Israel and the Palestinians; updated Dec. 22
Great article in the Dec. 15 New Yorker: "Back Roads: How serious is the Bush Administration about creating a Palestinian state?" by Connie Bruck.
This is a serious article both about the specific issues between Israel and the Palestinians, and what the Bush Administration is likely to do about them.
As for the ongoing conflict itself: on the whole Bruck strives to be even-handed as to which side is most at fault in the continuing violence. Arafat's actions at Camp David in July 2000 certainly haunt the narrative of events since then: "Arafat had rejected what was on the table...and, even more inexplicably, had made no counter-proposal." Sharon visited the Temple Mount; and violence escalated.
Thus there is genuine sympathy for the Israeli view that it is the people behind the intafada, with Arafat somehow still at their centre, who are refusing to negotiate. When Israel expands the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, and builds the new wall along a new frontier, it does so out of self-defence.
On the other hand, several people are quoted to the effect that sooner or later, both kinds of aggression will have to cease. A man named Avi Gil says Bush's "road map" is basically the old Oslo agreement, which admittedly did not work, with specific performance targets. There will have to be a two-state solution, acceptable to both sides, and presumably Israel cannot decide unilaterally that the border between them is going to be much less advantageous to the Palestinians than any that has been discussed previously. "We all know what will be the endgame. But we are getting there with the maximum pain, the maximum blood possible."
The road map involves three phases, and Phase III includes the thorniest issues: Palestinian refugees from what is now Israel, the fate of existing Israeli settlements, and the status of Jerusalem. Phase II includes the provisional borders of a Palestinian state. This new state was tentatively to be established by sometime in 2006.
In other words, there are some pieces in here that the Palestinians want, and Sharon does not. Hence the question in the title: is Bush serious about negotiating hard to achieve some goals that are resisted by Israel's leadership?
The answer seems to be "yes." The article focusses on Elliott Abrams, who was the ultimate Cold Warrior in the Reagan years and is now the ultimate exporter of democracy and, generally, friend of Israel. He has been a leader on the "road map" file, and one question is whether he is prepared to ask Israel to trust the Palestinian leadership, rather than do wha they think maximizes their short-term security. One suggestion is that Abrams agreed with Bush that the Palestinians should be given one more real chance to show their good faith. Phase I of the road map includes a freeze on Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, and the dismantling of outposts built after March 2001. But on the other side, the Palestinians have to undertake comprehensive political reform, draft a constitution, and hold elections. Above all, there must be a group or individual who can both speak for the Palestinians and control the terrorists who have been attacking Israel. This came to be treated as the first condition to be met. In other words, the Palestinians must make the first move. In effect, just as the Israelis have said, Arafat is treated as someone who can never be negotiated with, and the intifada must stop before Israel is asked to sacrifice anything.
So far this could be read as a kind of cynical trick by people who are pro-Israel, who support Bush, and who want to give the impression that a real effort has been made to achieve peace.
Somewhat surprisingly, however, the article emphasizes that Bush himself has been completely in charge of this file for a long time. He postponed releasing the road map, and many Israelis began to think he was truly on their side, he would do nothing urgently to achieve a Palestinian state. Then he released the road map sooner than they expected, and made it clear that if there is a Palestinian leadership he can negotiate with, he will indeed negotiate with them.
Unfortunately, Mahmoud Abbas/Abu Mazzen did not work out as Prime Minister. (He endeed up being bitter that the Bush Administration did not help him more). In late November 2003, a new Palestinian government was formed under Prime Minister ahmed Qurei/Abu Ala. Bruck says he is "a more accomplished politician than Abu Mazen". A Bush administration official is quoted to the effect that this is what Bush has always wanted--a credible Palestinian leader across the table. The problem with the recent "Geneva" accord, supported by prominent people from both the Israeli and the Palestinian side, is that it tries to get to the "end game" too quickly. Serious people have to negotiate for the two sides, and build confidence in each other. Thus the Bush view has always been consistent; it is the Palestinians who have failed to send effective negotiators to the table.
The same official says there is an important difference between Oslo and the road map: the road map requires that the new Palestinian state be a democracy.
[Update Dec. 20: See also the Washington Post's remarkable criticism of Howard Dean's foreign policy stance, with the explicit and implied praise of Bush along the way. In particular, the Post says "Only [Dean, among the leading Democrats] omitted democracy from his goals for Iraq and the Middle East. And only Mr. Dean made the extraordinary argument that the capture of Saddam Hussein 'has not made Americans safer.'
