America to both sides of the conflict. Israel is the 51st state, and it's absurd to expect the US to hammer out an equitable solution there. You might as well dream of Washington engineering a territorial swap between Florida and Cuba.

Annapolis wasn't a "process". It was a photo op.

You say Bush should have said:

We’ve got nine months left, we’ve got a process going, it’s floundering and we need to do some heavy lifting to make sure that whether a final agreement in 2008 is possible or not, we will have created the mechanisms necessary to ensure that this moves forward, rather than backward. I will use all the powers of my office and of the United States to do this and this is exactly how.”

You've got to be kidding me. First, it is unrealistic to expect an American president to use the occasion of Israel's 60'th birthday to really push the Israelis on anything related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Job One for Bush in Israel was just to win as many pro-Israel votes for John McCain as possible, and compete with Democrats in the "who thinks Israel is more awesome" contest.

More importantly, the problems of Israelstine are far too intractable to be solved by nine months of "heavy lifting" by some suits in Washington. I get a laugh every time I hear some US-based commentator argue that the Israelis should halt all "unauthorized" settlement activity, as though this constitutes tough talk. The settlements are all unauthorized.

Starting with Clinton's egregious performance at Camp David, at least, and proceeding through seven years of of Bush policies in the Middle East, the United States has completely forfeited any peacemaking role it might once have been able to play. The Oslo accords explicitly reaffirmed UN 242 as the basis for a final status agreement, and then Clinton cynically mocked the UN and refused to accept that framework after dragging the Palestinians to his lame duck publicity stunt and show piece. We are now officially part of the problem. You seem to be suggesting that Bush should put on the same kind of end-of-term show, as though the world's problems can be bent to the superficialities of the US election cycle.

I have my own dreamland scenario for the conflict. It would be good if the international community could organize a sanctions and divestment movement applied to both Israel and the Palestinian entity, and extend those sanctions to the US if the US refuses to cooperate. Israel and Palestine are both outlaw entities in violation of a mountain of international laws. Until the Israelis and Palestinians are both cut off from all outside support, neither will make a settlement in accord with previously articulated international resolutions. Of course my dreamland fantasies aren't going to come about either.