Or perhaps it won't fail.
Would you concede that an American President who is prepared to act rather than talk, who has just completed a successful war with minimum casualties on all sides against an enemy of Israel, might have a decisive effect on a somewhat implacable Israel?
Unlike Clinton, Bush offers the aspect of someone who means what he says. He also controls the money that keeps both Israel and Palestine going.
I'm coming to belief that the problem is more Palestinian than Israeli. The Israeli "occupation" as Sharon called it may end. Palestine must quickly form a government and Arafat must release control of the several security services he presently holds.
My fear at the moment is that the settlements may be destroyed in the Israeli withdrawal. They should be placed in the hands of Palestinians by the new Government. (Think of that political Pandora's Box.)
Saw a bit of Bush this morning. He was chatting amiably with a bunch of baseball people at some kind of ceremony. He joked, made allusions to some inside baseball stuff, generally was most relaxed.
Didn't see any of the Gnomes of the Beltway handing him a script, or prompting him, He was on his own as a former President of a baseball franchise.
Rather, as he has been on several occasions that I have seen. Notably that Press Conference, where he walked alone some 40-50 feet up to the podium - then engaged the Press for about 50 minutes, as I recall.
No other President has appeared before the Press without a covey of handlers with him. Also, I can't remember another President spending so much time with the Press. Usually someone from their 'covies' tells the President to end the session.
I see a different President from the one who is reviled in the Press and elsewhere. I do see the BBC news every night. (Channel Four News used to be on over here, but I can't find it. Maybe it has been discontinued.)
The BBC is definitely biassed against America, and particularly against Bush. That's a good reason for every American and Canadian to watch it. For they'll see anti-American opinions that perhaps will never be heard on our newscasts - except with accompanied amazement. "How can they?"
Bush now has a reputation. I hope he won't lose his nerve, but will use his successes to bring a peace of some sort to the Middle East.
Harry
-----------------------------------------------------
Keith wrote
Bush's Roadmap hasn't a chance. It will inevitably fail. Sharon is already asking for modifications. Even with these, he will not be able to deliver because his cabinet is too divided.
I suggested on FW a few days ago that the only possible solution is the imposition of precise boundaries on both parties and the immediate institution of a Palestinian state. Otherwise, the impasse will continue for another generation and will end only in tragedy. Either the Palestinians will swamp Israel with overwhelming numbers, or the Israelis will drive out the Palestinians into Jordan, Lebanon or Syria.
In the diplomatic language of a former Israeli Foreign Minister, Shlomo Ben Ami's words in yesterday's FT are not far off what I've been saying. If you haven't time to read the whole article, then the last paragraph says all.
KH
<<<< SHARON'S SLOW APPROACH TO PEACE By Shlomo Ben Ami
The Israeli left has traditionally maintained that only through a settlement with the Palestinians can Israel reach a viable reconciliation with the Arab world. The right conveniently relegates the Palestinian dilemma to the fullness of time. It promises "painful concessions" to the Palestinians, but only after the existential threats emanating from the "rogue" states in the region - Iran, Iraq, Syria - have been neutralised.
The preference that George W. Bush has given to the Iraqi situation, clearly relegating the Palestinian issue to a secondary position, was definitely seen by Ariel Sharon, Israel's prime minister, and his rightwing coalition as a defeat of the Arab thesis and a vindication of their own policies.
The test of US leadership, now that the war in Iraq has ended, Syria has presumably been "disciplined" and a formidable American military machine has been deployed on the Iranian border, lies in whether Mr Bush is willing or able to bring the Israeli right to its moment of truth with regard to the Palestinian problem. In other words, will Mr Bush call Mr Sharon's bluff?
The launching of the road map for an Israeli-Palestinian peace and the sequence of international conferences planned to promote it look indeed like a repetition of the logic of the first Gulf war. Then, the same coalition that made the war came to Madrid, under resolute American leadership, for an international peace conference on the Middle East.
So far, however, Mr Bush, unlike his father, has not distinguished himself as a coalition-builder. He has still to prove that his unilateralism in times of war is not a handicap when it comes to forging an alliance for peace.
But the difference does not lie solely in the poor diplomatic skills of the current US administration. It is a much deeper affair. Then, the State Department - under the leadership of James Baker, an extraordinary arm-twister who was driven by an awareness of the centrality of the Arab-Israeli conflict to Middle Eastern stability - was the real architect of America's foreign policy in the region. Today, not only does Colin Powell, the secretary of state, not enjoy the full trust of the president, but the State Department is also clearly playing a secondary role in defining America's strategic priorities.
The lead is being taken by a faith-driven White House and a hawkish Pentagon - and these do not put the Palestinian situation high on the US agenda.
Moreover, the Bush-Baker team failed to be re-elected because, among other reasons, they refused to be held hostage to domestic constraints when it came to the necessity of confronting Yitzhak Shamir, Israel's then prime minister, on the peace process. Friendly relations with their Arab allies, especially the Saudis, were a more important concern to them.
The lesson that Mr Bush drew from the experience of his father was never to disassociate himself from his electoral base, the powerful pro-Israel Christian bible belt and the Jewish vote, which, for the first time in many years, is now shifting its electoral preferences in favour of a Republican president. Twisting Mr Sharon's arm for the sake of the road map at a time when a pathological and self-defeating escalation in Palestinian suicide terrorism gives him a pretext for dragging his feet is clearly not an advisable policy with presidential elections looming.
Again, unlike the first Bush administration, which had behind it a solid alliance of Arab states in its war against Saddam Hussein, and hence was committed to pursue peace in co-ordination with them, Mr Bush operates against the background of an Arab world in disarray. Important states such as Saudi Arabia and Syria are clearly in a defensive position as exporters of terrorism. Most of the regimes are immersed in their own domestic difficulties, and hardly in a position to exercise much leverage on behalf of the Palestinians.
Does this mean that Mr Bush will abandon the road map and brush aside the Palestinian issue altogether? Not necessarily. He has publicly committed himself to advance his "vision", and he is obliged to his European allies to pursue the process. But he will do it the White House way, not the State Department way. That means working on the road map with Mr Sharon, not against him.
Such an attitude will keep the road map alive as a broad, albeit not strictly binding, framework for peace within which "things" will happen, some confidence-building steps may be taken, international conferences and summit meetings may be held - and perhaps even a semblance of progress created. But all these will certainly fall far short of the resolve, commitment and arm-twisting needed to make this road map a binding platform for peace.
Peace will require that the parties be presented not just with a vague framework but with precise parameters for a final settlement, and that an international mandate with a multinational force is put in place to assist a collapsing Palestinian Authority in its transition to full statehood and in disarming the militias. The mandate should likewise monitor and supervise Israel's compliance with its commitments.
>>>>
Keith Hudson
**************************************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242 http://home.attbi.com/~haledward ****************************************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.483 / Virus Database: 279 - Release Date: 5/19/2003