"Mr. Dean's carefully prepared speech was described as a move toward the center, but in key ways it shifted him farther from the mainstream.... Mr. Dean has at times argued that the United States must remain engaged to bring democracy to Iraq, yet the word is conspicuously omitted from the formula of 'stable self-government' he now proposes."]
There are several passages iin the New Yorker piece stressing that Bush has paid great attention to the details of proposals and counter-proposals. He has made sure that his major statements have all been consistent. The idea of talking about a "Palestinian state," going beyond both Oslo and Clinton, was apparently his alone. He is not asking the Israelis to abandon their security, but he will ask them to negotiate when there is a real opportunity to do so.
I still don't understand what happened when there was a cease-fire, including an apparent agreement that the Palestinians would track down terrorists, with help from Israel on finding hide-outs. Suddenly, it seemed, Israel started taking out terrorists on its own, and the cease-fire was over.
As Mark Steyn points out in the Spectator, "there has been a noticeable decline in the number of suicide bombings against Israel, suggesting the intifada is having some problems without its sugar daddy."
More surprisingly, Christopher Hitchens says in a recent interview, in which he blames all the monotheistic religions for spreading hate, that Bush is the best hope for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
"Mr Bush, to his credit, has become the first President to use the term 'Palestinian state'. And he has criticized the building of the wall that both locks in and extends the occupation. Every one of the potential Democratic nominees takes an opportunistic pro-Israeli view that consists of irresponsible pandering. One of my reasons for favoring the re-election of the President is that only given a second term is he likely to speak up properly. He shouldn't wait, of course. He should say immediately: 'General Sharon, tear down this wall!' Dream on, you may say. I'm not an optimist here, as you will see from my earlier reply about Armageddon without the Messiah. But I know from experience that none of Bush's liberal and Democratic rivals will even come close to this, and so I am a 'lesser evil' person on this rather crucial point."
(I had a link to this interview somewhere, but I forget where).
Update Dec. 20: The Dec. 15 New Yorker also has an article by Seymour Hersh on the shift in U.S. tactics in Iraq to making greater use of Special Forces. To some extent the Americans are learning from the Israelis in the use of unconventional and aggressive techniques including "preemptive manhunting." Hersh quotes a "former Israeli military-intelligence oficer" at some length. What is essential, he says, is to maintain a network of informants so as to penetrate hostile organizations, and "assassinate or capture potential suicide bombers along with many of the people who recruit and train them."
Then I think the passage that is relevant here:
"Israel has, in many ways, been too successful, and has killed or captured so many midpranking facilitators on the operational level in the West Bank that Hamas now consists largely of isolated cells that carry out terrorist attacks against Israel on their own....There is no central control over many of the suicide bombers. We're trying to tell the Americans that they don't want to elminate the center. The key is not to have freelancers out there."
I take it this means: at least some (probably not all) of today's terrorist leaders must, if there is to be peace, become the statesmen, even the potential Nobel Peace Prize winners, of tomorrow. If you negotiate with them as leaders, they might actually persuade a large number of people to lay down their arms.
Khaddafi may be well on the way to becoming Exhibit A.
This raises questions about the whole idea of war crimes trials, but I'll get to that later.
Update Dec. 22: Partly in response to a meeting with Egypt's foreign minister, Sharon has launched a new diplomatic initiative: promising to dismantle at least some settlements in the West Bank and Gaza if Palestinian militant groups are dismantled, and a halt to hostile acts by Israel if there is a Palestinian cease-fire within a very short time; at the same time threatening to establish a new border unilaterally if progress does not occur. Sharon calls this a contribution to Bush's "road map," not a departure from it.
The Bush administration has responded by saying any unilateral action by Israel at this time is in fact a departure from the road map. Indeed Sharon has failed to comply with some specific first steps in the road map. Richard Gwyn has written in the Toronto Star that Sharon "has just revealed himself as bankrupt of ideas about how to achieve peace".
One big problem is timing: if Sharon takes drastic steps in the next six months or so, this would be the worst possible time for Bush.
A big ending: "Among Middle East experts, it has become the predominate wisdom that real progress toward peace can only be achieved if not just Palestinian Leader Yasser Arafat, but also Sharon, step down as leaders of their nations.
"Sharon, by his lack of imagination and even more by his political amateurishness, has now confirmed the judgment of his critics. Which is why Middle East peace has just inched a little closer."
Gwyn, once again, seems to take seriously President Bush's commitment to the road map, and to peace.
|
