However, George W. Bush has done Obama's work for him. In the Oval Office Obama will find Bush's two-state vision: the Road Map that promised peace with all Arab countries by May 2005 and a complete freeze on settlements. He will also find a copy of the letter Bush sent to Ariel Sharon, in which he promised that the United States would support an agreement based on withdrawal from all territories except the main settlement blocs and the return of refugees to a Palestinian state. Click here to read the rest of the article. Responses are Welcome [This posting is courtsey of Brian]
6 comments:
The article talks about how George W. Bush did all the work for the for the Obama administration regarding a peace agreement in the Middle East. I could not disagree more. The only thing he did up until last year, was publicly state that he envisions a two-state solution; if that is “doing all the work” then I’m a bit nervous about the future. The author brings up the Road Map that promised peace with all the Arab countries but failed to mention it risks putting Palestinian state as a provisional state with no border in as proof that the. Brian brings up the good point that at the same time we were calling for freezing of settlements, they were being built. His failure to play a role in the process until last year puts the Obama administration in a position to basically pick up all the pieces. The Palestinians seemed to suffer the most over Bush’s inaction to engage in talks. Brian brings up a good point that
The article mentions two important points: one is how important Obama thinks an Arab-Israeli peace treaty is in defusing the crisis in Iraq and isolating Iran. The second is Obama's willingness to force Israel into translating its songs of peace into action. He has not even taken office yet and he has already promised more than the Bush administration did in 8 years. The author does realize the importance of the elections in Israel that the Kadima-Labor coalition would most likely cooperate more with the United States and be more open to peace, rather than the Likud party. I think this is going to be one of the biggest problems Obama will face especially if he wants to stick to his “diplomacy” route that we heard so often during the campaign.
In Akiva Eldar article it talked about Obama’s future administration would not find any difficulties or obstacles in solving the peace between Israel and Palestine, especially about that Bush has done most of the peacemaking for him. President Obama will find two ways to deal with Arab-Israeli conflict in the Oval Office. The first method was the Road Map. The Road Map guarantees that there will be peace with every Arab countries by May 2005 and “complete freeze on settlements”. The second is a letter that President Bush sent to Ariel Sharon, which, guarantees that the United States will “support an agreement based on withdrawal from all territories except the main settlement blocs and the return of the refugees to a Palestinian state”.
In think the United States has much to gain strategically from the Arab Israel dialogue than any other country, because the United States plays a big role politically, economically and militarily, it has much of an impact and influence on the World and the United States can try to gain back its the Arabs leaders trust, especially after Iraq war and return back for what the United States stands for (liberty, freedom, democracy…). If the United States is really concerned about Syria and Iran and the on going clashes in Lebanon; The United States needs to play a more constructive role in the region, instead of pampering !! If we solve the Arab-Israeli conflict in a fair manner, according to UN resolutions, we would eliminate two critical political forces that now nourish Hizbullah's armed defiance the Israeli threat to Lebanon, and the ability of Syria and Iran to exploit the ongoing conflict with Israel. Both believe that the existence of the Jewish state depends on the existence of a Palestinian state; however, Israel's persistent attempts to secure its place in this region by military force have always generated even greater violent acts, terrorism, radicalism, and more Arabs Jahads to fight. Local attempts to secure its borders - occupations, surrogate armies, check points, cross-border attacks, separation walls, massive punishment and humiliation of civilian populations had only generated one conclusion: Israel resistance and unwillingness to make or show peace efforts.
“And naturally, a new president who was widely supported by Jews and will be thinking about his second term will not want to irritate this group.” Think about this quote for a minute, what do u think this sounds to u, Does this sound to u like “if you wanted to be reelected YOU Better be careful for any decision YOU take” its like an expression of an intent to intimidate or to inflict a pause each time he (the president) might come to decision, a warning if he the president wanted to be reelected for a second term.
The road map promise did not demonstrate any compliance with neither Israel nor the Palestine authorities. The Roadmap required that the Palestinians "immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence" and that Israel "freezes all settlement activity." Yet, Israel continued to build settlements and construct its illegal separation wall in the West Bank. And the Palestinians continued to use violence in response to the occupation. The American President Barack Obama had talked a lot through out his campaign about improving the U.S foreign policy and its allies with the Middle East, concerning the Arab Israeli conflict, Iraq war, Iran and Syria. Recent opinion polls showed many, though not all, in the Arab world but in many throughout the world, a belief that Obama will adopt policies more sympathetic to Arab concerns than those of the Bush administration. And in this article as well mentioned Obama would have to be more cautious to the decisions he would make, because of his Muslim family tree “Barack Hussein's,” very hilarious! I don’t think any one is forced or obligated to do things according to their names or characteristics, Obama will have other priority, issues to deal with according to his agenda and pledges he makes. Nonetheless, I think Obama would not care about the Arabs as much as he would care about the Jews and would only change his agenda and policies to his benefit that would not HURt him or affect him in the near future running for the next term. No president, certainly not even one who is untested in foreign policy, specifically on Arab Israeli conflict and on who we had huge expectations already laid on to them to be resolved and have not taken any successful action for the past 60 years of who 11 previous U.S. presidents have been unable to solve. The new US president Obama must quickly decide if he can become the first sensible to resolve a comprehensive work for a peace as he did to become the first African American President.
