A Trap for Fools

Uri Avnery's Column. Gush Shalom, 21/07/07. IN A classical American western, the difference is as glaring as the midday sun in Colorado: there are Good Guys and Bad Guys. The good ones are the settlers, who are making the prairie bloom. The bad ones are the Indians, who are blood-thirsty savages. The ultimate hero is the cowboy, tough, humane, with a big revolver or two, ready to defend himself at all times.

George Bush, who grew up on this myth, sticks to it even now, when he is the leader of the world's only superpower. This week he presented the world with an up-to-date western.

In this western - or, rather, middle eastern - there are also Good Guys and Bad Guys. The good ones are the "moderates", who are the allies of the US in the Middle East - Israel, Mahmoud Abbas and the pro-American Arab regimes. The bad ones are Hamas, Hizbullah, Iran, Syria and al-Qaeda.

It is a simple script. So simple, indeed, that an 8-year-old can understand it. The conclusions are also simple: the good guys have to be supported, the bad guys have to bite the dust. At the end, the hero - George himself - will ride off into the sunset on his noble steed, while the music reaches a crescendo.

THE CLASSICAL western, of course, does not show us the heroic pioneers stealing the land from the Indians. Or the United States Cavalry attacking the camps of the Indians, burning down the tents and killing their inhabitants, men, women and children. How the US government, after signing formal treaties with the Indian nations, breaks them one after another. And how it drives the remnants into desolate regions, long before the term "ethnic cleansing" was first used.

full text

Bush's Israeli-Palestinian agenda A PALESTINIAN VIEW Notable only for a lack of imagination

Ghassan Khatib. bitterlemons.org. 23/07/07. The most notable thing about US President George W. Bush's July 16 speech was that it marked a continuation of US policies that have failed in the Middle East in general and with respect to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in particular. The general reaction in the region was therefore negative, and any excitement generated did not last for more than a day. To start with, Bush lacks the credibility and the credentials to make proposals that commit the parties and the international community to any clear course of action. The idea of an international conference, for example, might have been taken seriously if it came from the Quartet, and if it came after some study, preparation and coordination. His repeated reference to the "moderates" is confusing and even backfires. Who are the moderates? Are they the ones who believe in a negotiated solution based on international law? In this case most Israelis, including the present government, are excluded.

The reference to making peace with the Jewish state on the basis of "current realities" is very loaded. To Palestinian ears that can only mean Bush intends for us to accept an illegal reality that was created by force. The only consequence of such words is that they will increase the Israeli appetite for more settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Unfortunately, referring to the current reality as a benchmark--the facts on the ground in the form of settlements and the wall--implies that the illegal changes that Israel has imposed on the occupied territories are irreversible.

The only way to convince anybody on the "other side"--i.e., the Palestinians and the Arabs in general--of Bush's seriousness, is to use American-Israeli relations to at least put an end to ongoing illegal Israeli measures that consolidate the occupation, particularly the expansion of settlements. Bush cannot convince Palestinians and Arabs that he is serious about his "vision" of two states living side by side unless he contributes to such a solution by making sure some space is left for the one state that hasn't been realized yet.

Another problem with Bush's speech is that it envisions continued US monopoly on the peace process, even when critics, including many in the administration itself, have pointed out Washington's abject failure in this regard. This determination to maintain a US monopoly is evident in the American attitude on the future mission of Tony Blair. It was reported that in a telephone conversation a few days before his speech, Bush told President Mahmoud Abbas that Blair's mission would be confined to coordinating international aid, economic and social development and building the institutions of a future Palestinian state, while the political file would remain with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

The American monopoly on international peace efforts, America's special relations with Israel, as well as the compromising of international law by Washington are among the main reasons for the failure of the peace process and the subsequent deterioration and radicalization. The US justification has always been the vital strategic role Israel plays vis-a-vis American and western interests in the region. However, it is evident that Israeli influence on the US agenda in the region, particularly as regards Iran/Iraq and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, is directly responsible for the many negative setbacks to western interests, regional stability and general development that we are witness to now.

