I don't know, I have a lot of company on this one, at least. Andrew Sullivan sums the argument up pretty well:
Force and Fraud
Why I'm not worried about Bush's Israel policy
In most of the major newspapers in America and abroad, the key word to describe president Bush's recent Middle East policy has been 'reversal.' Actually, that's the polite version: incoherence, disarray, humiliation are the words one hears behind closed doors. The argument goes something like this: After months of deliberate disengagement, Washingtonhas finally relented and re-engaged with the intractable Israeli-Palestinian dispute. After once advocating a crude "black-and-white" approach to terrorism, the Americans have finally been persuaded by their European friends and Arab "allies", that the Middle East is, in fact, a painting in greys. You can't speak of terrorism and democracy, of evil and good, the argument runs, in the context of Israel. Hamas is not al Qaeda. Arafat is not bin Laden. In fact, the democratically elected leader of Israelis no better than the unelected warlord of the Palestinians. The United States must therefore intervene to impose its own solution on both parties, or, as the Economist put it this week, "to save them from each other." Without such a solution, the U.S.can kiss goodbye to its ambitions to move on to Iraq.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is twaddle. Beneath the inevitable twists and turns of world events, there is much less of a 'reversal' in current U.S. policy than meets the eye. In fact, it could well be argued that the current violence and chaos in Israel and the West Bank, culminating in the latest suicide bomb as secretary of state Powell was pressing for "peace," may actually play ultimately into the Americans' hands.
To see why, cast your mind back to president Bush's Rose Garden speech declaring "Enough is enough" ten days ago, and to his declaration that Israel must withdraw "without delay" from the West Bank. The headlines naturally focussed on the actual news: that Bush was publicly chiding Israelfor the first time. But the speech itself - wrestled over for days in the White House and finally synthesized by Condi Rice - gave a far different impression. The bulk of the speech was a ringing defense of Israel, her right to self-defense, and an explicit declaration that Arafat's terror-machine is directly linked to Iraq,Iran and Syria. This is what Bush believes; it is what the hawks wing in Bush's cabinet assume; it is what the U.S. Congress - which is more pro-Israel than the administration - clearly feels. And the proof of the real intent of the administration has been in its subsequent response to Israel's refusal to permaturely end its campaign to root out the infrastructure of Palestinian terror. Apart from mild statements of concern and irritation, the administration has done nothing. Nor is it likely to do so. The critical thing with this tight-lipped administration is to watch what it does. Its inaction and reticence are eloquence personified.
So why the public chiding of Israel? What Bush's speech did, and what Cheney's and now Powell's Middle East tours have done, is to take the heat off the United States for essentially supporting Sharon's war. By publicly haranguing Sharon, by pressing him to do something most American officials knew wouldn't happen, the White House gets some credibility for even-handedness in the Middle East - all for the sake of the Europeans and Arabs. By going through the motions of diplomacy in the Arab-Israeli dispute, the administration is also beginning the throat-clearing to prepare the world for the next war - against Iraq. "See?" they'll say. "We tried." Now you can't blame us for moving on.
Cheney's trip ended in apparent failure; so, in all likelihood, will Powell's. But that, of course, for many in the administration, was the point. What the current Bush strategy is about is not solving the Israeli-Arab conflict - the Bush people are far too intelligent to believe that such a solution is even faintly feasible. What it's about is demonstrating to the world that no level of 'engagement' is likely to achieve anything worthwhile under current conditions. The new 'engagement' is primarily therefore a sham - for international consumption. Its purpose was beautifully illustrated last Friday as Colin Powell swiftly premised his upcoming meeting with Arafat on Arafat's unconditional condemnation - in Arabic - of the latest suicide bombing. Arafat, who supports, orchestrates and pays for such murders of civilians, unsurprisingly said nothing. Quod erat demonstrandum. You couldn't have had a clearer illustration to the world of who exactly Arafat is, and the folly of talking to him about anything to do with peace.
That's quite a coup for the American hawks. More significant are the tangible fruits of the Israeli operation. Hundreds of top Palestinian terrorists have now been detained. Their headquarters have been ransacked; their documents seized; their contacts examined. The profound links between the Palestinians, Saddam, Syria, the Iranian Islamo-fascists, and al Qaeda can now be explored in greater detail than before. Whatever Sharon says in public to the U.S., behind the scenes he must know that Israel's security is dependent on the successful deposing of Saddam, and he will surely share valuable intelligence from his incursion with the Americans.
Of course, there's always the remote chance that Powell may succeed, and some sort of meaningful dialogue could emerge. Stranger things have happened. Perhaps, as each side stares into an abyss of ever-widening conflict, they might pull back from the brink. Israel might decide, as she surely should, to withdraw unilaterally from the West Bank, erect a defensible buffer zone, and essentially construct a new Berlin Wall to keep Palestinians out. The Palestinians might decide that they are sick of being used as pawns by other Arab dictators in a bloody game of Middle Eastern chess. If such a miracle occurs, the U.S. doesn't lose. In fact, it would be a wonderful development. But the beauty of the current Bush strategy is that it doesn't really matter. Whether this piece of diplomacy succeeds or fails, the broader war continues.
And after the past few weeks, the future looks a little brighter on that front. The current public clash with Sharon could improve Washington's frayed relations with the more amenable Arab tyrants, by showing the limits of Washington's clout with Jerusalem. But Sharon's intransigence also serves underlying American interests in gaining better intelligence to counter terror in the region. To take no chances, the U.S. has been quietly moving the bulk of its military operations from Saudi Arabia to the more stable base of Qatar, just so the war on Iraq is not contingent on Saudi approval. Domestically, the Bush administration is risking little. Bush is still riding over 80 percent approval in opinion polls. Unlike Europeans, most Americans still strongly sympathize with an Israeli democracy battling Arab dictatorships and terrorism, and Bush's conservative base is even furious for what back-sliding there has been.
Powell should not be misread either. The notion that he is some sort of gadfly in the administration, an internal dissident bravely trying to forge peace while his fellow cabinet members wage war, is as convenient a fiction for the administration as the notion that Bush is really a sworn antagonist ofSharon. Powell is as much a team-player, as Bush is a friend ofIsrael. Any government waging war must have a diplomatic wing, to soothe allies, placate world opinion, buy time, and so on. Powell was selected as secretary of state for precisely that reason, and he has performed admirably. He is the good cop to Rumsfeld's bad cop. But no-one doubts who the sheriff is. And if you think the recent flurry of diplomacy is a sign that the sheriff has gone wobbly on terrorism, or has been distracted from his essential mission of aiming at Saddam, you'd be very much mistaken. Bush knowsÊ in any case what any hard-nosed assessment of the region will reveal: that until Iraq and Iran have been dealt with, no peace in Israel will be possible. Those who think the Israeli-Arab conflict is the key to dealing with Iraq and Iranhave it exactly the wrong way round. Iraq and Iranare the financial, ideological and military instigators of the current Intifada. They intensified the Arab-Israeli conflict precisely to derail the coming war against them. But Bush won't be derailed. When the regimes in Tehran and Baghdad are defeated, independence for a free Palestine alongside Israel will be possible. Until then, all the diplomacy in the world is mere window-dressing. And Bush is turning into something of a master decorator.
andrewsullivan.com |