This conflict must be resolved as soon as possible it can not be ignored or procrastinated; It is the most effective way to reduce and then overturn the cycles of anger, radicalism, terrorism (Jahad) and Western resistance that now define much of the Arab-Islamic Middle East. And perhaps to give this region a chance to live normal lives in peace and security.
The article mentions how Bush administration paved the way for Obama to end the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. The Road Map and the letter from Bush to Sharon prove that the U.S. can play the role of mediator who suggests options that include interests of all parties involved, as keeping its good relationship with Israel and support from Jewish community. Obama will benefit from these achievements to draw painful decision from Israel. Also, Bush administration succeeded in gaining hostility from Islamic world enough to contrast Obama as a man of peace. I do not think his name Barak-Hussein has something to do with his foreign policy, but his unique background does help get the trust from international community. As the author claims, Obama has strong interests in settling the crisis in Iraq, and isolating Iran in case Iran keeps its firm position regarding nuclear enrichment and its policy against Israel, in spite of Obama’s initiative of negotiation. He should always keep in mind that solving the conflict over Palestine indirectly helps his diplomatic objectives by restoring the credibility of the U.S. over the Middle East.
When and how he tackles the problems depends on the result of elections in Israel and P.A. If Palestinians are too disillusioned to believe in the non-violence of Fatah which has brought them nothing so far, the end of the settlement by Israelis which has continued in spite of their promise, and U.S. leadership of peacemaking which showed few tangible actions last 8 years, they will choose Hamas again. Economic sanction by Israel and the U.S. persuades Palestinians to choose moderate party in coming election, but if it is just inflating the hatred against Israel and the U.S., the situation can be undesirable for the new administration.
The statement that "Obama will find Bush has done the peacemaking for him" sends chills down my spine.
Looking at the track records of the past three administrations regarding negotiations between Palestine and Israel, Bush has the worst record in that he has done the least to improve the situation, and he had, unlike his presidential predecessors, the support of the EU, Russia, and the UN. Bush's track record, in addition to being lackluster and disappointing, is also spotty and confusing. He didn't hold parties to their agreements, and he would make conflicting statements. For example, in March 2002, President Bush publicly demanded that Israel pull back from Palestinian cities that it invaded, but then dropped the demand and then entitled Sharon a “man of peace” by the end of the week. Statements such as these discredit America in the eyes of the Palestinians who desire our aid and make us a joke to the Israeli lobbyists who we let dictate our policy.
In my opinion, Bush has two significant faults here:
1. he didn't try to improve the situation;
2. he didn't take advantage to opportunities and support provided to him.
In addition, he could have initiated negotiations back in his first term when Hamas wasn't in power (maybe Hamas wouldn't have won the 2006 election if there had been progress made during this time) and when Israel was willing to come to the negotiating table with the previous Palestinian administration.
It will be quite interesting to see what, if any, steps that President elect Obama will take in addressing this conflict.
When the author says that Obama will find "Bush has done the peacemaking for him," I don't think he is implying that Obama should continue off of Bush's magnificent record of peace and intense involvement in the Arab-Israeli conflict - because, obviously, Bush has done little to nothing in regards to the issue of Palestine. It seems like most of the students are interpreting this article too literally. The important thing is not that President Bush actually enagaged in peacemaking; it is that his administration built up some tools that would be very useful were an American president actually willing to take on this challenge. Although Obama can only do so much to control Israel and thus bring about an acceptable peace agreement, his administration - especially Joe Biden and Hilary Clinton - will most likely be ready and willing to tackle this issue. With Biden's history of friendship with Israel, and the Clinton legacy of attempted peace, they could use the tools bequeathed by the Bush administration - such as the Roadmap to Peace and the letter to Sharon - and run with them. Obama's new policies and team, combined with the Bush administration's theoretical plans, could do great things for the Palestinian-Israeli crisis. This, at least, is my hope, and I believe it is a fairly realistic one.
Post a Comment