SPEAKING FREELY The forgotten
conflict By Anouar Boukhars
Speaking Freelyis an Asia
Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say.Pleaseclick
hereif you are interested in
contributing.
For all his talk about the
need for liberating the oppressed and promoting
democracy, President George W Bush's State of the Union
speech seemed indifferent to the impasse in the
Arab-Israeli conflict - the very impasse that plays into
the strategies of Osama bin Laden and sours the
relationship between the US and the Arab and Muslim
world. It is hard to reconcile the president's pledge
not to "pass along our problems to other Congresses, to
other presidents and other generations" with his
indifference to the most worrisome danger zone in the
world. The president said nothing about how the US
intends to help Israelis and Palestinians rid themselves
of this long and cruel nightmare.
The president
should be given credit for staying focused on Iraq and
determined to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein. A
post-Saddam Iraq might represent a tectonic event in the
region. One might hope that Bush remains steady in his
commitment to help other Arab regimes in their
transition to more responsible governments and engage
Israelis and Palestinians in a new constructive way. But
the biggest factor remains that some members of the Bush
administration seem convinced that the only substantive
imperative Middle East policy is one that provides
unequivocal moral and military support to Ariel Sharon,
the Israeli prime minister whom Bush called "the man of
peace" in his fight against fundamentalist terrorism.
The belief is that by giving free rein to Sharon
to use his favorite militaristic strategies and "inflict
greater losses" on the Palestinian side, he will manage
to bring an end to terror and help advance the cause of
reform that will bring a new Palestinian leadership
willing to adhere to his own philosophy of resolving the
conflict. The greater reality of the Middle East is that
getting the peace process back on track will require
more than just laying the blame squarely on Palestinian
leaders' limitations and the pronouncements of speeches
promoting liberal international idealism. Bush's
"Wilsonianism" is good if supported by his determined
and sincere engagement to help Israelis and Palestinians
get out of this cycle of endless violence and bloodshed.
And while it is true that there are limits to what can
be attained, massive presidential commitment can still
produce results. There is no doubt that the constraints
of the American political system cannot be ignored, but
presidents do matter, and they can use their powerful
position to influence the future of the Middle East.
The administration must accept that the only
option it has to stop this tragedy is to adopt a bold
approach that makes irrelevant the failures of the
current Palestinian and Israeli leadership. Sharon has
publicly stated that he will not dismantle one single
settlement as long as he is in power. On the contrary,
he is engaged in building more to accommodate what he
calls the settlements' "natural growth". Sharon thinks
that his expansionist policies in the occupied
territories will prevent the emergence of a viable
Palestinian state. Arafat, as Gadi Taub, professor of
communications at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, put
it, assumes "that, in the long run, these same policies
will bring Israel's downfall".
But both are
wrong. "Without partition," Gadi tells us, "neither
people will have its own state." The fairest peace deal
might very well be based on Clinton's peace plan of
December 2000. There is no question that such a deal
would get broad international backing. To implement such
a deal would require the presence of a US-led
international military force on the ground.
It
is true that the trust between Israelis and Palestinians
has been shattered and that the re-election of Sharon
makes the prospect for peace look even more remote. But
the reality is that there are too many people on both
sides who want to live in peace and prosperity. It
important to recall that most peace deals extracted from
the most dangerous parts of the world have came against
a backdrop of extreme violence. The Middle East should
be no exception. Let's us hope that a determined and
focused Bush will switch course and help save both
Israelis and Palestinians from their predicament.
Anouar Boukhars is a doctoral
candidate at the Graduate Program of International
Studies, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia.
Speaking Freelyis an Asia
Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say.Pleaseclick
hereif you are interested in
contributing.
