The Wrong Concessions
- 03.31.2008 - 10:30 AMPresident Bush is again “optimistic” that Israeli-Palestinian peace can be finalized during the remaining months of his presidency. For Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, this can only mean one thing: more photo-ops with Israeli and Palestinian leaders, with massive frequent-flyer miles accumulating in the process. But yesterday, Rice finally complemented her shuttling with diplomatic results, winning a set of concessions from Israel that are intended to ease Palestinian livelihoods and create conditions that are ripe for peace.
I’m dubious regarding the potential for economic progress to translate into Palestinian support for the peace process-particularly in the short timeframe with which the Bush administration is working. That said, insofar as the goal is to improve the West Bank economy, many of the measures to which Israel agreed are sensible, if not long overdue. These include the decision to raise the number of Palestinian businessmen permitted into Israel to 1,500; issuing 5,000 additional work permits for Palestinian laborers; building new housing for Palestinians in 25 villages; and supporting large-scale economic development programs.
But the most essential concessions to which Israel agreed make little sense. These include decisions to dismantle one permanent roadblock and remove fifty travel barriers around Jenin, Tulkarem, Qalqiliya, and Ramallah. Israel has long maintained that these checkpoints critically bolster its security, stemming the flow of terrorists and weapons among the West Bank’s most contentious cities. Yet in agreeing to dissemble these barriers on account of political considerations, Israel is discrediting its own claims regarding the security-relevance of its West Bank policies. Moreover, on account of its decreased ability to monitor movement within the West Bank in the absence of a reliable Palestinian security force, Israel may face a decline in security.
Make no mistake: a further decline in Israeli security would be the final nail in the Annapolis coffin-a disaster for the Bush administration. Indeed, if the Annapolis “process” aims for the realization of a two-state solution-a long-held U.S. interest-anything that might validate the occupation as necessary for Israeli security should be immediately removed from the table. It is for this reason that I have viewed the cessation of Israeli settlement activity as a more reasonable Israeli concession for the Bush administration to demand: halting construction would have no negative security consequences for Israel, and would represent clear progress towards drawing the line in the sand that Israeli-Palestinian peace will require.
In this vein, Israel’s agreement to connect Palestinian villages to its power grid is downright regressive. Again, if the goal remains a two-state solution-in which Palestine is an autonomous entity-why would Rice press for the Palestinians to become more reliant on Israel for their needs? Indeed, if Israel’s recent experience in Gaza should teach policymakers anything, it’s that territorial concessions must aim to absolve Israel of responsibility for those territories entirely.
In short, once again, Rice has failed to meet U.S. policy objectives with narrowly tailored policies. For this reason, the Annapolis “process” remains a hopeless exercise, in which optimism trumps reality.
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
March 31st, 2008 at 11:22 AM
“Reliable Pal security force” = Oxymoron. The only reason to preserve that chimera is to avoid at all costs a potential breakdown in US-Israel relations since the two sides might one day draw opposite logical conclusions from unrepentant reality. But the alliance can’t rest indefinitely on a lie either.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:25 PM
If Rice is making problems worse and not better, why isn’t her boss stepping in to fix things? I can only assume the two agree.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Seth — “Reliable Pal security force” = Oxymoron.—if experience is any guide, they can be relied on to turn their guns on Israelis when the opportunity presents itself, to swiftly punish be death any “collaboration” with Israel, and to refuse to take action of any kind against terrorism except when doing so would embarrass a rival Palestinian faction in front of other Palestinians.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Bob Miller: For a long time I’ve puzzled over the question: Is Rice being micro-managed by Bush, or is she on her own? I’ve tentatively concluded the latter. As with other second-raters Bush has appointed, he tasked her with a goal–make Annapolis happen–and then paid no attention to what she did or said. It was a bad day indeed when in 1982 she changed her registration from Democrat to Republican.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:13 PM
I think bush was pushed by saudia to buy into the baker/hamilton crap without actually saying so. rice is just implementing it.
there is a bit of irony here. the pals would do much better to hold all their fire, terrorism and bloody propaganda and sign a piece of paper with israel that says peace and means nothing. THEN unite with hamas and embark on extermination terror. that would be most effective.
but they indoctrinated their population so hard that they can’t even do that. that’s one reason hamas is more popular for its fast jihad than fatah’s slow jihad and why abbas cannot play the latter without often threatening with the former.
what the arabs has done at a huge human cost is to immunize their populations against any peaceful coexistence with israel and now they could not sign it even if they wanted to.
the US and israel are simply confused and disoriented. they flail around without a strategy, hence the inconsistency and weirdness of their actions.
oao
http://fallofknowledgeandreason.blogspot.com/