THE DRAMATIC UPSURGE in Palestinian deaths has underlined the problems facing the new American mediators who are already in the region and are to meet Ariel Sharon and Shimon Peres today to try to forge a cease-fire.
The killing of freedom fighters, young and old, has continued unabated since Colin Powell’s major policy speech on the Middle East a week ago, making the task of US Assistant Secretary of State William Burns, former Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni and diplomat Aaron Miller to get a cease-fire in place that much more difficult.
Zinni will be the Bush administration’s permanent man on the ground in the Middle East, akin to former special envoy Dennis Ross. Burns has visited the region several times in recent months but has failed to produce any breakthrough. Observers question just what Zinni, who Powell says will remain in the area for as long as it takes, can bring to the table. You will see what pushing and prodding when Zinni gets on the ground, Powell claimed.
But what the Palestinians need is a little less of American engagement with the cease-fire and a lot more of work on ending the occupation. The young fighters on the streets are not going to trade their revolt for a cease-fire with Sharon and the nebulous hope that if that happens, other things can start to happen.
What is needed is not an increase in the amount of attention and time spent by mediators but the quality of the time and attention they intend to provide. Granted, some active American engagement in the conflict is better than zero. The United States last mediated an Israel-Palestinian truce in June, when CIA Director George Tenet won agreement from both sides for a cease-fire. But the lull in fighting did not hold. To this end, and answering criticism that the Bush administration has kept its distance from the conflict, Powell said the United States was ready to take the lead in helping Palestinians and Israelis to a more hopeful future. But the result of Powell’s address thus far has been only to dispatch to the region Burns and Zinni who, for all their pushing and prodding, probably cannot impose a peace on the sides.
There were good things in the Powell doctrine. For the first time, a top US official used the right word to describe the real reason for Palestinian suffering: occupation. Aside from the thrice-mentioned word, Powell called on Israel to lift the closure on Palestinian lands, halt settlement activity and withdraw a militarized reality where too many innocent Palestinians, including children, have been killed and wounded. All this, he said, must stop. He reassured the Arabs by stating his vision of a viable Palestinian state based on UN resolutions 242 and 338 and rooted in the concept of land for peace.
Powell also ignored the issue of a seven-day cease-fire period, as demanded by Sharon as an Israeli prerequisite before the implementation of the Mitchell recommendations can begin. Israel cannot be the side that demands a seven-day period of calm and then gives itself the right to decide whether the Palestinians have breached the truce. Israel cannot be a party to the accords and play judge at the same time. Unfortunately, the one black spot in the speech was who, Powell believed, had prime responsibility for making the cease-fire stick. As in most recent statements on the conflict, he put most of the onus on Yasser Arafat.
Powell offered no new proposals to end the conflict but there really was no need to. The conflict needs no magic wand to be solved. To be resolved it needs resolve. The United States can launch much more serious efforts to reach a peace. This means a leadership role worthy of the world’s only remaining superpower.
