Bush: Conditions not right for Mideast peace

[NewsGuy]

Reported by CNN

President Bush said Monday after a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that conditions do not yet exist for peace in the Middle East "because no one has confidence in the emerging Palestinian government ."
...

The two met Monday for the sixth time, just hours after Israeli forces made a new incursion into the West Bank town of Ramallah...

CNN reporters at the scene said at least a dozen tank shells were lobbed into a building used by Palestinian security. They said Israeli troops were going across the city, blowing down doors and making arrests.

The IDF called the incursion a "short operation" aimed at arresting a list of Palestinian terrorist suspects and rooting out hidden "explosive laboratories, bomb factories and weapons caches."

...

In additonal West Bank operations, IDF forces arrested nine "wanted Palestinians" in sweeps through Beit-Awa, west of Hebron; Azun, east of Qalqilya; and Zeita, north of Tulkarem. Israeli security forces took the detainees in for questioning, according to the IDF.


Twenty-five Palestinians were taken to a hospital early Monday after an explosion rocked a house in Gaza's Jabaliya refugee camp, the Palestine Red Crescent Society said. Palestinian police and residents said it was likely that the explosion occurred while someone in the house was making bombs.

* * *

Also reported in the Israeli press today:

- 2 explosives-filled cars were caught by the IDF in Ramallah

- A wanted Palestinian terrorist was captured while riding inside a Palestinian Red Crescent ambulance.

* * *

Once again, another day in the newly "reformed" Palestinian territories. Things will be "different" now for sure...

[cerulean]

So how will the State Department respond to this statement by Bush?

[Iori Yagami]

By a revolution, in which Powell would become a president...

[cerulean]

From the Jerusalem Post:

Housing and Construction Minister Natan Sharansky assessed Tuesday that it could take the Palestinian Authority at least three years to carry out the reforms necessary to hold elections.
....
"Instead of dealing with the real problem of encouraging democracy among Palestinians, we are urging immediate solutions. Elections should not be at the beginning of the process," he said at the breakfast meeting . "They should be at the end."

http://www.jpost.com/NASApp/cs/Conte...=1023716455895

==========
This is an optimistic viewpoint, in my opinion. However, combined with Bush's statement perhaps there will be some world realization that the current Palestinian government is essentially a mafia-style thugocracy not fit to negotiate with.

[cerulean]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/...864300246.html

The Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, has warned President George Bush that if Washington tries to impose a peace deal he will call early elections, thereby freezing the peace process.

The threat emerged as Mr Bush and officials were poised to consider a strategy for the Middle East, including the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Mr Sharon told Mr Bush at the White House this week that if countries tried to impose such a state he would call elections, which would paralyse diplomatic activity for months.

Mr Sharon said he envisioned a Palestinian state only after a long negotiating process and an end to all attacks against Israelis.

...

=========

[cerulean]

The sum total of all these articles indicates the US seems to feel some sort of pressure to get going on this Palestinian state idea (despite the extreme drawbacks).

==========

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...020EDT0571.DTL

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Wednesday began to sketch out the Bush administration's plans for a Palestinian state, saying in an interview with an Arabic newspaper that the process may begin with a transitional or temporary state.

And, Powell told al-Hayat, the London-based newspaper, that several other transitional steps may be necessary.

Powell on Wednesday said President Bush would round out his consultations with Middle East leaders Thursday with the Saudi foreign minister and then, "in the very near future," announce how he intends to secure a Palestinian state.

Bush could lay out his plan as early as next week, said a senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

...
=========

I wonder why Bush thinks this go-around will be any more successful than any of the other previous attempts and given that Camp David failed and Arafat is still in charge?

[Mediocrates]

This is fruitless.

1) The Saudi prince has stated the official plan for all the world's compliance. Variations from that are not subject to debate.

2) This differs from the official PLO "Everything-Instantly-Now" framework. That is, the official PLO stance is give us everything we desire this instant, there is no process, no transition.

[cerulean]

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020613-34666004.htm

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell yesterday floated the possibility of a short-term or interim Palestinian state, an idea that was swiftly rejected by President Bush's spokesman.
Mr. Powell told reporters aboard his plane: "There are those who believe that unless you have a political horizon put in place that people can see, it'll be hard for the Arabs or Palestinians to move forward with the kinds of reforms that are required to improve security and to bring greater accountability to the Palestinian leadership.
"Along with that line of thinking is the proposition that before you can get to that end state, you may need a provisional arrangement, or an interim state, on the way there."
But White House spokesman Ari Fleischer dismissed the proposal.
"Welcome to the Middle East. This is a situation where people get a variety of information, a variety of advice. And if the president has anything further to indicate, he will," Mr. Fleischer said of the plan.
Mr. Powell first mentioned the idea as a solution in an interview published Monday in the London-based Arabic newspaper Al Hayat and elaborated yesterday to reporters.

...
==========

It would be nice to think all these missteps and contradictions are part of a coordinated policy only evident to great minds, but I doubt it, somehow.

