Issue No. 593
Opinion
Previous issue
Site map
|
|
4 - 10 July 2002 Issue No. 593 Opinion |
Current issue Previous issue Site map | |
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Recommend this page | ||
Honey, I shrunk the peace plan!
Despite its positive reception by some Arab leaders, President Bush's recent speech on setting up a "provisional" Palestinian state is a glass half full, writes Mohamed Hakki
Shortly before President Bush delivered his long-awaited speech, there was a lot of speculation about what he would say. He himself confused everyone when he sent out several conflicting messages: it may not be a speech; it may only be a statement; it may only be the expression of a few ideas. There was even a question about who would deliver it, and whether it would be delivered by Colin Powell, the secretary of state, or by the president personally.
However, the most accurate speculation came from William Quant, vice-provost for international affairs at the University of Virginia, at a talk he gave to the Centre for Policy Analysis on Palestine. Quant predicted that the Bush proposal would have no real strategy behind it, and at best it would annoy and disappoint people who care about these issues. Thus, when the speech was finally delivered, it was not only disappointing to the Palestinian side, but also to almost everybody else, the two major US dailies, the Washington Post and The New York Times seeing it as lacking any real plan or "road map".
It is true that Bush mentioned a number of "code words" that the Arabs had been waiting to hear, such as the "Israeli occupation that began in 1967 and would only be ended through a settlement negotiated between the parties based on UN Resolutions 242 and 338 with Israeli withdrawal to secure and recognised borders." However, to every promise he appeared to make to the Palestinians Bush appended a long laundry list of steps they needed to take first: get rid of Arafat, elect new leaders, build new institutions, create new security arrangements, and all this before even dreaming of even the "provisional state" they would get three years down the line.
In the meantime, Ariel Sharon will finish building all the "facts on the ground" that Hanan Ashrawi has predicted will be irreversible. In fact, Ashrawi warned on a recent visit to Washington that the present window of opportunity for reaching an agreement may exist for only one year, after which any solution will be impossible.
Many Arab and Palestinian leaders, however, saw the speech as a half-full glass, doing their best to put a positive spin on what Bush had said. They accentuated the speech's positive points -- withdrawal of Israeli forces to positions they had held prior to 28 September 2000, halting Israeli settlement activity consistent with the Mitchell Recommendations and the release of frozen, or stolen, Palestinian revenues. But, as The New York Times rightly pointed out, most if not all of Bush's views on the conflict have shrunk from those he himself expressed on 4 April.
On this date Bush had explained his vision of "supporting the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians for a Palestinian state". The outline was clear: two states, Israeli and Palestinian, living side by side in peace and security. But in his recent speech Bush retreated from any such assurances; now the Palestinians can have a "provisional state" if and only if they carry out the actions included on Bush's laundry list.
On 4 April Bush clearly condemned Israeli checkpoints, stating that Israel has to be "compassionate" in sparing innocent Palestinians daily humiliation and asking for immediate action to ease Israeli border closures. This time round, however, there was no mention of checkpoints, closures or daily humiliation.
Those Arab leaders who see in Bush's recent speech a glass half full, rather than one that is half empty, have not recognised the possibility that this speech may set a very dangerous precedent. For, if the US president feels able to demand a change in the Palestinian leadership today, what will prevent him tomorrow from demanding a change in the leadership of any other Arab state, by appealing to the same set of reasons -- democracy, corruption, transparency, etc? What, in fact, does America want? A Palestinian leader who holds US citizenship and owns a restaurant in Bethesda, Maryland, like Hamid Karzai, the Afghan leader? What if the Palestinians elect Hanan Ashrawi, Mustafa Barghouti, or Haidar Abdel-Shafi, each of whom would probably be more hardline than Arafat in his or her vision and plans for peace? Would Bush then demand their dismissal too?
The other point mentioned by apologists for the US president is that he has to be careful in what he says because of American domestic politics. But all American presidents have to be careful about American domestic politics. The American Jewish lobby, for example, did not trust President Carter because he was a Southern Baptist and because he used occasionally to preach. Nevertheless, Carter managed to negotiate the Camp David Agreement, which was based on a formula of land for peace, and as a result Egypt regained every inch of its land.
Similarly, Bush Senior dragged Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir kicking and screaming to the Madrid Conference, later helping to remove him from office. The sky did not fall. Clinton invited Arafat to the White House on more occasions than he did any other world leader, and he treated Netanyahu like a pariah, contributing to the latter's defeat in the Israeli elections, but, once again, the sky did not fall. Those who say that Bush has gone further than any other US president in calling for a Palestinian state are therefore not accurate. In fact, Bush's words sounded more like the title of a Hollywood movie: "Honey, I shrunk the Peace Plan".
President Bush's working principle now is no longer land for peace; instead, it is everything for Israel -- land, peace and the love and support of America. And if, but only if, the Palestinians behave, perhaps they can have a provisional state on whatever land Israel leaves them after building all the settlements it wants.
While this is happening, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's credibility is shrinking among both Israelis and American Jews, as recent polls have shown. Yet, it is not shrinking with President Bush, and Sharon seems to have played a major role in shaping Bush's attitude towards both Arafat and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is ironic that a man like Richard Cohen of The Washington Post should express his chagrin at the fact that Sharon is not the De Gaulle-like figure that Israel now needs at precisely the time when Bush appears to trust Sharon to the extent of giving him carte blanche to carry out his plans, not even asking him to halt the building of new Israeli settlements.
Instead of leaning on Sharon to moderate his stance, something which would have been supported by a sizable majority of Jews both in Israel and America, Bush has shown himself to be more worried about losing the support of the US Congress and the American Christian-Zionists, and instead demanding that the Palestinians dump Arafat.
The Arabs and the Israelis have long had different perspectives on the US. While the Arabs have always felt that they have needed to educate each new American president as he appears every four or eight years, the Israelis, together with their American supporters, have been obsessed with the idea of controlling US institutions, first the media, then Congress, then the Defense Department, and finally the White House.
The Arabs have shied away from confrontation, and they have always been on the defensive. Even now when Bush has said that the Arabs should build closer ties with Israel, leading to full normalisation of relations, they do not point out that the Arabs collectively and unanimously adopted such a stance at the Arab Summit held in Beirut last March. However, they made it conditional on the conclusion of a peace settlement based on UN Resolutions 242 and 338, pointing out that it was impossible to build ties with Israel when Sharon is occupying the West Bank and Gaza and when Israeli troops continue to massacre Palestinian civilians.
Instead of insisting that the US and Israel owe the Palestinian people an apology for the history of injustice that they have inflicted on them over the past 50 years, the Arabs have remained on the defensive. Historically, they have found excuses for every US president in order neither to anger nor to alienate America, while America has continued to exclude all the other players, whether the UN, the Security Council, the Europeans, or the Russians, from the Middle East equation, claiming that only the US can lean on Israel.
However, the US has never used the word "pressure" when it comes to "leaning" on the Israelis, this word apparently not existing in the lexicon of US-Israeli relations. Instead, the language of "persuasion" is used, even as the US continues to reward Israel as it carries out the most heinous crimes. This is what the US Congress has recently done, as Sharon's troops continue to wreak havoc in the occupied territories, by extending an additional $200 million to Israel in aid. While this kind of thing continues, the most that one can say in response to President Bush's recent speech is to repeat the Arabic saying: we wish him success, but only if he is telling the truth.
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
