|
MPAC D.C. News & Views - May 23, 2008
Bush says we are all Israelis
Last week President Bush embarked upon a week-long tour of the Middle East, meeting with regional leaders in Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Egypt to demonstrate the U.S.'s commitment to securing peace and advancing freedom. The President's most troubling remarks, however, emerged in his address to the Israeli Knesset, in which he pledged America's unconditional support for Israel.
"Israel's population may be just over 7 million," the President stated on May 15. "But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you."
President Bush, in this bold statement, committed all U.S. citizens ipso facto citizens of Israel. The decades-long U.S.-Israel alliance aside, the President presumed that all American citizens welcome our country's friendship with Israel with the same warmth and admiration which Bush so readily delivered on behalf of the American people last week. What the President did not consider was that many American citizens conscientiously object to the ongoing occupation of the Palestinian Territories. Among them are Christians and Jews who have joined Muslim and Arab Americans who oppose Israeli policy toward the Palestinians. All are eagerly waiting for the time when the U.S. can have a serious, balanced discussion regarding this issue.
It is impossible to ignore the suffering of the Palestinians and the continued challenges to their realizing statehood and securing their rights. Recent attempts at creating peace by addressing core issues--including the status of Jerusalem, the right of return of refugees, Israeli settlements, and establishing borders--have been largely unsuccessful. The absence of U.S. leadership in peace talks since it renewed its commitment at the Annapolis, Md. Conference in November 2007 have increased skepticism and frustrations on both sides. Last week, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas threatened to resign if no peace agreement is reached this year. "Israel will not have a better partner than the group leading the PLO today, which believes the Palestinian interest is a historic reconciliation with Israel and a Palestinian state alongside it," and that Israel could "find itself with no partner at all."
It is therefore imprudent to ask, or even presume, that all Americans favor a U.S. foreign policy that has emerged under this administration as combative and antagonistic, serving to alienate regional leaders and members of the negotiating community. In his speech to the Knesset, President Bush likened the thought of negotiating with "terrorists and radicals" today with the Nazis under the leadership of Adolf Hitler. The President quickly dismissed this thought, affirming that the U.S. has "an obligation to call this what it is--the false comfort of appeasement."
On the contrary, dialogue--especially for the purpose of creating a just and lasting peace--must never be considered appeasement. To expect otherwise is to guarantee failure. Dialogue has proven to be the most effective and enduring method of conducting foreign relations, a means by which negotiators can protect their interests, as well as hold the other party responsible for compromises agreed upon. Similarly, dialogue with individuals who express dissent is an essential element of policymaking and nation building. As former Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer stated this week at a House Foreign Relations Committee hearing assessing the U.S.-Israel-Egypt trilateral relationship: "It is not appeasement to talk to your enemies." Negotiation does not necessitate agreement or concession, for that matter; rather, successful dialogue is only possible with full agendas exposed so discussion is open, honest, and responsible.
The United States can no longer "urge" or "support" the Israelis and Palestinians in their efforts; either the current approach is faulty, a tired habit, or simply, prejudices are being allowed to influence policy. Much like the 1978 Camp David Accords were brokered by former President Jimmy Carter, this round of peace talks desperately needs the hands-on dedication of President Bush and a serious team of foreign policy mediators who understand the nuances of the politics of the region, and all of whom must be keen on both sides realizing the manifestations of peace. The future of the Middle East, and the nature of America's relationship with the region, is contingent upon the realization of a final status agreement.
Washington Watch - May 19, 2008
Bush visits the messy world he created
By James Zogby
President George W. Bush may attempt to sound visionary, talk tough, and criticize opponents as naive, but the Middle East which he visited last week is in shambles, due in no small part to policies he has pursued or failed to pursue during his two terms in office.
The President ostensibly traveled to the Middle East to celebrate the 60th anniversary of Israel's founding, the 75th anniversary of the U.S.-Saudi relationship, and to deliver a keynote address at the World Economic Forum in Sharm el-Sheikh. This all might have sounded like a trip planner's dream project, except for the fact that while in the region the President, despite his rhetoric, would have had hard time diverting attention from the fires burning all around.
