In a move that surprised some observers yesterday, President George W. Bush committed his administration to working for the creation of a Palestinian state within the next four years. This was the second time since his re-election two weeks ago that Bush was reminding the world, and perhaps himself, of the two-states formula that he had proposed in June 2002 as the “road-map” for peace in the Middle East. Yesterday’s statement, however, was more substantive and backed by a clearer commitment. This may have been partly due to the presence of Tony Blair, the British prime minister, who had gone to Washington to press the re-elected president to take the Palestine issue off the backburner. But there was also the dramatic change ushered in by the death of Yasser Arafat, the man Bush never liked or trusted.
What to make of Bush’s latest pledge?
One can react in two ways. One way is to dismiss the whole thing as nothing but an empty gesture, meant to reassure Blair, keep the Arabs happy for a while, and buy time in which to find a post-Arafat excuse for ignoring the plight of the Palestinians. One need not be a dyed-in-the-wool cynic to react in such a way. After all Bush’s father, launching the Madrid peace process, promised a Palestinian state in five years. And that was in 1992. In 2002, the young Bush chimed about a Palestinian state being put on the map by 2005. Nevertheless, there maybe another, less emotional, way of reacting to the American leader’s promises. A great deal has changed in the past 12 years, and more especially, in the past two years. The second intifada has not advanced the Palestinian cause in any way. At the same time Ariel Sharon’s promise of delivering both land and security to the Israelis has proved to be hollow. Israelis today are more insecure than ever while, as far as land grabbing is concerned, Sharon is planning to dismantle Jewish settlements in Gaza. On the Palestinian side, Arafat’s departure from the scene opens the way for the emergence of a new leadership with fewer hang-ups and, hopefully, greater realism.
More importantly, the 9/11 tragedy and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have altered the post-World War II view of global politics as a balance of power game.
In the two press conferences that Bush has held since his re-election he has tried to promote his image as a man who is as good as his word. “The president of the United Sates had better mean what he says,” Bush insists. This is a challenge that those interested in peacemaking in the Middle East must take up with good will rather than cynicism. This does not mean that we should throw all caution to the wind and get starry-eyed about Bush’s promises. What it means is that we must take Bush at his word and see whether or not he means what he says.
The Palestinians, and all those who support their cause, cannot call for urgent American intervention to revive the peace process while, at the same time, mocking every move Bush makes in that direction. The positive response coming from the new Palestinian leadership yesterday indicated that they have seen the folly of such an approach and intend to change course. Over to you, Mr. Bush.
