[Peace-discuss] Palestine-Israel - a Bush Sea-Change?

[David Green]

If this interpretation has some merit, it is understandble that the Palestinian rights community has not caught up with it, which given Bush's record and the overall nature of his Middle East trip is understandable. Charles Smith has written the best "college textbook" account of the history of the entire conflict that I've ever seen, so Carl has some distinguished company in his guarded analysis (not that being distinguished helps make the argument).
   
  DG

"C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
  [From the group blog associated with Juan Cole, "Informed Comment: 
Global Affairs." This is certainly more up-beat would seem warranted, 
but it does recognize the change in Bush's language -- although it 
doesn't speculate on the institutional alterations behind it. But few 
believe that Bush simply chose to talk in a new way. --CGE]

Palestine-Israel - a Bush Sea-Change?
Charles Smith

I am delighted to revise part of my earlier comments to note that 
President Bush did address Palestinian-Israeli issues in his Abu Dhabi 
speech and did call on Israel as well as the Palestinians to make 
sacrifices: acceptance of a Palestinian state was necessary for Israel's 
long-term security, in his words. This is noteworthy - what will come of 
it remains to be seen, especially with respect to how these remarks are 
interpreted not only in the region but in the U.S.

One sign of alarm comes from Daniel Pipes, always a good sign. Pipes is 
so perturbed that he has written an op-ed in today's (1/17) Jerusalem 
Post condemning the idea of, quote, a "sovereign" Palestine. Pipes 
states that "the mischievous goal of creating 'Palestine' [his quotes] 
will inspire more fervor to eliminate the Jewish state, especially if 
accompanied by a Palestinian 'right of return'" [his quotes].

Pipes makes clear here what was only suspected before. Pro-Likud 
alarmists like Pipes oppose the creation of any Palestinian state in 
principle since any state will supposedly seek to eliminate Israel; 
therefore it should be opposed. What the alternative is is carefully 
avoided. Admittedly Pipes qualifies this by his reference to the right 
of return issue, but analysts in general accept that in reality there 
will only be a token return accepted.

What is important to Palestinians is that the issue should be 
negotiated, not rejected and taken off the table before talks begin. As 
former security chief Ami Ayalon has noted, what Palestinians want is 
Israeli acknowledgment of the PRINCIPLE of a Palestinian right of return 
[followed presumably by compensation, another word Bush used --CGE]. 
This would mean that Israel would also be acknowledging that the 
creation of Israel led to the Palestinian refugee problem that now 
creates the demand for a right of return.

That Israeli forces, official and terrorist (Irgun, LEHI), participated 
in the ousting of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians is no longer in 
question for scholars, other than those on the far right of the Israeli 
spectrum. But dealing with historical reality is difficult for many 
Israelis. Prime Minister Olmert has stated he will never admit that 
Israel played a role in the Palestinian exodus and Likud historian 
Efraim Karsh is now the leader of "Project 1948" sponsored by the 
Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies (besacenter.org) at Bar-Ilan 
University and championed by former prime minister Bibi Netanyahu; 
Project 1948 is dedicated to publishing the "basic truths" of what occured.

With this in mind we can look forward to "scholarly" publications on the 
issue, especially if matters come to the point where actual negotiations 
occur, as opposed to preliminary forays and subsequent denials of 
accomplishments. But there is hope that we can also look forward to 
further encouraging and surprisingly balanced statements from the 
president. Whether that inspires any American presidential candidates of 
either party to openly applaud the president, and thus appear to even 
tacitly question Israeli policy in an election year, is an entirely 
different question. But it does put them in the dilemma as to whether 
they should openly oppose him, with Rudy Guiliani being the exception - 
his advisers include Pipes, Martin Kramer, and Norman Podhoretz.

But, for now, despite the obstacles to found in the region, we have a 
somewhat sophisticated and open statement addressing both sides from an 
unexpected source. That itself is an accomplishment.

http://icga.blogspot.com/2008/01/palestine-israel-bush-sea-change.html
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss


       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080120/058b1ecf/attachment.html