|
A New Middle East Policy?
With Rachel Bronson
Senior Fellow and Director, Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations
Tuesday, June 25, 2002; 2:30 p.m. EDT
Amidst ever-rising Israeli-Palestinian violence, President Bush Monday outlined a new Middle East policy focusing on the the creation of a Palestinian state and its coexistence with Israel. Bush said the United States was committed to supporting the creation of a Palestinian state once the Palestinians elect "new leaders, not compromised by terror." President Outlines Vision for Mideast (Post, June 25).
Rachel Bronson, senior fellow and director of Middle East Studies at the
Council on Foreign Relations, was online Tuesday, June 25 at 2:30 p.m. EDT to discuss President Bush's new Middle East policy
calling for new Palestinian leadership and the state of the Middle
East conflict.
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Tucson, Ariz.:
We only hear of Arafat or the radical groups like Hamas, so who would be elected if there were elections? What if someone worst (as in radical and untrustworthy) than Arafat is elected? All the polls right now show that the more radical groups have wide spread support.
Rachel Bronson: Polls show that Arafat is still the most popular representative of the Palestinians people. While his support has declined over the last several years, there is no one else, do date, likely to effectively challenge him. I would expect him to win a presidential election. On municipal elections the question becomes interesting. Hamas logs about 15% support, so they are likely to win in some precincts. They are unlikely, at the moment, to win a landslide, or anything like that, but it is certainly possible that Hamas candidates could do well.
Baltimore, Md.:
The Palestinian Authority has been waging a terrorist war against the Israeli people for the past two years. If they give up their war against the Israeli people, but not against the Israeli government, do they still qualify for provisional statehood under the Bush plan?
Rachel Bronson: Bush certainly did not address this complicated issue. I am not sure what he would do. By the State Department's own definition, terrorism is action taken against non-combattants. When sub-national groups target soldiers and other military targets, its usually considered geurrilla warfare not terrorism. Many have felt that when the Palestinian Authority moved to sanctioning attacks on civilians it tied the hands of the U.S. Administration.
Mt. Lebanon, Pa.:
Is it really a "new policy" for the president to call for new leadership with the Palestianians? Is this a real difference from the "old policy" or just another evolving distinction from a man who devoted little time of his first year in office to engaging his attention on the continuing strife in the Middle East? And if this is a "new policy" how will the combatants over there feel about an administration that keeps moving the goal lines? Thanks much.
Rachel Bronson: It is a change from the Oslo Process. For years, the United States considered the PLO a terrorist organization and its leader Yasser Arafat, a terrorist. During the Oslo years, Arafat was referred to as a partner in peace. The US and Israel did not care that much whether or not he was democratic. What was important was whether or not Arafat could deliver on anything he signed. We certainly did not want a new leadership for the Palestinians. Arafat and the PA were seen as the best hopes for peace. So, the President's call for new leadership was in fact a change of direction for the US.
Virginia:
What about Iran and Iraq? Any change?
Rachel Bronson: No.
The President referenced Iran and Iraq when he said that "every nation actually committed to peace must block the shipment of Iranian supplies to these groups, and oppose regimes that promote terror, like Iraq." The Palestinian authority was caught bringing in a weapons shipment from Iran several months back. So he mentioned them, but there's nothing new.
It might be worth considering, though, if this is the beginning of a more fundamental shift in Administration to promote regime change throughout the Middle East (we've now heard regime change in the context of the PA and Iraq.) It strikes me as a very dangerous precedent.
Gainesville, Fla.:
Bush is basically saying that even if Arafat
is fairly re-elected he won’t deal with him.
(What does this say of Bush’s idea of
democracy?) Will Bush be willing to deal
with a more radical Palestinian leader
(from Hamas or Islamic Jihad)? What
hope does Bush hold out for the
Palestinians when he says that he won’t
deal with their elected leader? Is there not
a contradiction in Bush saying he won’t
talk to Arafat because he’s "compromised
by terror" while at the same time he
invites Sharon (who has been implicated
by Israeli courts in the massacre of
civilians in Lebanon) to the White House?
