|
|
March 7, 2003/Adar2 3 5763, Vol. 55, No. 28
Is Bush serious about new peace push?
MATTHEW E. BERGER
Jewish Telegraphic Agency
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration says overthrowing Saddam Hus-sein will clear a path to renewed American engage-ment in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.
But many in Washington are skeptical that the administration's attention will shift to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict once an anticipated war on Iraq is over.
Under pressure to outline his vision for a post-war Iraq, President Bush told the American Enterprise Insti-tute on Feb. 26 that the overthrow of the Iraqi president would promote Israeli-Palestinian peace by ridding Palestinian terrorists of a major source of funding.
"Without this outside support for terrorism, Palestinians who are working for reform and long for democracy will be in a better position to choose new leaders," Bush said. "True leaders who strive for peace; true leaders who faithfully serve the people."
Bush called on Israel to work toward a peace agreement and to end all settlement activity in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Bush also called on Arab states to oppose terrorism and "state clearly they will live in peace with Israel."
In a landmark speech last June, Bush called on Palestinians to replace Palestinian Authority Presi-dent Yasser Arafat with leaders not compromised by terrorism, and said Pales-tinians would need to curb violence against Israel before they could achieve statehood.
While that speech remains the cornerstone of White House policy on the Middle East, critics argue that Bush has not fleshed it out, repeatedly stalling the presentation of the "road map" toward Israeli-Palestinian peace that is being prepared by the diplomatic "Quartet" of the United States, United Nations, European Union and Russia.
State Department sources say last week's speech was part of the White House's efforts to court the inter-national community to support a U.S.-led war on Iraq. The speech also was intended as recognition of positive Palestinian steps - such as Arafat's pledge to appoint a prime minister and new financial controls recently instituted in the Palestinian Authority.
But many in Washington think it may be unlikely that Bush can achieve his goals in the Middle East.
David Makovsky, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, says the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be No. 5 on the Bush administration's foreign policy priority list after an Iraq war. Ahead of it are stabilizing Iraq, prosecuting the war on terrorism, curtailing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction - especially from North Korea - and helping spread democracy in the Middle East.
That's not even counting domestic concerns such as a weak economy and the requisite focus on Bush's own campaign as the 2004 election approaches.
"This administration is going to have a full plate," Makovsky said.
Therefore, the admini-stration is likely to expend the political capital needed for momentum on Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking only if it sees a light at the end of the tunnel.
That, Makovsky argues, is dependent on cooperation from the Arab world to push for new Palestinian leader-ship and to pressure the Palestinian Authority to take reforms seriously.
But Bush's promises of increased engagement after a war mean that the White House will have to do something, Makovsky said. If the time isn't ripe for a major effort, the White House may suffice with throwing some money at the problem in the form of increased aid - or it may convene an international conference - steps that aren't likely to produce real progress.
However, Steven Spiegel, a professor of political science at UCLA, says it's dis-ingenuous to place the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as only one of several priorities for the Middle East, because solving the conflict is central to achieving the admini-stration's other goals in the region.
The missing element is not Arab support, he says, because "the mainstream Arabs are looking desper-ately, they want" the Israeli-Palestinian violence "off the television screens."
Jon Alterman, director of Middle East programs at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says the key is that neither Israelis nor Palestinians are willing to change their local political environments to make them more conducive to peace.
Given those parameters, Alterman said last week's speech was intended mostly to appease an international audience.
|