It is about time that other countries, particularly European countries, take a more proactive role. Europeans need to promote an alternative approach infused with European understanding to coordinate international efforts and base them on international legality to solve this conflict and potentially many more. It can only be hoped that such a rational approach will eventually win the full backing of the US.- Published 23/7/2007 © bitterlemons.org

Ghassan Khatib is coeditor of the bitterlemons family of internet publications. He is vice-president of Birzeit University and a former Palestinian Authority minister of planning.

Bush's Israeli-Palestinian agenda AN ISRAELI VIEW All the right things

Yossi Alpher. bitterlemons.org. 23/07/07. Bush apparently doesn't recognize that his strategy of undoing the damage of democratization in Gaza by relying on Mohammad Dahlan and General Keith Dayton merely helped cause greater damage in the form of the Hamas takeover. And as he acknowledges obliquely in the opening sentence of his speech, Iraq remains his real preoccupation in the region. Not only are Iran, Syria and Hamas determined to thwart this design, but Egypt, Saudi Arabia and much of the Quartet harbor doubts about Abbas and Fayyad as exclusive leaders.

In his speech last week on Israeli-Palestinian issues, President George W. Bush for a change said all the right things. Indeed he, PM Ehud Olmert and President Mahmoud Abbas are all beginning to do the right things. There does not appear to be any more attractive or even feasible alternative course of action on the Israeli-Palestinian agenda. These are grounds for guarded optimism.

Yet all three are weak leaders whose chances of success are extremely low and this is cause for pessimism.

Now that Abbas and his able prime minister, Salam Fayyad, are unencumbered by the need to accommodate Hamas in the West Bank, they are committed to tackling the vital task of internal reform within the Palestinian Authority's security and other institutions. Olmert has enhanced and stabilized his coalition at least for a few months until the Winograd commission issues its final report. He is desperately in need of a strategic achievement that will garner him public support. Hence he has begun to make the kind of gestures--prisoner release, amnesty, transfer of tax monies--Abbas needs to restore his own credibility. And Bush has now weighed in with talk about financial aid, institution-building and an international meeting to launch a peace process once the PA is in better shape.

But to no one's surprise, none of the three is yet engaged in the really heavy lifting, and it's doubtful they will be soon. Abbas, who needs the PLO more than ever as a policy vehicle in view of his government's doubtful legal status within the PA, has not even begun to reform the fossilized decision-making institutions of the Palestinian national movement he heads, even as he burns his bridges with Hamas with angry rhetoric. Fayyad is liable to be hurt more than helped by the administration's exaggerated adoration. Olmert cannot hope to make an impression on Abbas' constituency until he resumes in earnest dismantling outposts (something Bush reminded him to do, but so gently as to preclude any sign of American pressure) and planning the dismantling of settlements, and until he frees Marwan Barghouti and other non-Hamas heavyweights--tasks that still appear likely to overwhelm his coalition.

As for Bush, in view of his record over the past six and a half years it's hard to avoid the conclusion that last week's speech was, like previous pronouncements on Israel-Palestine, just talk. His presentation seemed designed more to show his Quartet partners--whom he needs on board for dealing with Iran and Afghanistan--that he's not sitting idly by while the Middle East burns. His determination to keep boycotting Hamas hardly corresponds with the policies of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, two key Middle East allies whose cooperation is vital and who counsel keeping channels of communication open because eventually a new unity government will become necessary. He can hardly expect the Saudis to "send cabinet-level visitors to Israel" under these circumstances.

Bush's aides quietly acknowledge that his democratization program for the region is a shambles, yet he apparently doesn't recognize that his strategy of undoing the damage of democratization in Gaza by relying on Mohammad Dahlan and General Keith Dayton merely helped cause greater damage in the form of the Hamas takeover. And as he acknowledges obliquely in the opening sentence of his speech, Iraq remains his real preoccupation in the region.

