HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
June 13, 2003 George Bush is treading a very thin line in his current brokering of the Peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. On the surface, no one can really fault the president for attempting to broker peace between these two volatile enemies. But one does have to examine the impact of the timing of this attempt, especially in light of the recent increase in hostilities between the Palestinians and Israel. Less than two months ago, George Bush announced the conclusion of one of the most decisive military actions mounted by the US in Iraq. We are all familiar with the aggressive posturing and rhetoric that was used by the Administration prior to launching the War on Iraq. While much of this rhetoric was couched in terms of attempting to stem the flow of terrorism in the Middle East as well as in the World, the basic message was clear, ‘The US will take whatever steps are necessary to achieve the goal of ridding the world of Saddam Hussein, Al Quieda, Osama Bin Laden and terrorism in general. Obviously this rhetoric was backed up by brutally decisive action. The debate over the appropriateness of this action still rages, as it should in a free and open society such as the US. The question then, is not whether the US should have mounted such a military action, but rather it is whether the man who lead that action is the correct one to now be brokering a PEACE treaty between two groups who have historically been at each other’s throats since the creation of an Israeli state. Also, there is no question that the enmities between these two groups reach back for centuries before this. The question is especially poignant because in truth, one could view President Bush’s attempt as either a daring and brilliant strategically move or the very height of cynical hubris and international relations ignorance. The attempt could be seen as brilliant in light of the argument that the only thing that is respected and recognized in the Middle East is power, often evidenced as raw violence and bloodshed. By entering into a PEACE negotiation directly on the heels of leading such a massive show of military power, Bush is entering the negotiations as a leader who has demonstrated that he is not averse to using brute force to obtain his goals. If anything, the other participants in the negotiations will view Mr. Bush and the American people in a different light, a light that reflects back a certain kind of respect that we may not have had in the Middle East prior to our invasion of Iraq. The attempt could also be viewed as an utterly clueless attempt to erase the negative reactions that Mr. Bush garnered during the prelude and enacting of the Iraq War. His very presence in the Middle East at this time, so soon after the war could easily been seen as little more than an international photo-op that he undertook solely for the purpose of demonstrating that he is a ‘Man of Peace’ and not the war mongering, oil hungry cowboy that much of the world has come to view him as being. My guess is that the truth falls somewhere between these two extremes. Certainly George Bush alone has a great deal to learn about the subtleties of international relations, however, he has surrounded himself with a cabinet of advisors who are intelligent focused upon a larger international agenda that includes a number of specific goals in the Mid East. This agenda (as outlined in the Project For A New American Century) does recognize many of the divergent and turbulent influences that fuel the disputes and rivalries within the region. It is entirely conceivable that the President’s advisors have both recognized the futility of trying to bring any kind of Peaceful resolution between the Palestinians and Israel at this time, however, at the same time those same advisors recognize the need for repositioning the president’s (and the US’s) image in the eyes of the world. Essentially, it could well be that the president and his advisors have viewed this attempt as a win-win for the US in that even if the Road To Peace ultimately leads to a dead-end, we (The President and the US) will come out in a positive light for making the attempt, because any failure will be the fault of Hamas, the Israeli Army or any number of other factors and not the US. The Middle East has been destabilized by our war in Iraq. It remains to be seen whether this is a permanent situation, or just a step toward a larger, long term US enforced stability in the region. ------------ Email Scott Jones: scott.jones@medem.com Comment on this column in the forum. ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
