MidEast Report

STUMBLING BLINDLY THROUGH HISTORY
It's difficult to divine what George W. Bush's actual policy is regarding the Palestine-Israel conflict, given that he seems to be trying to state things in a way which can be interpreted differently by either side. On April 14, Bush met with Ariel Sharon and made this statement:

"The United States will not prejudice the outcome of final status negotiations. That matter is for the parties."

Bush then blithely proceeded to prejudice the outcome of final status negotiations:

"But the realities on the ground and in the region have changed greatly over the last several decades, and any final settlement must take into account those realities and be agreeable to the parties. The goal of two independent states has repeatedly been recognized in international resolutions and agreements, and it remains the key to resolving this conflict. The United States is strongly committed to Israel's security and well being as a Jewish state. It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue, as part of any final status agreement, will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than Israel."

The Palestinian right of return and the illegal Jewish settlements in the Palestinian West Bank have long been two of the main impediments to any lasting peace agreement, and with his statement President Bush attempted to unilaterally resolve both of those issues in favor of Israel.

"As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders which should emerge from negotiations between the parties, in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949. And all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities."

Huh? How can Bush simultaneously affirm UN Security Council Resolution 242 which states, in no uncertain terms, that Israel must withdraw from territory siezed in the 1967 War, and affirm Israel's occupation and annexation of huge portions of that territory?

Two days later, in a joint appearance with Tony Blair, Bush reiterated this statement regarding final status negotiations:

"As I said Wednesday, all final status issues must still be negotiated between the parties. I look forward to the day when those discussions can begin, so the Israeli occupation can be ended and a free and independent and peaceful Palestinian state can emerge. "

In their statements, both Bush and Blair seemed enamored of the idea of "movement," the idea being that Sharon's plan, for all of it's faults, represents "movement" after years of stalemate, and thus should be welcomed. But what good is "movement" if it only moves one closer to the cliff's edge? And what does Bush mean by recognizing Israel's claim to huge portions of Palestinian land and the denial of the Palestinian right of return, but then stating that "all final status issues must still be negotiated between the parties?" It's almost as if he...didn't have a clue.

In today's Jerusalem Post:

"The White House announced that President George W. Bush stands by both the oral and written commitments he provided Prime Minister Ariel Sharon with earlier this month.

Bush will likely present Jordan's King Abdullah II, when he visits Washington next week, with a letter reaffirming Washington's commitment to a two-state solution negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians.

But the letter will in no way contradict the assurances provided to Sharon by Bush earlier this month on final-status issues, Israel's top diplomat in Washington said Wednesday after speaking to senior US officials.

"There may be a letter but in no way or shape will it detract, dilute, from the assurances given to Israel. There will certainly be no backtracking. I got the fullest and most authoritative assurances for that," Israel's ambassador to the US Daniel Ayalon said."

So the Israelis seem to believe that, despite Bush's comments about not prejudicing the final outcome, the right of return and West Bank settlement issues are essentially settled in favor of Israel, final status negotiations be damned.

But King Abdallah may have other ideas:

"Jordan’s King Abdallah told Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qorei yesterday that Israel’s planned pullout from the Gaza Strip should be part of a “total Israeli withdrawal” from all Palestinian areas.

“Israel’s plan envisaging a unilateral pullout from the Gaza Strip should be part of a total Israeli withdrawal in accordance with the provisions of the road map,” King Abdallah said during talks with Qorei who visited Jordan during a tour of the region."

King Abdallah's father, King Hussein, played an indispensable part in the peace process in the mid-1990s. Hopefully his son will begin following that lead. Looking way forward, I think it's possible that, just as it seems to have united large parts of Iraq's Shi'a and Sunni communities against the U.S occupation, President Bush's diplomatic incompetence could have the unintended (though certainly happier) result of spurring Arab states to play a larger and more constructive part in resolving the Palestine-Israel conflict.

But I may be letting hope get the better part of my reason there.

posted by Matt Duss @ 11:45 AM