The Quick Palestinian-Israeli Fix
March 19th, 2003: President Bush announces in a joint press conference with Israeli and Palestinian leaders that the two sides would enter peace talks in Annapolis, Maryland.
July 27th 2003: President Bush announces that a framework for a two-state solution has been reached. Both Palestinian and hard-right Israeli protesters take to the streets as details emerge, including land exchanges and disarming. Within days violence has reached dangerous levels.
August 10th 2003: World leaders announce that Israel and Palestine have accepted an international force of 80,000 troops to push the two sides away from hot zones and create a buffer as details of the peace agreement are worked out. Americans make up less than half of the troops. Russian and China both send token soldiers as a symbolic display of support.
These events, of course, never happened. March 19th was the day America went into Iraq, the true threat in the Middle East. Instead, the peace talk announcements occurred yesterday, with less than 15% of Bush’s Presidency left. Why exactly do presidents always seem to think that Israeli-Palestinian peace is something that can be carried out quickly, just before they leave office? Clinton tried to do it, and it didn’t work.
It’s not that presidents shouldn’t try to serve as a broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Of course they should. It’s just that your priorities are revealed when you value attacking an isolated dictator over working toward a long-term solution to one of the most intractable and deep-rooted problems in the world. Clinton showed resolve working out a cease-fire in Northern Ireland. People seem to forget what a dilemma that situation was. That was also a centuries-old religious struggle. And while things aren’t perfect now, they’re pretty damn close. Why didn’t he make an honest effort in Israel?
So why do presidents seems to simultaneously believe that:
1. The Israeli-Palestinian stand-off can never be resolved
2. That the reconciliation process can reach its conclusion in eleven months
American (and its coalition) invaded Iraq, ostensibly, to make the country safer. There were a few rationales given, but since I was never clear on what the supposed impetus was, I’ll give you all of them (1) WMD (2) 9-11 (3) Al Qaeda (4) Saddam was a bad dude (5) to allow democracy to flourish in the Middle East (if you think that’s ridiculous, the truth is that this was probably the true, albeit idiotic, rationale) (6) he tried to kill ma daddy when he was prez
So, we all know that items 1-3 were bogus. 4 is correct, but aren’t there, like, a bunch of those guys around? And didn’t we already know that when Rumsfeld was selling him arms (the picture is grainy, but that’s Rummy shaking hands with Saddam)? Number 5 has proven to be a horrendous failure, and number 6 can’t be proved, although there is probably a bit of truth to it.
In the end we’re stuck with the parroted idea that this was somehow going to make America safer. Safer from whom? Iraqis? Iraqis have killed more Americans since the beginning of the war than would have occurred in the next 500 years had they not invaded. Al Qaeda? You mean the ones regrouping in Pakistan and Afghanistan, where there are almost no US soldiers?
Islamic fundamentalists in general?
Now here is where you get to the crux of the argument. There are many reasons why people become Islamic fundamentalists, and ‘they hate our freedom’ is not too high on the list. However, the situation in the Middle East, and the state of the Palestinians, is pretty high up there. It might not be number one, but it definitely resonates with virtually all Islamic militants. Wouldn’t, then, working as an honest broker, to sort out the multitude of issues affecting Israel and the Palestinian territories be a high priority in convincing Muslims that we do not hate them. I’m not saying abandon Israel, I’m saying work towards a peace that most people can live with. Wouldn’t that be a good way to convince people in the area that democracies are rational, generous, and humane, rather than aggressive, cruel, and dishonest?
Imagine, for a moment, that President Bush had driven the Taliban from Afghanistan, and left a sizable force there, rather than leaving right away. Then, instead of turning his attention to Iraq, he had gone after the most difficult, most volatile, conflict in the Middle East. The world could have seen a man who is tough on those who attack without provocation, and considered and statesmanly elsewhere. What better narrative could you have than turning a horrendous attack on an innocent country, into the impetus to try to solve a horrible and endless problem?
Which one would have resulted in more terrorists: invading a Muslim country, or trying to slow the gush of generations of blood?
Share This
Richard responds:
Posted: November 29th, 2007 at 10:05 am →
well-thought out, Josh. But whoever said that Bush had an ambition to be seen as statesman-like?