Even Bush's endorsement of an international "meeting" in the fall has begun to look hollow--downgraded in importance by his spin-masters, unlikely to be attended by many key Arab players and chaired by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice rather than the president himself. Perhaps most important, a fall conference is far too early to congratulate Abbas on the fulfillment of his reform obligations, even with the help of Tony Blair. It's even too early for Olmert to report on making a serious effort to roll back the settlements.

Yet the timing issue is likely to be immaterial. Under present regional circumstances and bearing in mind the difficult political situations in Washington, Jerusalem and Ramallah and the strengths and (mainly) weaknesses of the leaders in question, the prospect of a successful confidence-building and institution-building process leading up to the declaration of renewed peace negotiations between Israel and the PLO sometime in the coming half year is far-fetched. Not only are Iran, Syria and Hamas determined to thwart this design, but Egypt, Saudi Arabia and much of the Quartet harbor doubts about Abbas and Fayyad as exclusive leaders.

Olmert, who is apparently preparing an alternative strategic track by renewing negotiations with Syria, appears to know this. Bush is reportedly not as opposed to this direction as his rhetoric might indicate. Yet Abbas may well turn out to be our last chance before Hamas takes over the West Bank as well as Gaza. That's why, for all its drawbacks and defects, it's important that we try to implement the new Bush policy approach.- Published 23/7/2007 © bitterlemons.org

Yossi Alpher is the Israeli coeditor of the bitterlemons family of internet publications. He is former director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University and a former special adviser to PM Ehud Barak.

http://www.bitterlemons.org/issue/isr1.php

Bush's credibility deficit

Ever since the Nakba and the creation of the state of Israel, the Palestinian has been treading a torturous path. He makes his way between barbed wires, with no choice but to move ahead unabated, because he has no faith in US President Bush's two-state solution

Al-Ahram Weekly. Khaled Amayreh from Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem. 19-25/07/07. President George Bush's history of unfulfilled promises and fanatical embrace of Israel's expansionistic policies mean that most Palestinians dismiss his latest peace proposals as "mendacious" and "insincere". "Only gullible people would give Bush the benefit of the doubt," said Hamas, reacting to Bush's Monday call for a "regional-international meeting" to plot general outlines for a possible final-status settlement. "Hamas doesn't trust Bush and gives no weight to his proposals. We have had experience of this man once, twice, three times, and all we have heard from him are lies and more lies," said Hamas spokesman Yehia Moussa, the deputy-head of the movement's bloc on the Legislative Council.

He can talk about peace as much as he likes, but Palestinians don't believe the US president, reports Khaled Amayreh from Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem

Moussa urged "the Arab and Muslim umma " to support the Palestinians and not leave their cause "at the mercy of Israel and America." A second Hamas spokesman, Sami Abu Zuhri, vowed to thwart "the new conspiracy".

"We shall abort all US conspiracies just as we thwarted the Dayton plot to create a quisling government in Gaza that would be at Israel's beck and call," said Abu Zuhri, alluding to a US plan, rumoured to have been overseen by Washington's envoy to the region, General Keith Dayton, to empower former PA strongman Mohamed Dahlan to overthrow Hamas with American funds and weapons.

Islamic Jihad also denounced Bush's proposals as "another deception".

"Islamic Jihad views this initiative with suspicion. Bush simply can't be trusted. His alliance with Israel is clear to all and sundry. Indeed, his entire administration is completely subservient to the... Jewish lobby."

In contrast, the Palestinian Authority (PA), headed by Mahmoud Abbas, greeted Bush's proposals with muted optimism. The Ramallah- based government of Salam Fayyad issued a formal statement welcoming "President Bush's proposal calling for an international forum to look into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict".

The PA statement viewed "the promised financial aid" from the Bush administration positively, adding that "we hope this time promises will be translated into tangible facts on the ground."

