home > by publication type > daily analysis > Bush’s Candor Marks Mideast Trip
Email
| Author: | Michael Moran |
|---|
President Bush with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas during his visit to the West Bank city of Ramallah. (AP Images/Lefteris Pitarakis)
President George W. Bush’s eight-day trip through the Middle East lived up to its billing as a momentum-building exercise. The stated goal was “advancing the Israeli-Palestinian peace process,” as National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley put it January 9 en route to Israel. The trip’s other main aim, drumming up opposition to what Washington views as Iranian adventurism, wound up taking much more time than Bush spent in the Holy Land. As Hadley noted, “It’s still a little early in the process” to expect signing ceremonies.
“The process,” of course, refers to the talks launched by the Annapolis Conference last November and to the Joint Understanding signed by the Palestinian and Israeli leaders. Much has been said about the likelihood of an agreement by the end of Bush’s term in January 2009, a goal he restated during the trip. But less attention has been paid to the details of what is on the table. The Annapolis “understanding” requires the Palestinians and Israelis to implement “Phase 1” of Bush’s “Roadmap for Peace,” the 2003 initiative that unraveled after Hamas won Palestinian elections in 2006. Phase One requires Palestinians to “undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups” from attacking Israel. Israel, for its part, must freeze all settlements and “immediately dismantle settlement outposts erected since March 2001.”
Bush’s visit brought new pledges from Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on both counts. But Abbas, who no longer holds sway over Hamas-controlled Gaza, cannot stop Qassam rocket attacks on Israel that threatened further talks (al-Jazeera) even before Bush arrived back in Washington. Olmert, sounding more like an opposition leader than a government head, chided his own coalition (AP) for not abiding by past Israeli pledges to dismantle illegal “outposts” in the West Bank.
Still, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met privately January 15 on these preliminary hurdles, as well as the deeper questions (VOA) of Jerusalem’s final status, the rights of displaced Palestinians, and the future of the West Bank.
Furthermore, Bush’s visit brought some clarity to important U.S. positions. For instance, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the Jerusalem Post that Washington expects Israel to halt construction of new housing in disputed East Jerusalem as well as the West Bank. “The roadmap obligations are on settlement activity generally,” she stated at a later news conference. Even more striking to Israeli and Arab ears was Bush’s assertion that any Palestinian state had to be contiguous, and his use of the term “occupation,” which has been avoided by U.S. diplomats in the past. “There's no such thing as a state if it's going to be occupied,” he told reporters in Saudi Arabia on January 15. “When I said contiguous, that means contiguous territory.” The statement drew praise from the Financial Times editorial page, as well as a rebuke from the Zionist Organization of America.
Early as it may be in the Annapolis process, commentary in the region focused on what little remains of the Bush presidency to see things through to a comprehensive settlement. Arabs, writes Dar Al Hayat’s Jamil Theyabi, won’t be satisfied with new adjectives, “they want real and 'tangible' change” on the ground. Israelis, too, are pessimistic. “Had he bothered to embark on this introductory journey at the beginning of his term in office, perhaps his hosts would explain to him that haste is from the devil,” writes a columnist for Israel’s Yedioth Ahronoth. Bucking the trend, Jerusalem Post columnist Gershon Baskin looks at the shape a final-status agreement might take. But even he notes nothing much can be solved with Hamas holding sway in Gaza.
Weigh in on this issue by emailing CFR.org.
Explore international efforts to curb nuclear proliferation with a new interactive from CFR's program on International Institutions and Global Governance.
To order Task Force reports, Council Special Reports, and Critical Policy Choices, please call, fax, or order online from our distributor, the Brookings Institution Press: phone +1.800.537.5487, fax +1.410.516.6998.
For information on other reports that are not for sale, or for general publications information, please call +1.212.434.9516 or email publications@cfr.org.
In War of Necessity, War of Choice, Richard N. Haass contrasts the decisions that shaped the conduct of two wars between the United States and Iraq involving the two presidents Bush and Saddam Hussein, and writes an authoritative, personal account of how U.S. foreign policy is made, what it should seek, and how it should be pursued.
In Cuba: What Everyone Needs to Know, Julia E. Sweig presents a remarkably accessible portrait of Cuba’s unique place on the world stage over the past fifty years, including its internal politics, its often fraught relationship with the United States, and its shifting relationship with the global community.
As Ray Takeyh shows in Guardians of the Revolution, behind the famous personalities and extremist slogans of Iran is a nation that is far more pragmatic—and complex—than many in the West have been led to believe.
Complete list of CFR Books
This report finds that nuclear weapons will remain a fundamental element of U.S. national security in the near term, and makes recommendations on how to ensure the safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. deterrent nuclear force, prevent nuclear terrorism, and strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime.
About Independent Task Forces at CFR
Complete list of Task Force reports
The Canadian oil sands present an important challenge to policymakers: they promise energy security benefits but present climate change problems. Michael A. Levi assesses the energy security and climate change effects of the oil sands and makes recommendations for U.S. policymakers within the context of broader bilateral relations with Canada.
This report explores an important element of the maritime policy regime: the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Author Scott G. Borgerson examines the international negotiations that led to the convention, the history of debates in the United States over whether to join it, and the strategic importance of the oceans for U.S. foreign policy today.
Complete list of Council Special Reports
To request permission to reprint or reuse CFR material, please fill out this permissions request form (PDF), referring to the instructions on page 1.
Copyright 2009 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved.