It would be easy to explain the latest Israeli military incursions into West Bank cities as a means of “self-defense” in the wake of Palestinian “attacks”. But the raids must also be put down to President Bush’s Middle East policy statement with which the US administration abandoned all pretensions to neutrality.
The highlight of last Monday’s vision for the future was, of course, Bush’s extraordinary call for Palestinians to vote out their leader. No American president who has ever been involved in the Middle East conflict has even insinuated as much, let alone embrace such a proposal as official policy. Unabashedly and unreservedly, Bush accepted Ariel Sharon’s edict that any political process, state and all else, be predicated not only on fighting so-called terrorism but an entire change in the Palestinian leadership.
The statement was also noteworthy in what it did not say. Bush said next to nothing about an Israeli withdrawal, although the statement came out the day the tanks rolled in. He refused to set deadlines or to sequence events. As the security situation improves, Bush said, Israeli forces need to withdraw to positions prior to Sept. 28, 2000. That would not necessarily translate to mean immediately or even in the near future but only “as we make progress toward security.” Because Israel’s security is directly related to the occupation it maintains, its security situation will never improve. At present, no one can stem the tide of young Palestinians queuing up to sacrifice themselves. The suicide bombings continue and, in retaliation, Israel strikes ever deeper into occupied land. Seven of eight West Bank cities — the only major city not affected is Jericho — have been virtually shut down under the renewed occupation, leaving about 700,000 Palestinians locked in their homes under a round-the-clock curfew and more than a million others in surrounding villages cut off from food, medicine and any commerce.
The willingness of the US administration to listen has diminished. Bush made no mention of an international peace conference in the summer, probably to avoid having his dictum debated. He gave no hint of how he would resolve the disputes over borders, east Jerusalem, refugees and settlements. He omitted any mention of the Arab summit in March which offered Israel a complete peace in return for Israeli withdrawal to its pre-1967 lines. Though Security Council resolution 242 stipulates the inadmissibility of acquiring territory by force, it is a matter of fact that Sharon makes no secret of his disdain for the resolution and has openly declared Israel has no intention of pulling out of the territories occupied in 1967. And as a matter of fact, the US apparently agrees with that stance.
As much as Palestinians had awaited Bush’s call for the creation of a new state, the anticipation was offset by the impossible conditions he proposed. He is urging the Palestinians to dump their long-time leader — recently threatening to cut off funding if the Palestinians do not oblige — and maintaining that only when Arafat is out of the way will the United States involve itself in a deep and sustained effort to build a state. And only Bush and Sharon will determine whether the Palestinians have met the conditions he has set forth.
After shying away from the conflict, Bush finally stepped in, only to appear more royal than the king. Israeli columnists said the speech could have been written by Sharon himself. Nearly two-thirds of the speech was devoted to what the Palestinians and Arabs must do for the peace process to get back on track. Israel’s meager obligations were summed up in no more than 150 words in his nearly 2,000-word statement. Bush has abandoned any sense of neutrality as an arbiter. He changed his priorities from ending the violence to ending the Palestinian leadership which is as close as it gets to Sharon’s own agenda.