[cerulean]

Bush mulls 'provisional' Palestinian state
June 14, 2002 Posted: 12:14 AM EDT (0414 GMT)

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/...ast/index.html

From the article:

Some said there was a united view within the administration about the overall goal of the strategy -- but there were disagreements over how fast to push for certain steps and how trusting to be of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's promise to implement reforms.

=======

HELP! I can't believe anyone is talking about "trusting" Arafat.

[Vic]

Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition. 1995.

mull

VERB:
To think or think about carefully and at length: chew on or (over), cogitate, consider, contemplate, deliberate, entertain, excogitate, meditate, muse1, ponder, reflect, revolve, ruminate, study, think, think out, think over, think through, turn over, weigh. Idioms: cudgel one's brains, put on one's thinking cap, rack one's brain. See THOUGHTS.

So what the hell is a "provisional state", once Mr. Bush has finished the process?

[cerulean]

Originally posted by Vic
So what the hell is a "provisional state", once Mr. Bush has finished the process?

I don't see how a state could be provisional. It sounds something like building a temporary house that has a concrete foundation.

Another article:

'Virtual' diplomacy and the muddle of US Middle East policy

http://www.jpost.com/NASApp/cs/Conte...=1023716479206

From the article:
Very roughly put, the Pentagon supports Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's policies, the State Department believes Sharon could be more forthcoming to the Palestinians, and the White House is caught somewhere in the middle.
...
=======
And this article:
US LEANING TOWARD NEGOTIATION TIMETABLE

http://www.jpost.com/NASApp/cs/Conte...=1023716479221

WASHINGTON The Bush administration is strongly leaning toward announcing some type of timetable next week for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, despite Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's uneasiness with the concept, a US official told The Jerusalem Post yesterday after President George W. Bush held a "warm meeting" with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal.

...

=======

Reading all these garbled signals, I think Bush's "vision of peace," which he plans to announce in the next while, will involve a "provisional" Palestinian state within a year that essentially involves an Israeli pullback to the pre-1967 borders. I don't see any sign that he is willing to be hardline on this issue.

[Mediocrates]

So we're back to 1992, are we? I suppose in the utter absence of an actual foreign policy the US administration is taking their turn at 'peace' just like every administration before them. The only difference is that instead of negotiating, this administration wants to impose timetables.

I wish them well. Anyone who's been listening will understand that Arafat will suddenly be offended and change his mind or claim he was misunderstood or change the rules at the 11th hour. Regardless of prior agreements Arafat will proclaim that there are new requirements at the last moment. And here is what they will be:

Complete control over all of Jerusalem
Unrestricted right of return

[Vic]

Originally posted by cerulean
I don't see how a state could be provisional. It sounds something like building a temporary house that has a concrete foundation.

I like the analogy, but in this case it would rather be like building a skyscraper on a foundation of cardboard

With apologies if this offends anyone's patriotic feelings - what I am sick of is Israel's dependency on the daily status of Mr. Bush's cerebral currents. I've heard Israelis refer ironically to "our head of the state" when they talk about him. Reports about the latest "vision" could easily fall under the category "war reporting" given the seemingly never-ending contradicting positions. It makes me wonder why these "visions" are still being seriosly discussed in the media and elsewhere. They have an almost farcical touch by now. Can anyone tell me whether there is such a thing as a US Middle East policy and if it so, why does Mr. Bush change his mind on it virtually every other day? Or is all of this part of some marvellous secret strategy (consisting of what?)?

-------------------------------------------------

P.S.: I've been offline for some time and didn't notice Mediocrates' last posting, half-answering the above questions.

Does this lack of foreign policy mean that when the US says "jump" there is no need for Israel to ask "how high"?

[Mediocrates]

No you are correct there is no actual foreign policy. In almost every other part of the world US foreign policy has been subsumed under the Pentagon. But in Israel, US foreign policy is being developed and run by the Saud family.

The Bush administration is falling prey to the same delusions that bedeviled all prior administrations: fake parity as a screen for placating the Sauds.

The problem is that timelines are like speed limits. They're only useful for people who obey the speed limits. With performance couplings implied for both sides in Bush's timetable, the only relevant question is what will the Israelis be doing at the moment that Arafat refuses to meet the first goal, the first deadline. Clearly it won't matter what Arafat agrees to since all he needs do is simply claim that the Israelis haven't complied therefore the PLO doesn't need to stop the violence. Sharon will take some stumbling steps towards meeting those goals while at the same time terrorist violence stays constant. Eventually there will be public pressure on Sharon to respond and when he does Arafat will pull out of the timetable. Arafat understands that his greatest weapon is the transparency and democracy of Israeli society. Just like the hope in 94 was that a dictator, unfettered by public opinion would work to ruthlessly wipe out terrorism, that same tyranny allows him to wage war on Israel while negotiating with the US.

[Vic]

Hmm.. sounds encouraging. Therefore the real Israeli PM is prince what's-his-name "widely considered to be the Saudi Arabian head of the state", as they used to report until a short time ago?

Doesn't the whole mess also pose a danger to the US? (I mean the US, not the Bush family ).