IT’S HARD TO understand how President Bush views Colin Powell’s trip to the region as not having failed. "Powell made progress toward bringing embattled Israelis and Palestinians together," Bush said in his weekly radio address on Saturday. "His meetings were productive and intensive."
Agreed, they were intensive but anything but productive. The latest round of Israeli assaults on Palestinian cities, towns and refugee camps succeeded in creating a tremendous human tragedy and for Sharon it was a dream come true: Taking the situation in the occupied territories to their pre-Oslo days.
Perhaps what Bush meant by progress was that he will continue his new hands-on approach in the conflict. On Saturday, he did say the United States must press ahead with its vision for peace in the Middle East. Powell, Bush and the entire national security team met on Friday to discuss the situation, a clear sign of deeper US involvement not seen before by this administration.
And perhaps Bush also meant that Powell’s visit signaled that something new and maybe out of the ordinary was needed to bring peace. Reports suggest that the United States is considering revamping its Mideast policy, debating specifically whether to rely completely on the Tenet and Mitchell security and political plans respectively — two long-standing pillars of its Middle East policy — or adapt them to a broader initiative designed to break the stalemate.
Significantly, Bush last week mentioned the two plans only in the past tense. Powell also left out any reference to Tenet and Mitchell in his description of ways to pursue peace, saying the administration was weighing other options to jump-start the peace talks.
The two plans have never been implemented and as a consequence have failed to move the sides forward.
What other ideas the Bush administration has is unknown but there are two proposals, among many, of non-American origin already on the table. There is that of Sharon who floated the idea of a regional conference to Powell, one which would exclude Lebanon and Syria from the list of participants as well as Arafat. The omissions make Sharon’s proposal a non-starter and the idea seems to be nothing but a red herring to divert the world’s attention from Israel’s devastating military sweep through the West Bank. Israel has failed to implement past signed agreements. What is the guarantee it would do otherwise at a new peace conference?
The proposal is Sharon’s way of avoiding the other plan, the Saudi peace proposal adopted by the Arab summit. If Sharon was truly interested in peace, he would accept Crown Prince Abdullah’s peace plan. But the terms of reference of the peace plan are anathema to Sharon, who has vowed that Israel will never return to its pre-1967 borders, opposes past interim deals expected to lead to a Palestinian state and champions Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Sharon’s stillborn idea and his rejection of other proposals intended to make peace compel the United States to change tactics. But while not ruling out new approaches to augment Tenet and Mitchell, no decision yet about a new US role has been taken. Safe to conclude, then, that for now they remain central.
While new ideas are being sought, there are some things the administration will not change, one being its support for its ally. Both President Bush and his secretary of state are "pleased with" or "understand" the pace of Israeli withdrawals from the areas it reoccupied. But the Palestinian leadership yesterday slammed Israel’s announced withdrawal as a lie and public relations stunt. Either the US president is covering for the Israeli leader or wants to protect his own image by proclaiming to the world that Israel is heeding his calls when it is doing the very opposite. Either way, there is nothing to cheer Palestinians. In fact there is much to depress them, like Bush again calling Sharon a man of peace — the ultimate insult to those killed and buried alive in the rubble of Jenin.
