JEDDAH, 29 May — The dictionary defines vision as “a vivid picture seen in a dream or trance or in the imagination.” None of these meanings describe it as a target with a well thought out plan. Bush’s vision of an independent and viable Palestinian state appears to be just that: A vision. To be fair, Bush was the first American president to make such a pronouncement.
However, several months have passed since the vision was revealed but no concrete plan has been put forward, at least not publicly.
First there was the talk of an international conference, now just a meeting, one of a series of meetings, to lead to an international conference.
Whatever is causing this apparent impromptu manner of handling the issue, it suggests that Washington may be playing it by the ear. If there is a well-defined target Washington is not telling us.
Assuming there is a target, has American domestic politics been dictating this manner of handling the vision? If so, it is doing America’s initiative more harm than good.
There is no harm in implementing a plan in a series of steps. But the political and military atmospheres in the region require genuine comforting gestures toward those most affected on the ground.
In this game of waiting and in the absence of reassurance, the Palestinians, who are daily paying with their livelihood and lives, are losing the ability to see the big picture. This is leading them, even those among them who are able to see the “big picture”, assuming there is one, to resort to desperate measures in the hope of forcing a quicker solution. If reassured, and shown hope, the Palestinians may see their way to diluting or softening of their desperation and anger.
The same may be said of the Syrians and to some extent the Lebanese. Their contribution to a peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict is indispensable. They need to be reassured in respect of the return of their territories. Their exclusion from the conference/meeting is a negative signal, which is bound to alienate these two important regional players.
They, not only can directly affect the development of a new peace process but also indirectly influence their supporters and sympathizers on the Palestinian and Arab side.
Whatever Washington does, it should not seek counsel from at least two former American figures, namely Henry Kissinger and Martin Indyk, nor should they be allowed to influence the direction of events.
These two so-called “experts” recently made public their views on the direction the peace process should take to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Their views clearly echo those of Sharon and Peres. In his article Kissinger casts Sharon’s same obstructive ideas in typical “Kissingerian wisdom.”
Washington may and may not be taking direct advice from Israel on how to proceed with the vision for a two-country solution. But Israel has prominent and powerful advocates in America whose plan, instead, promotes one country and one colony. Only these advocates present their ideas in “academic” and “expert” guises. These “experts”, besides being aggressively prejudiced against the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular, actually belong to a long-gone era in international relations.
Short-term policy or tactical moves designed for short-term objectives is what American corporations pursue when dealing with monthly or quarterly sales targets. Washington’s approach to the complex Middle East conflict(s) should be one of long-term strategy. Short-term or tactical moves should be designed to lead to the fulfillment of a well-defined strategic objective. American policy makers should not lose sight of the new realities in the region. Although fragmented in form as compared, say with a cohesive China, the Arab region (estimated at 250 million people), both governments and public, possesses a high level of political awareness and maintains a minimum level of unity not readily recognizable by outsiders, no matter how closely familiar they think they are.
In the wake of the completion of the European decolonization process, the Arab region was not only willing to befriend America but probably also ally itself with the emerging young superpower.
The region was in a state of shambles after centuries of Turkish and European control.
But American strategists saw only a vacuum that needed to be filled. America simply moved in to fill it. Today, after nearly five and a half decades, the region and its people are significantly different. Not only are they politically more mature, economically more developed and stronger, they can now offer a great deal more in a genuine partnership.
— Hani Emam is a Saudi Businessman based in Jeddah.