This lukewarm response from the Abbas-Fayyad regime, which depends almost completely on American backing, suggests that even they doubt the sincerity of the US president's commitment to the creation of a viable and genuine Palestinian state.

Bush, who began his presidency with a crusade against "terror", and who has repeatedly attempted to lump Palestinian resistance against Israeli colonialism in with his hapless war on terror, has consistently refused to exert any pressure on Israel. He once criticised the "separation wall", which he said was meandering like a snake through occupied Palestinian territories, but failed to act to prevent Israel from stealing swathes of Palestinian land for the construction of the barrier. Nor has he acted to prevent Israel's expansion of settlements in the West Bank, though their existence makes the prospects for realising Palestinian statehood impossible.

Bush killed any modicum of trust he might have enjoyed with Palestinians and the Arab public when in 2003 he gave former Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon written guarantees that Israel could keep all major Jewish settlements in the West Bank ["In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers..."] following any peace agreement with the Palestinians. Bush alluded to that pledge in his speech on Monday when he said the proposed regional meeting would have to take into account "existing realities" in the West Bank.

Bush's speech appears to have been a desperate, and probably last-ditch, attempt to salvage the moribund roadmap which, despite diplomatic statements to the contrary, is seen by all major players to be dead.

Hanan Ashrawi, the prominent Palestinian spokeswoman known for her optimism, believes Bush's latest speech is first and foremost an attempt to improve Washington's image in this part of the world.

"They want to give the impression that the US is not only good at starting wars, but in peacemaking as well. We have been asking for an international peace conference, and they gave us a regional meeting. We asked for an international envoy to resolve the conflict, but they gave us an envoy [former British prime minister, Tony Blair] to rebuild Palestinian institutions... so let us see how things will be, let us wait and see," Ashrawi told Al-Ahram Weekly.

A growing number of Palestinian, Israeli and foreign observers are coming to the conclusion that the chances of building a viable Palestinian state on the West Bank are daily slipping away. The creation of more than 200 Jewish settlements quite simply leaves too little room .

Yet settlement expansion continues unabated, in full view of the Bush administration and the international community. Which is not to say that Israel is consciously pushing for a one-state solution, just that it wants as much Palestinian land as possible, with as little Palestinian demography.

Israel's ultimate goal appears to be to force the Palestinians to accept a Palestinian "state" on small and isolated enclaves of the West Bank.

Indeed, in light of Israeli actions, this is what Israel has in mind whenever its officials speak of supporting the creation of a Palestinian state living in peace alongside Israel. It is not at all the kind of state the Palestinians have in mind. That would occupy 100 per cent of the occupied territories, with East Jerusalem as its capital. They are unlikely to trade that vision for a territorially disconnected state lacking sovereignty and authority, whatever the blandishments offered in the remaining months of the Bush presidency.

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/854/fr1.htm

Helene Cooper. International Herald Tribune. July 17, 2007. Hamas denounced Bush's announcement. "We condemn this American conference which aims to serve the interests of the Zionist enemy," said a spokesman for Hamas, Ismail Radwan. "Dividing the region into extremists and moderates may sound nice, neat and tidy in a speech, but on the ground there is a huge gray area that the president apparently refuses to acknowledge." The planned meeting, the first of its kind during Bush's presidency, signals another pivotal shift for an administration that is desperately seeking some kind of foreign policy victory in the volatile Middle East that would draw attention away from the war in Iraq. For several years, the Bush administration has eschewed direct engagement in peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians and has refused to press Israel to dismantle settlements or to sit down at the table with Palestinian counterparts to discuss a future Palestinian state. But now the United States is mired in Iraq and looking for a way to build good will among Arab allies that have pushed for Washington to re-engage in Middle East peace talks. Administration officials are also hoping to capitalize on growing anti-Hamas sentiment among leaders in Egypt and Jordan. Both of those countries have diplomatic relations with Israel; the big question remains whether Saudi Arabia, which does not, will embrace the administration's approach.