The broader Middle East, in this the last year of George W. Bush's presidency, is more troubled, less secure, and less hopeful than it was at the beginning of his term in office. Our polling shows that favorable Arab attitudes toward the United States are lower today than they were at the start of millennium. Likewise, Arabs are less trusting of U.S. intentions, less confident in the U.S.'s ability to work for peace, and less optimistic about their own futures. One might reasonably ask, why should they feel any differently, given this administration's record in the region?
Iraq, despite hollow rhetoric about the success of the "surge," seems to be moving inexorably toward partition. The more than 4 million refugees and internally displaced persons stand witness to that, as do the barriers that now divide neighborhoods in Baghdad and the deepening divides which characterize Iraq's polity.
After initial success in Afghanistan, the administration lost focus and drained resources needed to complete the job it had started. Today, the situation of women has deteriorated, President Karzai effectively rules only Kabul and only by day, warlords are back, drug production is up, and the Taliban and al-Qaeda have reemerged, threatening not only Afghanistan but Pakistan as well.
The situation in Lebanon also demonstrates the failure of a policy that preferred a victor/vanquished scenario, when reconciliation and reform were what was needed. Instead of being defeated by their own adventurous miscues, Hizbullah survived due to equally disastrous Israeli and U.S. policies. Hizbullah, capitalizing on the vacuum left by these failures, turned first to paralyzing the government and now to consolidating its position as the country's preeminent military force - all of which poses great danger to the future of Lebanon.
In Palestine and Israel, a tragic scenario played out. There, President Bush's vision of two states was suborned and subverted by his administration's own ideology and policies, which have now made his stated and preferred solution all but impossible to realize.
I've noted before the hallmarks of this administration's policies: neglect when they could have acted to make a difference; ignoring reality and favoring ideology when they do act; and when they inevitably fail, dumbing down the definition of success for PR purposes.
In Iraq, it was the purple fingers. In Afghanistan, it was the photo of girls sans burkas going to school, and the election, of sorts, of Karzai as President.
In Lebanon it was the March 14th rally. And in Palestine, a "fair and free election." Yet none of these were, in fact, victories - anymore than hanging the "Mission Accomplished" banner in 2003 made it so.
The classic case Bush Administration failure is, of course, Palestine, where the President began his term by neglecting to implement the wise counsel of the Mitchell Report, allowing the Sharon government to subvert its recommendations. Bush then undercut the missions of his own envoys (Zinni and Powell), and in a letter that has come to haunt the peace process, pledged to accept Israel's positions on critical final status issues while ignoring Israel's unilateral push to impose its own solutions on Gaza and the West Bank
After all this, in 2007, with Palestine hopelessly divided, the Israeli government weakened by internal strife, the West Bank literally mauled by concrete barriers and ever-expanding roads and settlements, and Gaza strangling, the President resurrected his two-state vision by calling for a conference in Annapolis.
As initially framed, Annapolis was to cap an agreed-upon Israeli-Palestinian formula for peace, which they would then implement during the final year of Bush's presidency. Despite the historic presence of 16 Arab states, and a host of European and other nations, the parties arrived at Annapolis with no such agreement, owing to the failure of the Administration to engage in pre-summit planning. They left with only an agreement to negotiate.
Six months later, settlements continue to expand, quality of life in the Palestinian territories continues to deteriorate, Israeli confidence-building measures have yet to be implemented, and the Israelis have only now begrudgingly allowed an admittedly ill-equipped Palestinian police force to function in a few limited areas in the West Bank. Recognizing failure, but refusing to admit it, the Administration has again dumbed down the definition of victory by suggesting that success in 2008 would be Israelis and Palestinians signing an agreement to "define" a vision of two states. (It should be noted that, since the Israelis even refuse to allow critical final status issues to be a part of this effort, the definition will be, at best, ill-defined.)
And so it is no wonder that the world into which George Bush comes will be wary of his presence and mistrustful of his words. Moderates have been weakened, extremists emboldened, Iran is threatening, and allies are feeling less secure. This, sadly, is the world George Bush has helped to create, and which he has visited for the last time as President.
Dr. James Zogby is president of the American Arab Institute.
|
