The "Times" see Abbas resigning as a defeat for us. I see it as the inevitable result that the Admin figured might happen. Am I smarter than the Editors at the "Times?" Of course not. I am just willing to face what is really going on. Why aren't they? Doesn't make the Admin look bad.
NEWS ANALYSIS
The U.S. Option: Staying the Course
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 - The sudden resignation of Mahmoud Abbas as prime minister of the Palestinian Authority stunned Bush administration officials today and raised fresh questions about the administration's strategy of trying to marginalize Yasir Arafat and work only with so-called moderate Palestinians to achieve peace with Israel.
But administration officials said that despite the enormous setback to the administration's plan, known as the road map, to establish a Palestinian state in three years, and the further complication of Israel's attack on a leader of Hamas today ? there was little choice but to keep soldiering on with its basic approach and hope that a successor to Mr. Abbas could serve as an effective partner in peace talks.
A bitter consequence of the day's developments was that, with Iraq still deeply unsettled, it will now be even harder for President Bush to paint an optimistic picture when he addresses the nation on terrorism on Sunday night, a speech evidently scheduled before reports late Friday that Mr. Abbas might resign.
The official White House reaction to Mr. Abbas's resignation was cautious, masking the administration's deep dismay today. A statement called on the Palestinian legislature to "act in a way that empowers the prime minister" no matter who is selected, and said that "all parties" needed to "consider carefully the consequences of their actions."
Those were code words, administration officials said, for an appeal to the Palestinians to choose a new prime minister who could succeed where Mr. Abbas could not in wresting control of security forces from Mr. Arafat, quelling violence against Israelis and making it possible for Israel to ease its grip over the West Bank and Gaza.
A diplomat associated with the peace process said this evening, however, that it would be extremely difficult for any successor of Mr. Abbas to do just that.
"The post of prime minister has become a poisoned chalice," he said, in part because anyone who tried to stand up to Mr. Arafat would be seen as a pawn of the United States and Israel. "The structural issues at play are deeply disturbing. I don't know if anyone can step into this situation and pull it off."
The White House's statement had code words for Israel, too, but they were quickly challenged. The talk of considering "consequences" was meant to serve as an appeal to Israel to exercise restraint, administration officials said, even as Israel was unleashing new attacks on Hamas leaders and provoking more fury from Palestinians.
Administration officials said that as recently as a couple of weeks ago, it was becoming clear that Mr. Abbas's bid to challenge Mr. Arafat was faltering.
That perception, they said, helped account for Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's unusual appeal to Mr. Arafat after the latest Jerusalem bus bombing last month to do more to cooperate with him, a startling statement given the administration's efforts to sideline the Palestinian leader and treat him as a non-person for more than a year.
Now the administration has little choice but to watch as the Palestinians choose a successor to Mr. Abbas, and to hope he will have better luck in challenging Mr. Arafat.
"Whoever becomes prime minister, whether it's someone we like or someone we don't like or someone we don't know, he will have to keep trying to get control of Palestinian security forces," said an administration official. "We knew that this process could lead to a train wreck, but it's the only path worth pursuing."
Since Mr. Bush's inauguration, events in Israel have forced constant adjustments by the administration. First, administration officials were openly disdainful of the way President Clinton had become personally engaged in the Middle East peace effort. In the view of many, Mr. Bush's predecessor had actually made the situation worse by trying and failing to broker a deal in the waning weeks of his term.
Not until this year, after the Iraq war, did the administration become more involved itself, in large part because of pressure from European and Arab allies to show, as they put it, as much zeal in achieving peace in the region as in making war.
It was then that, despite resistance from Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, Mr. Bush endorsed the road map ? a series of reciprocal actions that would supposedly be carried out by both sides ? drafted by the United States in partnership with the European Union, the secretary general of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, and the Russians.
By itself, as Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator in this administration and several of its predecessors, noted, the road map was "not implementable." The only thing that mattered was the familiar task faced by many American presidents of getting each side to take steps to build confidence in the other.
The road map languished for a year before the administration endorsed it. It did so only after someone could be appointed prime minister and supplant Mr. Arafat as the Palestinian representative in the negotiations.
But there was never any doubt in the minds of the Europeans, Arabs and others that Mr. Arafat would still be able to sabotage the process by preventing a crackdown by Palestinians on Palestinian militant groups, the prerequisite demanded by Israel for taking actions of its own.
Indeed, the administration has been irritated with its road map partners over their rebuffing of American pleas to stop meeting with Mr. Arafat when they visit Israel.
While the Bush administration has blamed Mr. Arafat, there has also been a feeling among some that Israel had not done enough to shore up Mr. Abbas so he could stand up to Mr. Arafat and take action against Hamas and other militant groups.
nytimes.com |