President George W. Bush signaled that his administration would use its remaining months to make a major push for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, announcing an initiative Monday to shore up the Palestinian president and begin building a Palestinian state.

Bush called for a regional peace conference this autumn to be led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that would include high-level Arab envoys and their counterparts from Israel and the Palestinian West Bank. He exhorted Israel's Arab neighbors to open talks with Israel and to show leadership by "ending the fiction that Israel does not exist" and "stopping the incitement of hatred in their official media."

He also urged them to send cabinet-level visitors to Israel, a request directed implicitly at America's closest Arab ally, Saudi Arabia, which has refused to do so.

"With all these steps, today's Arab leaders can show themselves to be the equals of peacemakers like Anwar Sadat and King Hussein of Jordan," Bush said.

He even took a rare jab at Israel, using the word "occupation" to refer to the Israeli presence in the West Bank.

With Gaza now under the control of the militant Islamic group Hamas, Bush said Palestinians have arrived at a "moment of choice" between the violent path that Hamas has charted against Israel and the more peaceful route to a Palestinian state embraced by Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, and his Fatah faction, which has retained control of the West Bank. Hamas would be excluded from the regional meeting that Bush proposed.

The planned meeting, the first of its kind during Bush's presidency, signals another pivotal shift for an administration that is desperately seeking some kind of foreign policy victory in the volatile Middle East that would draw attention away from the war in Iraq. For several years, the Bush administration has eschewed direct engagement in peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians and has refused to press Israel to dismantle settlements or to sit down at the table with Palestinian counterparts to discuss a future Palestinian state.

But now the United States is mired in Iraq and looking for a way to build good will among Arab allies that have pushed for Washington to re-engage in Middle East peace talks. Administration officials are also hoping to capitalize on growing anti-Hamas sentiment among leaders in Egypt and Jordan. Both of those countries have diplomatic relations with Israel; the big question remains whether Saudi Arabia, which does not, will embrace the administration's approach.

The most notable previous Middle East peace conference was a regional meeting held in Madrid in 1991 under the sponsorship of the Soviet Union and of the United States during the administration of Bush's father, the former President George H. W. Bush.

To try to gain support for the American position, the current President Bush is sending Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates to the Middle East at the end of July. They will prod Arab leaders to show up for the regional meeting, which is at an undetermined place and date, administration officials said.

Administration officials said that while the guest list had not been fixed - it remains unclear, for example, whether Syria will be invited - Bush would not have gone out on a limb with such an announcement if Rice had not received some assurances from Arab allies that they would not embarrass Bush by boycotting a meeting.

Hamas denounced Bush's announcement. "We condemn this American conference which aims to serve the interests of the Zionist enemy," said a spokesman for Hamas, Ismail Radwan.

Several critics of Bush's Middle East policy said his speech on Monday should have been delivered two years ago, after Abbas was elected president of the Palestinian Authority and before Hamas won the Palestinian legislative elections in early 2006.

Another criticism was made by Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator who is now a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. "Dividing the region into extremists and moderates may sound nice, neat and tidy in a speech," he said, "but on the ground there is a huge gray area that the president apparently refuses to acknowledge."

Hours before Bush spoke, Abbas went to Jerusalem for another meeting with the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert. These meetings are a direct result of American pressure on Olmert to try to talk about a "political horizon" for a future Palestinian state.

But with the putative state split between Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza, American, Israeli and Fatah policies seem to be aligned in trying to make the West Bank a model for the Palestinian future and the focus for aid and diplomacy. Another aspect of that policy is to squeeze Hamas in Gaza, preventing normal trading or business relations, but allowing imports of food supplies, fuel and medicine.

Olmert confirmed that Israel planned to release 250 Palestinian prisoners, out of 10,000 currently held, by the end of the week, probably on Friday, after an Israeli cabinet committee approved the names. The release of the prisoners, none of whom was guilty of killing Israelis, is intended to bolster Abbas and show the benefits of moderation.

