Robert Novak reports that the President thinks he needs to get to work on the Israel-Palestine peace process.
Meeting privately with the Baker-Hamilton commission before its report on Iraq was released, President Bush did not seem pleased. So, when a Republican member said he believed it was imperative to get moving on the stalled Israel-Palestine peace process, a negative response from the president was expected. Instead, he replied: “I do, too.”
…Colin Powell’s departure as secretary of state two years ago eliminated the administration’s last major figure who was at all serious about the peace process. Bush has been seen by his Arab allies as letting the junior partner in the U.S.-Israeli alliance dominate the senior partner.
Consequently, if Bush really meant it when he said, “I do, too,” it would entail a radical change in policy that would engender severe opposition. The Baker-Hamilton report and Hagel’s speech each reiterated the truth that there is no chance whatsoever for essential Israeli-Palestinian peace without American brokerage. The Israeli ruling class and its U.S. outriders do not want that to happen, which explains the bitter opposition to the commission’s recommendations. It would be an act of courage for Bush to risk an assault from these forces, and it is a central decision of his last two years.
Here is my question: why do the “Israeli ruling class and its U.S. outriders…not want that to happen”? That’s what I want to know. I want to work with the Israelis and with their staunch defenders here in America. I want to create the basis for a stable and secure Israel. But I can’t do that if they don’t want to engage in peace talks with the Palestinians.
The exact degree to which the Iraq invasion was intended to advance Israeli interests is a matter of heated controversy, but it should be clear that the war has not had the intended effect. Israel is more isolated than it has ever been. There is going to be an inevitable backlash with an attendant questioning of the wisdom of American policy towards Israel. Israel’s position in not going to get any stronger than it is right now. Now is the time to make concessions. The longer they wait, the worse the situation will grow.
On the other hand, things in Palestine have deteriorated to such a point that it isn’t clear that Israel can even find a coherent party to negotiate with. This is another legacy of neo-conservatism. They thought they could break the will of the Muslim world by ignoring the peace process, dismantling the Palestinian authority, and toppling Saddam Hussein. They were wrong. If George W. Bush is going to have any chance at a decent legacy we needs to do one of two things in his last two years. Either he needs to provide every American with health insurance, or he needs to iron out a comprehensive peace settlement in the Holy Lands. He should get on it.
What legacy? See my comment here entered this morning.
Opposition grows at SMU over hosting W’s presidential library.
It’s his legacy.
true, but no matter how bad you’ve screwed up there is always something you can do to make things a little better. Unless, of course, you are talking about Iraq.
well as far as Israel-Palestinian conflict goes, Bush Cheney Rice Olmert got exactly what they wanted and were warned against: A Civil War going hot in Gaza. With due respect BooMan, you’re too optimistic.
Reuters has a breaking news banner as I type: “Fatah, Hamas exchange gunfire in Gaza” So much for the truce.
Instead of our time-honored roll – honest broker – the BushCheney gang has taken sides. So much for democracy. Ignore the results you don’t happen to like: US welcomes Abbas’ call for early elections.
Appalling is an understatement.
By the US insisting their allies join in turning their backs on the results of the Palestinian elections that gave the win to Hamas – a process hailed as fair and free – insisting that Hamas is a terrorist group (so was Fatah categorized not so very long ago); by turning against democracy, confiscating Palestian tax revenues and cutting off international aid, freedom of movement to work, cuts in the electricity, medicines and ignoring the UN Human Rights Commission that Gaza was a powder keg, can they now wonder they’ve lost the hearts and minds and not just among Muslims?
BushCHENEY Rice and Olmert thought this little plan for sanctions would enhance civil war and calls for new elections. Sure did.
High time Israel cease dictating US foreign policy, don’t you think?
Collective punishment is morally wrong. The whole world is paying the price. Everyday at the pump, especially hard on the poor – worldwide.
Insane to state we do not talk to the enemy. Only a policy since 9/11.
