April 14, 2004
THE MISUNDERESTIMATABLE MAN:
How Sharon won US backing for Gaza strategy (Suzanne Goldenberg, April 15, 2004, The Guardian)
Nearly 15 years after the first President Bush established the idea under the Madrid accords that peace in the Middle East was impossible unless the Palestinians were brought into the equation, his son appeared yesterday to have lost faith in the idea of a negotiated peace between Israel and its closest Arab neighbour.The contours of Gaza - and possibly the West Bank - would now be dictated by Israel.
The change of heart was widely credited to Mr Sharon, who persuaded Mr Bush that Yasser Arafat's inability or unwillingness to end Palestinian suicide bombings made him an enemy in the global war on terror.
"The Bush administration seems to have accepted the Sharon premise that there is no partner for negotiations," said Philip Wilcox, a former US consul general in Jerusalem and the president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace. "It offers commitments to Israel without any corresponding commitments to the Palestinians, which I think is unwise."
The territorial dispensation was not the only milestone victory for Mr Sharon. In his statement yesterday Mr Bush rejected the guiding principle of the Palestinians for the last five decades: the right of return of refugees. The American president also redefined the state department description of Jewish settlements as "obstacles to peace".
In a sense, the double diplomatic coup confirms what has been evident to observers of the Israeli-Palestinian process for months.
With the Bush administration distracted by events in Iraq, Mr Sharon has been able to dictate his terms.
"Sharon took a step in many ways that was revolutionary for him in the withdrawal from Gaza. He is showing real leadership, and when you have a leadership vacuum, the leader that has a plan is going to prevail," said Edward Walker, a former US ambassador to Israel. "There no American leadership in the process, and certainly I don't see leadership among the Palestinians."
Two risible storylines converge here: that the Jews run the world and that George W. Bush is not a leader but among the led. For one thing, he wrote off Arafat two years ago. When he called for new Palestinian leadership he made it crystal clear that they had to be prepared to cut a deal with Israel. The Palestinians failed to produce such leaders, so he's moving on.
Mr. Bush made just one demand of Israel, that it acknowledge an independent state of Palestine. This is precisely the "revolutionary" step that Mr. Sharon is taking.
Who's leading the process?
Posted by Orrin Judd at April 14, 2004 11:48 PMIt might also have something to do with the following report:
"Yasser Arafat reportedly approved, in concept, an attack on a U.S. convoy in the Gaza Strip last year that took the lives of three Americans. ...
They said Arafat did not draft or approve any details for an attack, but agreed to a proposal to "pass a message" to the United States."
It seems we got the message, and decided to send one of our own.
Taking the right of return seriously is the sign of someone not taking the actual situation seriously. The right of return is dead, has been dead for years and has been pronounced dead by the Palestinian negotiators.
Posted by: David Cohen at April 15, 2004 7:45 AMSo why do those same negotiators keep bringing it up?
Posted by: Barry Meislin at April 15, 2004 7:59 AMAt least two reasons:
1. They want to be bought out. This is so much in Israel's favor that whatever number the Palestinians first demand, Israel should double it. If there is a peace, it will only last if, ten years from now, Palestine has become rich (by Arab world standards).
2. Terrorism works. Everyone knows what a final resolution looks like. It looks a lot like the offer made by Clinton and Barak. But the Palestinians believe, not without reason, that continued terrorism will always bring them a better offer. That has certainly been the policy of the US since Carter. So, the right of return, which the Palestinian population does care about, makes a nice hook for refusing to come to a resolution.
Posted by: David Cohen at April 15, 2004 9:26 AMAlso, see my post above. Sometimes we mistakenly see plans where in fact there is only idiocy.
Posted by: David Cohen at April 15, 2004 9:27 AMOh, and by buy them out, I don't mean giving money to individual Palestinians, which would be a recipe for disaster. What I mean is using massive transfer payments to jump start a rational economy. Of course, it would be nice if Israel gave itself a rational economy first.
Posted by: David Cohen at April 15, 2004 9:41 AMThis wasn't Sharon's first choice. He was forced into it after losing hundreds of civilians in a war he could never win. He was also forced to it by a corruption scandal.
That said, nothing, in fact, has happened yet. Just words in the air, so don't count your chickens until they've hatched.
Posted by: Derek Copold at April 15, 2004 9:53 AMHe was forced into by W.
Posted by: oj at April 15, 2004 10:04 AMDon't quite follow.
The right of return is dead and has always been dead, but it's not dead because it's a terrific excuse/reason not to come to a resolution?
The second part of the sentence is true, and one reason why this war will continue (until Israel decides it's had enough).
As for the first part of the sentence, it may have been what everyone wished/wishes to believe, everyone, that is, except the Palestinian leadership and, it seems, a significant number of those they in theory represent.
Posted by: Barry Meislin at April 15, 2004 10:10 AMBarry:
It doesn't matter what they want or believe. The Indians want Manhattan back--does that make it a live issue?
Posted by: oj at April 15, 2004 10:18 AMIn an election year? I doubt it.
Posted by: Derek Copold at April 15, 2004 10:28 AMBarry --
First, don't forget reason one. By "dead", I mean that anyone rational realizes that Palestinian refugees will not be allowed to return to Israel. They will get paid off.
Second, there are three possible sticking points to peace. Is Palestinians real goal is to drive the Jews into the sea. Will they insist on substantially all of Jerusalem. The right of return.
The Palestinians are not focusing on Jerusalem, which is the closest we come to a positive development. Driving the Jews into the sea certainly is the goal of a substantial portion of the Palestinian population and of Arafat, but it is not inconsistent with statehood. So, if they want to delay a settlement, which has been a smart move for them for the last 25 years, and they want to extract the most they can from Israel in the negotiations, elevating the right of return is a rational move.
Posted by: David Cohen at April 15, 2004 10:32 AMAn overly rational explanation. And therefore nonsensical. Though we are all of us trying to find out what makes 'em tick.
But it's really not all that difficult. Nor should there be, at this stage, any reason to still be grasping at straws, albeit rational ones. Especially rational ones.
(What the Marines are discovering in Falluja.)
Posted by: Barry Meislin at April 15, 2004 11:08 AMAnother problem in the plan:
"Meanwhile Mr Sharon's aides brought US officials around to Israel's vision for the West Bank, sketching out a division of land in which Israel would retain control of large swaths of territory, and the Palestinians would be confined to isolated pockets."
This would effectively force the two people together, making the idea of a real divorce impossible, and it would keep the demographic threat in place.
Posted by: Derek Copold at April 15, 2004 12:04 PM"It offers commitments to Israel without any corresponding commitments to the Palestinians, which I think is unwise."
Umm, and to WHAT Palestinian leaders would the commitments be made?
Posted by: at April 15, 2004 3:58 PM