Meanwhile, the NY Times thinks that the Bush Administration should waste its time and capital in the Mideast negotiations again. Press both sides for a cooling-off period, or threaten an American cut-off. 'Scuse me, haven't we been there, done that? If any possible behavior could actually get Arafat cut off, wouldn't he be cut off already?
Arafat believes that the world (plus Israel's internal divisions) will force Israel's retreat to the Green Line no matter how he behaves. Since he believes that, it's obviously in his interest to continue the terror campaign. All he has to avoid is causing such mass casualties as to bring all of Israel together screaming for war. Short of that, he believes time is on his side. Stupid proposals like this one will only add to his conviction.
__________________________________________________
Who Will Step In?
By TODD S. PURDUM
Reuters
In a Palestinian refugee camp in Bethlehem last fall, a wall was emblazoned with hand prints that bystanders made from the blood of a Palestinian who had been shot by Israeli troops.
WASHINGTON
An old Middle East hand once likened the conflict there to riding a bicycle: If you're moving, however slowly, you don't fall down. But if you try to stand still, you fall.
After 17 months of intifada, suicide bombings, smuggled arms, unsparing Israeli reprisals and bloody stalemate, there is an inescapable sense that the bicycle is inches from the ground. And, as it always has at such times, the world is looking to America for forward momentum.
Washington's involvement has always been the crucial element in any breakthrough in the Middle East. From Harry S. Truman's swift recognition of the new state of Israel, through Jimmy Carter's Camp David summitry in the 1970's and Bill Clinton's handshake deal in the 1990's, American presidents have played a powerful role in molding the shape of Middle East negotiations. Peace has always seemed closest when America is most involved. Though this downward spiral of violence has generated doubts about any hope for a solution, a wide array of voices — representing many lands and views — are now suggesting that renewed American involvement is the key.
But what should the Bush administration do and, more important, can it accomplish what it desires?
"I think we have got to start with a pretty frank recognition that whatever we have been trying for the past year has not worked," said William B. Quandt, a national security official in the Nixon and Carter administrations. "We've kind of gone through a cycle of what you might call benign neglect — it's up to them to get their act together."
A sampling of opinion from academic experts and current and former government officials produced a variety of possible ideas for American action. Send in a new high-level American envoy, with the stature of, say, former Secretary of State James A. Baker. Press for a 10-day cooling off period in which Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel would ease the siege of Palestinian areas long enough to see if Yasir Arafat would crack down on violence — or face a cutoff of relations with the United States.
Howard Teicher, a former National Security Council official in the Reagan administration, said there are dangers for the administration in getting more involved. For example, American efforts could alienate Arab nations when their cooperation is vital. Mr. Bush would also risk political and diplomatic capital to broker an agreement in a region where American success has never been assured.
But the alternatives are worse. "The fundamental weakness of our policy now," Mr. Teicher said, "is that in saying, `It's up to Sharon and it's up to Arafat,' we're leaving it up to the extremists. That's what America did with Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorists. We waited until 3,000 Americans were killed before we did anything. In the cold-war era, our fundamental vital interest was to prevent a dispute in the Middle East from becoming a U.S.- Soviet conflict. There could be some very high costs imposed on us by not continuing our efforts."
In fact, Shibley Telhami, a professor of government at the University of Maryland, just published a statistical study of 20 years of daily analysis of how Israelis and Palestinians react to each other. He said that from 1995 to 2000, when the peace process was progressing — with American leadership — terror declined every year in the Middle East. By 1999, it had the lowest level of incidents of any region on the globe, except North America.
"When breaks in the violence happen, it's usually because you have some extremely courageous leader, like Sadat or Rabin — people who give their own lives," Professor Telhami said. "But you can't depend on that. It's more likely if you have some external pressure."
Indeed, progress over the last decade has come only through American pressure. In 1991, the first President Bush convened the Madrid peace conference in fulfillment of a commitment to Arab nations who joined the international coalition that ejected Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The Madrid conference, and the Oslo accords that followed in 1993, significantly advanced the negotiating terms for a final settlement on a homeland for Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza. But the momentum of Madrid and Oslo foundered for many reasons, including government changes in Israel and a rising tide of extremism among Palestinians.
YET Washington can play a role, and there could even be an opening. Last week, the C.I.A. brokered secret talks between top-ranking Israeli and Palestinian officials to discuss political and security issues. Seeking to lessen the tension, Israeli officials said Friday that the government was considering releasing Mr. Arafat, the Palestinian leader, from the West Bank city of Ramallah, where it trapped him for more than two months.
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, returning from a trip to Asia with President Bush, told reporters on Friday that he was concerned about the growing level of violence and planned to "spend a good part of the weekend re-engaging both sides." He said he saw promise in a recent peace overture by the ruling crown prince of Saudi Arabia.
But no one pretends the road back will be smooth. Vice President Dick Cheney plans a Middle East trip next month that the administration said will not focus on peacemaking but on broader American relationships in the region as the war on terrorism expands. The notion that the two can even be separated is controversial.
"He's going on the reigning theory that you can have a solution to the United States relationship to terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction without dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," said Stephen Cohen, a visiting professor at Princeton University. "This trip is going to test that assumption."
President Bush took office last year wary of deep involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not least because it was a priority for his predecessor, Bill Clinton, and one that ended in disappointment with the collapse of negotiations at Camp David.
Last fall, the administration began to take a more forward-leaning approach, with Mr. Bush's pledge of support for a Palestinian state and the dispatch of a special envoy, Anthony C. Zinni, a retired Marine general, to help negotiate a cease-fire and resumption of peace talks.
FOR the last two months, especially since Israel's seizure of a 50-ton boatload of Iranian- supplied arms that it said were bound for the Palestinian Authority, Washington has had a single strategy: stand squarely with Mr. Sharon to isolate and pressure Mr. Arafat to crack down on violence.
Yet the violence has only grown worse, and the administration withdrew General Zinni and has declined to send him back until it goes down again. "This is now Algeria," said Judith Kipper, director of the Middle East Forum at the Council on Foreign Relations here. "Each side is going to continue to escalate. Neither side can get the other to submit."
She added: "They've both been very good at saying no to us. But in the end, we're the big guys. We need to say we're sending Zinni back; and he's going to work with you to have an immediate cease-fire. And for those who do not cooperate, here are the consequences for you: whether it's public criticism, cutoff of contacts, no more phone calls, all the way up to whatever instruments the United States has at its command."
Many analysts said the administration should do all it can to explore the suggestion by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia that his kingdom would be prepared to fully normalize relations with Israel in exchange for full Israeli withdrawal from the territories it occupied at the end of the 1967 war, with suggestions of flexibility on other questions, including control of holy sites in Jerusalem.
Israeli officials have so far offered muted reaction, but the idea has been greeted with overwhelming support in the Arab world. President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, which has traditionally seen itself as the principal Arab peace broker in the region, is due in Washington next week, and officials say he may well try to signal a willingness to up the ante.
And President Bush could then enter into the traditional role of an American president — by getting directly involved in seeking peace in the Middle East. |
