Elliot Chodoff provides a good response to your remarks:
The Clock is Running
by Elliot Chodoff
Last Thursday, President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon met in the White House. Following their meeting, they exchanged letters and held a joint news conference, each presenting a prepared statement of their views of the present situation and possibly courses of resolution of the conflict.
It was natural that the media and commentaries focused on the impact of the meeting relative to Sharon’s proposal to disengage in Gaza, removing Israeli settlements and military bases from that area. Faced with considerable opposition from the Israeli right, Sharon had come to Washington hoping for support from Bush, and he received it in a number of ways.
In Israel and out, the great debate began immediately after the two leaders left the podium: did Bush commit to one thing or another? Was this sufficient support for Sharon to win the coming referendum in his own Likud Party? Pundits were quick to point out that the president’s statements about borders and refugees were nothing really very new, but reflected earlier positions of American administrations and even the UN in days when it was not controlled by the Hit Israel Parade.
What was missed in the flurry of debate is that Bush made clear for the first time in the history of the conflict that the great Palestinian dream will not have the support of the US: they can not simply turn back the clock to a time of their liking. It may have seemed like an aside, giving some backing to a statement about borders, but in fact the most important part of Bush’s remarks was the following:
"In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities."
From the earliest stages of the conflict nearly a century ago, the Arabs have attempted to turn back the clock. Following each defeat, diplomatic or military, they have tried to force Israel back to the status quo ante, the situation which existed prior to the defeat. The hope was always that once the momentum could be reversed the movement backward could be maintained, first to 1967, then to 1948, 1947, 1939, 1929, and finally, 1881.
This approach, whose first step was tacitly accepted by many in and out of Israel, actually paid the Palestinians a dividend for intransigence and violence. As long as they believed that time was on their side, and that any changes on the ground detrimental to them could be waved away by the magic wand of negotiation, there was no reason to hurry to the negotiating table, and once there, no reason to stay for very long. A judicious mix of violence and talk provided the best method to resolve the conflict as they hoped: the ultimate elimination of the Jewish state.
Now, times have changed. If the reflection of new realities on the ground is the realistic expectation of the outcome of negotiations, as expressed in Bush’s remarks, the Palestinians have lost much of their incentive to play the on again off again game of violence. This does not mean that they will give up terrorism and return in good faith to the negotiating table, only that they have been put on notice that delay will cost them as new realities continue to emerge on the ground. This is what drove Arafat and his spokesmen into a rage on Thursday night. They are out of time outs and can no longer hope to turn back the clock.
from Mideast on Target (now via email) |
