An indignant President Bush declared to the rest of the world this week that he is doing all he can to bring peace to the Middle East. He is right. All Bush can do is helplessly flail his arms in a desperate attempt to distract the two combatants long enough for calm heads to prevail'assuming that calm heads will prevail.
What Bush should be criticized for is not his inability to act now, but his neglect of the region for so long before and after Sept. 11. The Israeli incursions and the Palestinian suicide bombings are taking place now because no attempt was made three or four months ago to bring the two sides to the negotiating table.
For the majority of Bush's first year in office, Middle East policy has been dictated by conservative members of Congress and hawks like Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney. They view excessive peace negotiations as too similar to Clinton's foreign policy, a comparison as poisonous in the minds of Republicans as kryptonite is to Superman.
Unfortunately, Bush's reliance on these hawks has consequences for the war on terrorism. Every Arab nation is now frantically attempting to distance itself from the Bush administration, hoping that an enraged populace doesn't equate a friendly relationship with Bush as tacit support for Israel.
That an invasion of Iraq could occur in the next year with the support of other Arab nations is almost impossible to imagine. Even Kuwait, which was the target of Saddam Hussein's attacks in the Gulf War, does not support a new war on Iraq and announced this publicly at a recent Arab Summit Meeting.
On Tuesday, Hosni Mubarak, the president of Egypt, expressed frustration with the Bush administration's lukewarm condemnation of Israel's aggression. Since the Geneva Peace Convention Egypt has generally supported U.S. policy toward Palestine. Mubarak's words of reproach are a telling sign that the United States is losing almost all its support in the region.
Instead of the United States leading a coalition of countries against Iraq, Hussein seems to be organizing a more effective coalition against the United States. Iraq has recently increased the amount of money it donates to the Palestinian group Hamas and has been encouraging other nations to impose another oil embargo on the United States if it does not reign in Israel's armies.
In comparison, the United States' coalition seems to be falling apart. Almost every European Union nation except Britain has voiced objections to the United States' silence concerning the recent violence. Public opinion in Europe is strongly opposed to any conflict against Iraq and foreign policy leaders like France have made it clear that the United States will not get Europe's full support without support from Middle Eastern leaders.
As Bush twiddles his thumbs in Washington giving mediocre speeches promoting childhood literacy, Israeli citizens are being blown up in caf??s and public places. The Israeli army's harsh treatment of Palestinians in the occupied cities is only fueling more violence in the future and creating more antagonism toward the West. If Bush wants to stop the violence, he has to make a substantial commitment to establishing a cease-fire. He can't just send a special envoy or make offhand remarks every few days condemning violence in general.
Bush has to make up for months of neglect by devoting a large portion of his resources to getting both sides to the negotiating table now, amidst what seems to be intractable violence. However, this means Bush must have someone to negotiate with, and the best person is still Yasser Arafat, despite evidence of his complicity with recent suicide bombings.
Although it may seem as if the United States is stuck in a quandary of foreign policy problems, Bush could make a substantial improvement in the situation if he made an effort to end Israel's attempt at ostracizing Arafat. Bush must also recognize the necessity of remaining as impartial as possible, which means abandoning all diplomatic support for violence from Palestinian suicide bombers and the Israeli military.
Bush's success at establishing a cease-fire is directly linked to whether Bush will get support for an attack on Iraq. Every bit of diplomacy in the Middle East region depends on stability in Palestine. Without stability there is no cooperation and without cooperation there is not much of chance of organizing a war.
The world needs U.S. leadership in the Middle East. A successful end to the war on terror requires peace in Palestine. Innocent Palestinian and Jewish civilians deserve a reprieve from constant violence that only a cease-fire can provide. The question remains: Can Bush be that world leader? Bush will become that world leader only if he devotes more attention to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, despite his antipathy toward \Clinton diplomacy.""
