Friday, January 13, 2012 - 10:13am
In an ideal world, if we were writing this up as a scenario we would say let’s put this all on hold, and everyone stays away happily and nothing changes for the worse, and we pick it up perhaps when everyone is stronger. But status quos are not status quos and people know that. They either get better – or more commonly – they actually get worse because they are left neglected. I fear that this status quo, over the next 10 or 11 months if there isn’t some very significant policy activity, will deteriorate into violence.
Issue #28
With only hours until the swearing-in of George W. Bush, it is safe to predict that there will not be a "final status" agreement on President Clinton's watch. This is a source of great joy to those who do not want an agreement, on anyone's watch. Their hope now is that President Bush can be convinced to walk away from Middle East peacemaking and return to the days when America, like Israel, pretended that there could be Middle East peace without taking into account the needs of the Palestinians.
It is not going to happen. Charles Krauthammer and others like him may argue that President Clinton's framework for an agreement was a radical turn from longtime American policy and that President Bush can, and should, simply discard it. But they must know it isn't true. American policy has been remarkably consistent since 1967. The Rogers Plan of 1969, the Camp David Accords of 1979, the Reagan Plan of 1981 and the Clinton framework are identical in the essentials. In exchange for peace, Israel would relinquish territories captured in the Six Day War. The exact borders would be determined in the context of negotiations. The United States has never supported Israeli settlements in the territories nor has it supported the Israeli view that the future of Jerusalem was non-negotiable. In short, opponents of the peace process pretend that American policy is something that it is not. The Clinton framework merely represents an elaboration of American policy under every President since Lyndon Baines Johnson. The one change is the Palestinian element. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon would have had Israel return territories to Jordan. Because the PLO recognized Israel (and vice versa) the Clinton framework refers not to Jordan but to Palestine.
It is absurd to believe that the new President is going to reverse course. In addition to the simple fact that there is no alternative to the peace process (except war), his father's history with the Middle East also suggests that George W. Bush will not break faith with his predecessors. Former President Bush launched the current peace process in 1991 when he issued the invitation to Israelis and Palestinians (as well as the involved Arab states) to attend the Madrid peace conference which represented the first time Israelis and Palestinians engaged in direct negotiations (the Palestinians were folded into a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation). The President was insistent about the Palestinian role and overrode Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir's objections. Later Bush forcefully objected to Shamir's policy of expanding settlements, repeatedly stating that they were an impediment to peace with the Palestinians. Tension in the Bush-Shamir relationship was one of the factors which led to the watershed Israeli election of 1992. Yitzhak Rabin defeated Shamir and President Bush demonstrated his pleasure at the outcome by immediately hosting Rabin at Kennebunkport.
In short, former President Bush was a consistent supporter of the peace process; even more, he was one of its pioneers. There is no evidence indicating that his son will reject this aspect of his father's legacy. Those who argue the opposite, base their case on the idea that this President Bush will not want to repeat his father's "mistake" in alienating segments of the American Jewish community by challenging Israeli hawkishness. The argument holds no water. First, George W. Bush demonstrated throughout his campaign that, even in the heat of a close election, he has no interest in pandering to that minority of the American Jewish community opposed to the peace process. He did not do that in the campaign; why would he after moving into the White House. Secondly, the political terrain has changed dramatically since the first President Bush boldly championed Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Today there is no political price to be paid for championing the peace process. It is to George Bush's credit that he was prepared to pay it anyway. It is good news that his son won't have to.
**** **** **** ****
Last Sunday I was walking around in downtown Washington when I happened upon an obviously lost group of young Israelis. Guidebooks in hand, they were unable to locate the National Geographic Museum on 17th Street. They were on 16th Street. I sent them on their way but, before I did, I engaged them in a discussion of the political situation. Because they were obviously religious (the two men, in their 20's, were wearing kippot; the young woman was wearing a longish skirt) I assumed they were on the political right and went out of my way to avoid saying anything that might offend them. I did ask them about the election. They did not like Barak at all and with no hesitation told me why. He was inconsistent, he "zig-zagged," he didn't consult with anyone. So, I suggested, they like Sharon? No, they said, how could Israel elect "the guy responsible for Sabra and Shatilla." The bottom line was that these three Jerusalemites had no idea who they were voting for. So what's the moral of the story. It is that Israel and Israelis never fail to surprise. I assumed these religious kids would be right-wingers. They weren't. They were thoughtful open-minded young people who were sure of only one thing: that they want peace. I will keep them in mind, and all the others like them, in the sure-to-be difficult days ahead.