Opinion, May 2003, Al-Jazeerah.info
Human Price of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine
Israeli daily aggression on the Palestinian people
Mission and meaning of Al-Jazeerah
Cities, localities, and tourist attractions
Is President Bush up to it, Ahmad Y Majdoubeh
Jordan Times, 5/30/03
WITH SOME positive developments pertaining to the roadmap for peace in the Middle East and with US President George W. Bush intending to visit the region with the aim of lending support to Mideast peace, hopes for a peaceful settlement to the Arab-Israeli (at least the Palestinian-Israeli) conflict have been revived. That does not mean, however, that we, Middle Easterners, should start rejoicing.
One the one hand, whenever the US becomes seriously involved in peace-making in the Middle East, peace (or some of it) materialises. This is what happened during the Carter administration, the administration of George Bush the father, and even that of Bill Clinton. Unfortunately, the Arabs (at least the Palestinians) and the Israelis have not — despite decades of meetings, encounters, talks and “relations” — learnt to negotiate bilaterally and settle their problems themselves — they are in need of peace patrons, “partners” from outside the region.
For this reason, we, advocates of peace in the Middle East, start hoping (and praying) for peace the minute the US administration begins to move towards settling the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Two more reasons further impel us to hope. First, Bush, who has angered the Arab world during the war on Iraq, has emerged victorious and strong from the war. He thus has the double opportunity of making it up to the Arabs (as well as redeeming his image) and exercising his moral authority when his popularity (and strength) as president is at its highest. In other words, Bush is in a position now to do something — should he and his staunch advisers wish to, of course.
Some analysts have labelled the present US administration as being Reagan II when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict (i.e., disinterested, detached and ineffective), not Bush II (i.e., not as involved, dedicated and strong as that of Bush the father). The present circumstances provide Bush with the opportunity to change this negative image, I believe.
Second, the situation on the ground now is conducive to and favourable for a peace settlement. The Israelis and the Palestinians have been battling it out and inflicting heavy casualties on each other for a long time. Neither has won through acts of violence; neither has, through war or violence, advanced one inch in the direction of security. The Palestinians and the Israelis have something of a saviour in the person of Bush, in other words. Not only do they have a golden chance to put an end to a very vicious, very nasty cycle of violence, they also can rescue themselves from further embarrassment and failure.
On the other hand, our experience with peace-making in the Middle East, and with the American role in it, has taught us not to hope or expect a lot. For one thing, we do not know for sure if Bush is serious about achieving peace between the Arabs (at least the Palestinians) and the Israelis. His talk about peace-making could be mere lip service. If not, it could be either protocol or public relations. Tell the Arabs what they like to hear in order to improve your image, but do nothing. We have heard and seen this happen before. For another, Bush may be serious about bringing about a settlement to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; however, how hard and far is he willing to focus and push? We know, from experience, that the Israelis will not give in or give up easily. We know that they will use each and every excuse and pretext to delay, procrastinate, side-track, fuss over trivial details and stall. How hard is Bush willing to push or pressure? How much “faith”, to use former President Carter's terminology, is he willing to keep?
Then, there are Bush's other preoccupations, among them terrorism, the economy and reelection. We, Middle Easterners, strongly believe that if the US administration helps solve the Arab-Israeli conflict equitably, much of international terrorism will come to an end. The US administration itself, alas, does not seem to share or accept our logic. And, most crucial of all perhaps, is the matter of reelection. Soon Bush, like many before him, will start focusing on his reelection. This will occupy most of his time. The Middle East will become a secondary matter. Peace efforts will freeze and Israel will use the situation to its advantage, so to speak (for I do not personally see how an unstable Palestine and Israel is in Israel's interest). We know such scenario all too well.
The only way something worthwhile can happen with respect to Mideast peace is if the present US administration musters its will and courage and presses for an equitable settlement, if it puts deadlines and asks the two parties (but especially Israel) to abide by them. The minute the US administration starts talking about the parties “themselves” settling matters, the minute it starts talking about giving parties time to examine and reflect, and the minute it starts describing its role as that of a facilitator, it becomes clear that the US is either unwilling to push for peace or is unable to do it.
The million dollar question, in my opinion, now is: Is Bush up to it? The coming days will tell
 |
| Earth, a planet hungry for peace |
 |
| The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers (Ran Cohen, pmc, 5/24/03). |
 |
| The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers in the West Bank (Ran Cohen, pmc, 5/24/03). |