 |
Israel/Palestine and Bush’s Legacy |
 |
Secretary of State Rice stated yesterday that she and President Bush believe in an immediate two-state solution for Israel/Palestine:
“Frankly it is time for the establishment of a Palestinian state,” Ms Rice told reporters in a news conference which she held with the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. She said the US regarded a two-state solution “as absolutely essential for the future, not just of Palestinians and Israelis but also for the Middle East and indeed for American interests.”
She said Mr Bush would make finding a resolution a top priority of his time in office, and that she would devote her “last ounce of energy” to the issue.
Today, she met with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, adding momentum, she said, to the upcoming peace conference in Annapolis.
Other news sources concur that the Bush team’s campaign for a resolution to the Israel/Palestine issue stems largely from a concern over the President’s legacy. The New York Times writes:
With time running out on his tenure, President Bush has called for an international conference to be held in the United States this fall as part of a renewed push to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, trying to leave a legacy that has enticed and eluded his predecessors.
But as Alex pointed out in yesterday’s links section, one wonders what the contours of the talks will be. The LA Times reported today that Rice said Hamas will not be invited to talks. Will this undermine the talks’ efficacy, not to mention their credibility with Palestinians?
Many observers think the disagreements between Israelis and Palestinians over a defining text on which to base the conference - or even on the need for such a text in the first place - are a bad sign. With Arab powers like Saudi Arabia expressing skepticism over the past weeks and being noncommittal about attending, one must ask: Will the conference even get off the ground?
I hope that there will be peace in Israel/Palestine as soon as possible. I support the creation of a Palestinian state for many reasons, one of them being that I think it is a historical inevitability. All but the most hardened “don’t-give-an-inch” pro-Israel partisans must admit that massive repression against the Palestinians has worsened the situation. The establishment of Palestine, in my eyes, is not a question of whether but of when.
Will Bush and Rice succeed? If (and perhaps some readers will think the chances of this are infinitesimal) they can act fairly and justly, then I hope they do succeed. On the practical level, however, doubts remain about whether hard-line Israelis will really budge until we threaten them with something real: withdrawing aid. If our priority is to create a Palestine, we can make the Israelis come to the table and work out a real solution. But if we are not willing to talk in terms of the real mechanics of power, I wonder whether progress can be made. Bush and Rice, for all their talk, are probably not willing to play hardball.
As for Bush’s legacy, I doubt that even solving Israel/Palestine would redeem it. His presidency has been a disaster for the stability of the Middle East, and it is too late to change that. Thousands, possibly millions of corpses in Iraq and elsewhere testify to the damage Bush has wrought. American credibility in the region has been severely damaged, and rebuilding it will take a massive and protracted effort - by a new president. Perhaps Bush, Rice, and company are finally realizing that they could have used their time in power to be statesmen (and women) instead of ideologues, but it is too late for redemption.
So again, I hope for peace and resolution in Israel/Palestine. If it is Bush and Rice who - through some miracle - bring that into being, I will commend them, particularly as I doubt it will play to any real political advantage with them or their party. The question of a Palestinian state can, and should, transcend American partisan politics. The festering situation in the Middle East has not only been a humanitarian tragedy but also a source of alarm and insecurity for a troubled region, and indeed for the entire world. The creation of a Palestinian state, if it can be accomplished without sowing the seeds of further enmity and bloodshed, is vital for world and American interests. So if nothing else, I appreciate that Rice has stated the administration’s desire to move in this direction - regardless of what she or Bush achieve, it is an important step forward, and will help to defuse (or provide further ammunition against) some of the anti-Palestinian rhetoric on the extreme Right in America.
What are your thoughts? This issue is extremely complicated, and my opinion is only one among many. I’d love to hear some feedback, particularly if we can generate a discussion that is constructive.
It seems like, as you’ve said, neither side has incentive to compromise. The Israelis seem to have the Palestinians under control (though brutally repressed), so why compromise unless the U.S. is considering withdrawing support? Some Palestinians might compromise, but will Hamas be invited? Does Hamas even want compromise? And, unfortunately, any Palestinian agreement will have to be acceptable to the larger Muslim world, which has even less incentives here.
So yeah, time’s not right, and unless Bush and Rice are really prepared to twist some arms, not much is going to get done.
Hamas will not be invited according to the LA Times. Check the link in the post. I think Hamas would play ball if it really came down to it, but that’s a subject for the next post.