And, before anyone labels my comment anti-semitic, see first to my foreparents. Both the dead and the living, we hang our heads in shame. It is written in the Torah.
I’m not optimistic at all. But I will say that Bush could really improve his image if he tried as hard as Clinton did to get something done. I know it is highly unlikely to happen. I’m just saying.
Clinton worked hard, had a balanced approach and was not seen to be taking sides.
“Improve his image if he tried as hard”[?]
A good chuckle, BooMan. How many years do we have for a Bush makeover?
Like putting lipstick on a greased pig’s snout. And that’s really hard work.
no matter how bad you’ve screwed up there is always something you can do to make things a little better. Unless, of course, you are talking about Iraq.
I might change or add to the above to read, no matter how bad you’ve screwed up there is always something you can do to make things a little better. Unless, of course, you are talking about Iraq OR HEALTHCARE.
For many of us who think we know just how bad our current health care system model really is, and how totally unprepared it is to give adequate access to all to proven quality care (and no other type of care) at an affordable national cost, well Bush would likely fare better just sticking with solving Iraq!
He could do both but of course won’t actually do either.
The exact degree to which the Iraq invasion was intended to advance Israeli interests is a matter of heated controversy …
The Neocon/Israeli plan included an attack on Iran of course, with full backing from the Saudi Royal Family. Unfortunately, body count and $$ 100 billions were spend without meeting the primary goals. Search for military victory in Iraq today is only part of a mindset of fools. Too bad fools run this government in Washington DC.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."“Israeli ruling class and its U.S. outriders…not want that to happen”?
Of course they don’t want peace.
In short, Israel will lose its exceptionalism. And with that goes a lot of privileges for a bunch of people in Israel and the U.S. of A.
It’s always seemed to me that PEACE isn’t what the neocons want in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, anymore than peace is what they want in Iraq. No, they’re insisting on VICTORY… the total and utter surrender and subjegation of the “other side” to make a political and moral point, that is that the US position has been “right” all along. To seriously negotiate, which means both sides have to be willing to give up something, they see as an admission of weakness… undermining the “rightness” of US policy. And so non-negotiation has been the neocon mantra on any number of issues… only absolute victory is acceptable, because anything less than that is a loss.
Six years ago, I was thinking that all we had to do to tremendously weaken all the Islamic-centered terrorist organizations was to somehow resolve the whole Palestinian issue, which has been dragging on far, far too long — and that would undermine the “moral authority” with which all these extremist groups sought to use the Palestinians as their hot button issue to recruit new members and drum up funding from sympathetic Arabs across the Middle East. Now, of course, the situation is far, FAR worse for the Palestinians, and the Iraqis as well… and as a result of our actions, the whole region is becoming a powder keg… Resolving that Palestinian issue now won’t have the same effect on the current situation, but it would still HELP… help the Palestinians, at least.
However, I do not hold out much hope for this administration doing more than posturing here, any more than they’re serious about doing what it would take to start serious negotiations going between the Iraqi factions. They don’t want peace. They want VICTORY, which means never having to say they were wrong, but instead forcing those who oppose them to surrender to their mandates. (And of course, keeping a strong US presence in Iraq to secure all that oil.) With this administration, that just isn’t going to happen. I’d love to be proven wrong… but I’m not holding my breath, either.
When this fiasco started four years ago, I said in print that if this goes sour, Israel will take the hit. Ninety-eight percent of the people in this country aren’t Jews, and if the American are ever sold the idea (wrongly) that the Iraq fiasco was mounted by Israeli sympathizers, God help that two percent. Chalabi will have done himself proud.
I have to say I tend to agree with you. The Iraq debacle was initiated by an American President and to a large part executed by the American military. That is how things stand. The Israelis might have benefited, yes even pushed for, the toppling of the Saddam regime, but the decision was solely taken by an American President.
The Norwegian government, as most other oil-supplying nations, did also benefit from the removal of a major oil supplier, resulting in the sky-rocketing of oil prices.