THE BOTTOM LINE PRESIDENT

Bush Sticks to the Broad Strokes: In Mideast Peace Push, President Wary of Details and Deep Intervention (Glenn Kessler, June 3, 2003, Washington Post)

President Bush, who today begins his first high-profile effort at Middle East peacemaking, is convinced that Israel must accept a Palestinian state to ensure its survival, according to current and former aides who have heard him discuss the subject. But they say he has shown little interest in the details of the complex disputes in the region and remains skeptical of intervening deeply in the negotiating process.

Bush often has a viscerally negative reaction when officials try to delve deeply into issues -- such as the final borders of Israel and a Palestinian state, or the status of Jerusalem -- that are central to the conflict, according to people who have participated in discussions with the president. President Bill Clinton at the end of his term debated those questions at length with Israelis and Palestinians, but Bush dismisses them as "all those old issues," two participants in interagency debates said.

The president has baffled some of his aides with comments they thought minimized the obstacles toward the two-state solution he talks about. For instance, the president has told aides that the Israelis are wasting their money on expanding settlements in the West Bank because ultimately those projects will become housing developments for Palestinians.

Some aides suggest this is a naive view of the settlement issue, noting that experts on both sides of the issue believe unchecked expansion of the settlements would make it impossible to create a viable Palestinian state. Other Bush advisers say the president's comments simply reflected his determination to create a Palestinian state.

Experts are always fascinated by minutiae, because knowing about it is precisely the source of the often false belief that they have some expertise, rather than what would be more appropriate, a broad comprehension of the truths involved in an issue. Diplomatic negotiations in particular give these faux authorities a real chance to shine--which is why the negotiators are so often the main stumbling block to an agreement: they don't want to surrender center stage. But almost every negotiation, especially those between nations, is essentially decided by the mere fact of its commencement. So, in this case, by returning to the table, the Israelis have conceded (as they have been since Oslo) that a state of Palestine is going to exist and that it will occupy territory that some Israelis believe belongs to the Jewish people. The Palestinians, on the other hand, have accepted that they can not detonate Israel out of existence and that their state will therefore be more circumscribed than they might hope. All the rest, no matter how passionately people care about it at the moment, is mere detail work.

This is what Mr. Bush comprehends but the "experts" do not, even though he's utilized this insight on every issue of his presidency, from the education bill to tax cuts to the war with Iraq to tax cuts. Consider a few examples:

(1) No Child Left Behind:

Conservatives wailed and liberals crowed when the final bill was a bloated mess. But George W. Bush had won. The bill, though more expensive than it should have been, gave him the only thing that mattered: testing & vouchers--testing to demonstrate that even middle class public schools are not educating children effectively and vouchers (though for now they just alllow kids in failing schools to switch to better public schools) so that the concept of choice is established in the law. Ted Kennedy realized this almost immediately, though too late, complained briefly, and then wisely shut up before people could realize he'd been had.

(2) Iraq:

Neocons and other hawks spent months bitching and moaning about how the President was waffling over war with Iraq and they, like opponents of the war, fixated on every jot and tittle of ever UN resolution that came down the pike, as if any of them mattered. They didn't. All that mattered was when the President addressed the UN in September 2002 and told the gathered nations to sign on for the war or prove themselves irrelevant.
They chose the latter course and we commenced the war. So much for the details of the various resolutions. The import of this is that useful negotiations are only those that get you to the result you want. If they aren't getting you there you have to be ready to walk away from the table. The willingness to do so is what makes the particulars of the process truly meaningless.

(3) The Second Tax Cut:

The last three American president--Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton--all raised taxes when confronted by rising budget deficits. George W. Bush cut them. End of story. The bill that finally emerged hardly resembled the original proposal he'd made, but Mr. Bush had won just by effecting this historic reversal on taxes.

So now we are arrived at the infamous Middle East Peace Process and oceans of ink are being spilled on the contours and details of the "Road Map". All of it is wasted. What Mr. Bush says above, about Israel building settlements for the Palestinians is absolutely right, no matter how much it galls. There are going to be two states, one overwhelmingly Arab/Palestinian, one overwhelmingly Jewish. Arbitrary borders will be declared, but are unlikely to be final in the long run. That's the bottom line and all that really matters. For the President to focus on anything else would be a waste of his time and effort. Fortunately, he's well aware of that, even if the experts and the commentariat don't get it.


MORE:
A Road Map for Syria Too (David Ignatius, June 3, 2003, Washington Post)

When Secretary of State Colin Powell visited Damascus last month, sources here say, Syrian President Bashar Assad asked him a blunt question: "Where is our road map?"

That's a welcome sign, if Assad is indeed signaling that he wants to negotiate a settlement of the interlocking issues of Syria, Israel and Lebanon. Opening a Syrian track could add momentum to the fledgling peace process, which takes a symbolic step forward tomorrow when President Bush meets in Aqaba, Jordan, with the Israeli and Palestinian prime ministers.

For the cautious Assad, just talking about a road map is a step in the right direction. Until now, his public comments have mostly been a reprise of the hard-line rhetoric of his father, the late President Hafez Assad. But he needs to embrace the full legacy of his father, who for all his tough talk came within inches of closing a peace deal with Israel in 2000, a few months before his death. Assad realizes that Syria needs change -- and that it needs the stability of a peace agreement to implement reforms. The Syrian president also understands political reality: More than 100,000 U.S. troops are just across the border in Iraq, and American pressure has prodded Israelis and Palestinians into endorsing their road map to peace. If Syria wants to play in this game, it must start soon. But the young Syrian president is worried that a failed peace effort could add to his political problems in volatile Syria. That's where smart American policy can help.

"The U.S. should support Assad in implementing these big changes," advises Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in an interview here. "American assistance is indispensable."

This is a case where the prior examples should be applied: just getting Assad to the table to discuss a document that ends with Lebanon's independence restored and peace declared between Syria and Israel will so discredit him in the eyes of the radicals that there'll be no meaningful turning back. Posted by Orrin Judd at June 3, 2003 11:26 AM