Sunday, January 20, 2008
‘Will Israel Bear the Cost for Bush’s Legacy?’
General piece by
Aaron Goldstein
On January 20, 2008, President George W. Bush will have exactly one year left of his second term in the White House. Notwithstanding the paranoid musings of John Dean and Naomi Wolf that suggest Bush and Dick Cheney will find a way to remain in office after the expiration of his term, as certain as the sun rises in the east, George W. Bush will leave office on January 20, 2009.
Like all Presidents on the verge of leaving office, Bush is thinking a great deal about his legacy and how he will be looked upon by future generations. At this point in time, right or wrong, Bush’s decision to send troops into Iraq overshadows all else including his response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. In time, historians and the general public might look at Bush’s decision to remove Saddam Hussein more kindly and with greater understanding. But that time might not arrive in Bush’s lifetime or, for that matter, my own.
So what is a soon to be ex-President to do? When in doubt, make Israel sign a peace treatment that will bring her everything but peace. Bush has pledged that Israel and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank will come to a peace agreement “within a year” (read: before January 20, 2009). Should this come to pass, the normally hostile press will shower him with an affection he has never known, albeit grudgingly.
But grudgingly or not, an agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority would end George W. Bush’s Presidency on a positive note. Never mind that any agreement signed between Israel and the Palestinians will surely unravel. The Palestinians will pledge to rein in terrorists from firing rockets into Israel and rocket attacks into Israel will proceed unabated. The United States will respond in the only way it knows how - by pressuring Israel to make more concessions. After all, when have the Palestinians ever listened to the United States? The Palestinians certainly weren’t listening when Madeleine Albright chased Yasser Arafat after he walked out of negotiations at the residence of the American Ambassador in Paris to save the ill-fated Camp David 2000 Summit. Of course, none of those details need bother President Bush. They will fall into the lap of his successor.
Israel’s fate was sealed on November 11, 2004 - the day Arafat died. After the Karine A incident in January 2002, Arafat was persona non grata at the Bush White House. Israel intercepted the Iranian ship bound for the Palestinian Authority full of weapons, a no-no under the auspices of the Oslo Accords. Arafat denied any knowledge of the shipment but when it emerged he authorized the shipment, there would be no more sleepovers in the Lincoln Bedroom as was the rule during the Clinton Administration.
While President Bush became the first Commander in Chief to support the creation of a Palestinian state, he did not support one that would have Arafat in charge. He would also not support a Palestinian state compromised by terror. They could have a state or terror but not both. Yet for whatever reason, Bush did not view Arafat’s successor, Mahmoud Abbas, as someone compromised by terror. Indeed, Bush along with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, have done everything in their power to prop up Abbas as a voice of moderation. In so doing, they have given Abbas every incentive not to get anything done. Abbas has no incentive to end violence in Israel, no incentive to recognize the State of Israel, no incentive to recognize previous peace agreements much less no incentive to bring about critical reforms in the Palestinian education system that presently teaches its children to aspire to be martyrs and take as many Jewish civilians along with them as possible.
Abbas was further propped up by the United States after Hamas won parliamentary elections in January 2006 and then subsequently ran Abbas and Fatah out of the Gaza Strip last summer. The U.S. and EU governments have been aiding Abbas with money hand over fist since fleeing Gaza. While the United States is correct to isolate Hamas, Abbas has done precious little to inspire the American confidence he has gained. So long as he has this confidence, he will continue to do little.
Of course, this isn’t to suggest the Israeli government doesn’t bear some responsibility for this state of affairs. Like President Bush, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has a political legacy to protect. Olmert is still deeply unpopular in Israel after his indecisive leadership during its war with Hezbollah in Lebanon in July/August 2006. The final report of the Winograd Commission, which is investigating the Israeli government’s conduct of the war, is due to be released on January 30th. Its findings will likely do little to help Olmert’s standing with the Israeli electorate. If an election were to be held in Israel today, Benjamin Netanyahu would very likely become Prime Minister and the Likud Party restored to power. However, if Olmert were to succeed in negotiating a peace treaty with the Palestinians he would get much needed political capital. Israelis wary of the Palestinians want some resolution to this matter although it would undoubtedly mean painful compromises concerning Israeli-Palestinian borders, Palestinian refugees and the status of Jerusalem.
Earlier this week, Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu Party withdrew from Olmert’s coalition government. Olmert has still has 67 of the 120 seats in the Knesset. However, the religious Shas Party has also threatened to withdraw from the coalition concerning the status of Jerusalem. If Shas does withdraw, it would leave Olmert six seats short of a parliamentary majority. Such a defection could force early elections which would likely be fatal for Olmert. However, Olmert could still cobble together another coalition government. If he were to succeed, it would attest to a set of remarkable political skills and maneuvering. It would certainly enhance Olmert’s political legacy.
Despite Olmert’s role, make no mistake about it, President Bush and Condi Rice are the driving forces behind this latest attempt in futility. In November 2007, Rice told a gathering of the United Jewish Communities in Nashville that Israel would need to make “difficult and painful sacrifices” yet made no mention of any difficult and painful sacrifices on the part of Abbas and the Palestinians. In fact, Rice referred to Abbas as “a true partner for peace.” You could have heard a pin drop. Rice further insisted that a Palestinian state would be “bulwark” against violent extremism. (http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=4772) Somewhere in the very near future, I suspect that Rice will be chasing Abbas down a road after he walks out of a meeting at an American Ambassador’s residence. Oh, they will most probably get their peace agreement signed. But no peace agreement is better than a bad peace agreement.
Yet peace agreements are written about forever and it will be forever remembered that President Bush was instrumental in bringing about a peace agreement whether or not it actually succeeds. Jimmy Carter is forever remembered for the Camp David Accords. Bill Clinton is forever remembered for the Oslo Accords. George W. Bush will be forever remembered for the Annapolis Accords or whatever they decide to name it. But what cost must Israel bear so that President Bush can be forever remembered?
HowardWasRight 
more...
more... 