Bush also announced that Abbas would receive about $80 million to help the Palestinian Authority overhaul its security forces. While the money is not new - it had previously been set aside for Palestinian needs - it will now go directly to Abbas and will not be funneled through outside organizations, administration officials said.

Administration officials said more aid would come after Tony Blair, the former British prime minister who is now the envoy for the Middle East "quartet" of the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia, reports success in building a plan to bolster Palestinian security and political institutions.

Steven Erlanger contributed reporting from Jerusalem.

Israel will release from prison this week a confidant of the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, a Palestinian newspaper reported Tuesday. Abdel Rahim Malouh, a leader of a small, radical group, will be included in Israel's release of 250 Palestinian prisoners that is slated for this Friday, Abbas told Malouh's wife in a telephone call, the newspaper reported.

Malouh, as a member of the Palestine Liberation Organization's executive committee, is considered close to Abbas and could serve as a mediator between him and Hamas, an Islamist organization. Abbas has refused to talk to Hamas since its forces took over the Gaza Strip in mid-June, leaving Abbas in control of only the West Bank. Malouh is the second in command of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and was jailed by Israel in 2003 for involvement in attacks on Jewish settlers.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/17/news/mideast.php

Bush urges Mid-East peace talks

BBC News. 16/07/07. The BBC's Middle East analyst Roger Hardy says even those who have been urging a more forceful US role will harbour serious doubts about whether Mr Bush's timing is propitious. Our correspondent says Mr Abbas - in many ways the lynchpin of the initiative - is already in a weak position. The more he is embraced by Israel and the West, the more vulnerable he becomes to the charge he is acting in their interests rather than those of his own people. Mr Abbas has repeatedly said he wants to resume peace talks with Israel. Israeli officials have said they are prepared to discuss confidence-building measures, but not the key issues disputed by the two sides.

US President George W Bush has called for an international meeting to discuss efforts to restart peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

The proposed meeting would take place later this year and involve the US, Israel and some of its Arab neighbours.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will chair the talks.

Speaking at the White House, Mr Bush also announced a $190m (£95m) aid package for President Mahmoud Abbas's emergency Palestinian government.

Mr Abbas's Fatah faction recently lost control of the Gaza Strip by force to the Islamic militant group Hamas.

Hamas denounced President Bush's proposed peace conference.

'Moment of choice'

President Bush said the Middle East Quartet - which consists of the US, Russia, the EU and the UN - would help strengthen the government of Mr Abbas to promote peace.

"We can help them prove to the world, the region and Israel that a Palestinian state would be a partner, not a danger.

"We can help them make clear to all Palestinians that rejecting violence is the surest path to security and a better life," he said.

Mr Bush urged Israel to continue releasing tax revenues to the Palestinian Authority, of which Mr Abbas is the leader.

He also called for a meeting of "donor" nations, including the Arab states of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, to consider more international aid.

President Bush said that now was "a moment of clarity and choice" for Palestinians.

He said Palestinians could follow the vision of Mr Abbas, and establish a state of their own - or choose the extremist vision of Hamas and "crush" the possibility of independence.

The BBC's Middle East analyst Roger Hardy says even those who have been urging a more forceful US role will harbour serious doubts about whether Mr Bush's timing is propitious.

Our correspondent says Mr Abbas - in many ways the lynchpin of the initiative - is already in a weak position.

The more he is embraced by Israel and the West, the more vulnerable he becomes to the charge he is acting in their interests rather than those of his own people.

Mr Abbas has repeatedly said he wants to resume peace talks with Israel.

Israeli officials have said they are prepared to discuss confidence-building measures, but not the key issues disputed by the two sides.

Earlier on Monday, Israel said it would release 250 Palestinian prisoners as part of a goodwill gesture to bolster Mr Abbas's government.