THE CONTENTS OF PRESIDENT Bush’s much anticipated policy statement on the Middle East remain the subject of intense speculation. One can only hope that the statement, expected to be delivered in the next week or so, will not belie hopes aroused by successive recent visits to Washington by several key Arab leaders, including Prince Abdullah, the regent and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal was the latest and possibly last Arab official to meet Bush before he outlines his administration’s new vision of the way forward for peace in the region.
The new American proposal is expected to offer an exit strategy out of the current impasse as Bush outlines what the Palestinians and Israelis must do in order to achieve peace. But there is growing concern that the president will simply reiterate a hollow vision of peace which will be followed up by no real action and in which the Palestinians will be required to do much more than the Israelis, as evidenced by Washington inching ever closer to the positions taken by the Israeli government. Bush might include some Arab demands, probably by reiterating vague commitments, couched in carefully worded sentences, about building a Palestinian state, all in the name of a strategy to pay lip service to Arab grievances while allowing Israel maximum room for its continuing military campaign in the occupied territories. While Bush agrees there should be a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel, he now insists on a reform of Palestinian institutions to support such a state. And, according to Bush, just as there will be no state before reforms, so, too, a return to negotiations must now be predicated not only on a complete cessation of Palestinian “terrorism” but also on Palestinian reforms so that a different Palestinian Authority can emerge. This seems to indicate that the future state, and the future of the peace process in general, will depend on the extent to which Palestinian institutions conform to Bush’s views regarding the reforms that need to be introduced. Unfortunately Bush’s ideas of Palestinian reform look increasingly like that of Ariel Sharon: Change within the PA means a change at the top. Bush’s remark last week that he was confident that other Palestinian talent could emerge is a sign that he sees Yasser Arafat’s political career as entering the final stage and that there is an American interest in searching for new players in the Palestinian political theater.
Bush’s position toward Arafat may not go as far as mirroring that of Sharon’s, which would imply a de facto call for his removal. But by giving Israel a tacit green light to destroy Palestinian civil institutions, including its security and police forces, and constantly voicing disappointment at Arafat’s performance, Bush is paving the way for his replacement. In his statement, Bush is bound to address the proposed international peace conference which as yet has no clear terms of reference or objectives. What is clear is that Israel will not shoulder any new political obligations or old ones for that matter. Sharon will not go to the conference to talk about a Palestinian state, a proposition that his right-wing Likud Party shot down, or the right of return of Palestinian refugees or what Jerusalem’s final status will be.
Should the conference be held, it should not be Sharon who dictates its agenda. Nor can it end as yet another temporary arrangement based for the most part on responding to Israel’s security concerns and demands. Some sort of temporary arrangement might be acceptable, but the conference must conclude with at least some credible guidelines for a final agreement even if its implementation is phased over a period of a few years. Amid all the uncertainty over what Bush has in mind, one thing remains obvious: What Palestinians and Arabs seek is a viable settlement, not extension of occupation by other means.
