Assume that, in theory, I agree with this (I do). Is it nonetheless inappropriate for me to ask:
(1) How does announcing it now advance our interests in Iraq, where our attackers are acquiring an overtly religious bent?
(2) How does announcing it now advance our interests in Afghanistan, which is all-too-well obeying the law of entropy?
(3) How does announcing it now advance our interests in Pakistan, where Islamic fundamentalists are growing more powerful?
(4) How does announcing it now advance our interest in Malaysia, or Turkey, or Morrocco, or the dozens of other places where the support of local, Muslim leaders is vital to fighting terror?
(5) How does announcing it now advance our interests in the UN, which Bush now admits we need to stablize Iraq?
(I understand, of course, how it helps Sharon.)
This seems to be the right goal. But is this the right approach?
I don’t think so. I can be convinced otherwise. But I don’t think so.
Update: A short but thoughtful analysis comes from David Bernstein over at Volokh. He doesn’t really address the pragmatic concerns outlined above, but his political analysis seems spot on. He also notes a nuance that flew right over my head, but was picked up on by the folks over at Debka.
I’m an advocate of “give the Palestians back 90-95% and put up a wall for ten years” but I don’t understand the timing – unless Sharon needs a boost _now_ with scandal impending. Perhaps the argument is that when Sharon actually dismantles settlements he will be stronger vis a vis the UN – and that when Gaza descends into chaos the Iraqi insurgents will decide they’d prefer to steer for peace. Maybe this is just more confident leadership from Bush.
The timing is a bit suspect, it should have been announced 15 years ago.
The Israel-Palestinian conflict is not going to be resolved so long as the Palestinians have an unrealistic view about their chances of completely taking over Israel. Having the international community make clear that the refugees will never be settling in Israel is one of the first steps in actually solving the problem. The ongoing Palestinian conflict is allegedly a serious concern of many Arab leaders, so any long term steps to resolve the issue are welcome.
Boy, such a narrow view of the war on terror.
Bush said: “Those states supporting or harboring terrorists will be treated the same as the terrorists.”
Bush said: “You are with us or against us”
Did you not take him seriously? It has been three years (or whatever). The Palestinians and their Arab friends have not adequately responded to the Rose Garden speech. Timing? The navy and air-force are re-ordinanced.
Equally, Sebastian, the Israel-Palestine conflict will never be completely resolved so long as the Jewish Israelis have an unrealistic view of how long they can maintain their bubble.
Israel and Palestine need a powerful neutral country to act as a broker: to permit two peoples who have suffered far too much to come to the table and talk. The pity is, Bush seems determined that the United States shall not be that country.
Jes, seems to me that the Palestinians have their bubble too (the hope of a real right of return, of getting exactly the ’67 borders [and perhaps eventually the rest], of the strength of terror – well, very broad brushstrokes) and perhaps pricking it would lead to a more productive approach. Anyway, in my view they had the honest broker you want in Clinton but couldn’t muster the needed leadership to trust him.
Mmmm… having read (sorry, can’t remember where) the story of a Palestinian and an Israeli who met in New York and fell in love, yes, I think Palestinians who hope for a one-state solution are wishing for a dream.
(The Palestinian was a sculptor who died recently, and I wish I could remember his name: the Israeli wrote of their mutually-incompatible good wishes, hers for peace between two states, his for a day when the 1967 borders would be abolished and Israelis and Palestinians would live together in one shared country.)
“Israel and Palestine need a powerful neutral country to act as a broker: to permit two peoples who have suffered far too much to come to the table and talk. The pity is, Bush seems determined that the United States shall not be that country.”
I don’t think the United States is qualified. We aren’t neutral. We share a Western democratic/capitalist tradition as well as a compatible religious and secular worldview with Israel. Our only impetus to defend Palestinian positions is our natural inclination to sympathy for the disenfranchised. That’s a very unbalanced allegiance and it grows more unbalanced as the intifada tests our sympathy.
If you really want a neutral arbiter, pick a country without such cultural overlap. Like China. Maybe India.
By the way, the timing is due to the May 2 referendum in Israel on pulling out of Gaza. I assume that was scheduled to a) give Arafat a token time period to react and b) to avoid the US election season.
Von, you’re asking the wrong questions. The right question is:
It’s worth noting that it’s very possible that Sharon will be forced to resign soon, under indictment for taking a bribe. That could change events greatly.
Sidereal, I agree – China or India would be better as neutral arbiters between Israel and Palestine than the US. No country, however, can function as a neutral arbiter between Israel and Palestine if the US is standing on Israel’s side defending Israel’s bubble. For peace in the Middle East, the US has got to take a step back.
Israel will either have to surrender all the illegal settlements and settler-only roads in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and provide a means for the two areas to physically communicate (acre for acre landswap, perhaps, for the older settlements on the 1967 borders) – or Israel will have to take down the borders and admit the Palestinians of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as Israeli Arabs.
The first choice means Israel can continue to maintain its artificial Jewish majority: the second choice means Israel ceases to be a majority Jewish state in a few years.
But either one is a more stable situation than the “solution” Sharon thinks he can broker with the US so firmly on his side, which is effectively simply a continuation of the situation at present – keep several million Palestinians pinned down with force of arms, and trust that this causes not quite enough Israeli casualties per year to burst the Israeli bubble.
I put this as things Israel must do – others can and will and have pointed out the things Palestinians must do.
And – kind of on topic – check out Jew in Google! Looks like we did it. I’ve never felt so pleased about the results of a googlebombing before.
Jes, what will the Paleos have to do? And then I ask you how did Taba not fit your criteria?
And then I ask you how did Taba not fit your criteria?
If you mean my criteria as described in paragraph 2 of 4:47 AM post, it should be obvious that Taba was nowhere near that: the Israelis intended to keep their illegal settlements and settler-only roads on the West Bank. Those have got to go: after literally decades of war crimes, the Israelis must prove to the Palestinians that they are serious about wanting peace. At present, Israeli government after government has only proved they are serious about wanting their bubble.
One wonders just how well this was actually thought out. Given all that was going on in Iraq and with the 9/11 commission, it’s quite possible that outsourcing this decision to Elliot Abrams has produced this policy at this time.
And did Bush really have to reference facts on the ground. I mean, really.
addendum: This is also a giant FU to Tony Blair.
Odd. I thought I correct by typo in Volokh (I transposed the k and h) ten seconds after the post went. But here it is again. Try, try again, I suppose.
I thought I correct by typo
How ’bout “I thought I corrected my typo”. Not a good day/week for me, eh?
You have to wonder, though, what on earth David Bernstein (or Bush & Co) expected the Palestinians to do. (See this Reuters article for a more realistic discussion of the internal politics involved.)