Finally, Arafat’s international renown has
been a major factor preventing Israel from
expel him from Palestine or from
assassinating him (Sharon has admitted
this on several occasions). What’s to stop
Israel from expelling/ assassinating any
lesser known leader the Palestinians
elect because Israel doesn’t like them
(especially if the leader is more radical
than Arafat)?
Rachel Bronson: This is a real quandry for the Administration -- How to balance its support for Democracy and its war on terror. During the 1996 elections, internationa monitors were generally satisfied with the elections results leading President Carter to say that his
"overall conclusion is that the Palestinian people had an historic opportunity to choose their leaders yesterday, and they did so with enthusiasm and a high degree of professionalism."
As I said in a previous response, I suspect Arafat will win general elections. Then the big joke will be on us.
I think what the President is really hoping for is that younger members of the PA who have denounced terrorism (and are denouncing it in a current advertisement running in al-Quds newspaper), and who thought that Arafat missed an opportunity by not accepting the proposals made at Camp David, will have a stronger political voice.
That is, perhaps they will win municipal elections and be better representated in an effective legislative body.
There is good reason to hope for this, although history does show that no one has been terribly successful in engineering Palestinian domestic politics, or anyone else's domestic politics for that matter.
Ventura, California:
How does the concept of a "provisional Palestinian state" differ from the current patchwork of Palestinian autonomous zones established under the Oslo Accords?
Rachel Bronson: Because the President hasn't laid out what he means by a provisional Palestinian state, its hard to know.
But you are absolutely right to point out that the best example of a provisional state that we have is actually the Palestinian Authority (overseeing security services, social services etc.), operating in what was Area A (territory that the Israelis had turned over for the Palestinians to control) and Area B (Israeli and Palestinian jointly controlled territory).
My take is that he is promising them something they already have.
Burke, VA:
Where does Syria stand these days in it's relations with Iran & Iraq? I know Syria supported Iran in its' war with Iraq and (nominaly) supported the allies against Iraq but I read somewhere that Syria was selling arms to Iraq. Is this back room dealings or just bad information?
Rachel Bronson: The Iranian/ Syrian relationship was solidified in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war when Syria sided with Iran. Syria broke with other Arab states that were supporting Iraq. Syria's decision was based on a number of factors, not least of which was a 30 year dispute over whether the Iraqi Ba'th party or the Syrian Ba'th party was the true Ba'th party (the Ba'th party technically rules in both countries).
Over the last few years, however, relations between the two countries have warmed. Syria began violating UN sanctions imposed against Iraq by opening an oil pipeline that carried Iraqi oil to market. This has been a very useful source of revenue for Saddam Hussein.
Secretary of State Colin Powell travelled to Syria early in his tenure to try to get them to stop. He was not successful.
Washington, D.C.:
What guarantee is there that Sharon will support the President's plan for a Palestinian state? Considering Sharon has continued to erect settlements and has rejected most Arab leaders' plans for a Palestinian state, what do the Israelis consider a proper or fair agreement for the Palestinians? How does the President intend to get Israeli buy-in for his plan?
Rachel Bronson: The President will not have difficulty getting Israeli buy-in on his statement last night. Sharon has been calling for reform of the PA. The Israelis do not have to begin pulling back militarily until there is "progress towards security." It was not specified what constitute progress, and who will judge it. Only after such measures are taken will "Israel forces need to withdraw fully to positions they held prior to September 28, 2000."
However, should the Palestinians meet the President's demands for democracy, market economics and action against terrorism then the final status negotiations (Jerusalem, borders, refugees, etc., begin).
The question is, at that point, would Sharon be prepared to deal? It is hypothetical at this point, but I am skeptical. He has talked only about setting up an interim Palestinian state on approximately 40% of the West Bank and Gaza and is currently supports the building of a fence not only along the 1967 borders, but also along a a "buffer zone" between Jordan and a future Palestinian state.
Washington, D.C.:
Perhaps this is more of a statement than a question: But given your earlier point that Arafat is still supported by the majority of Palestinians (and likely to win an election if one were indeed held, whether we like it or not), isn't the administration's statement that there must be new Palestinian leadership before a Palestinian state is established in direct conflict with his goal of spreading democracy?
Rachel Bronson: Yes. Although the Administration I think would argue that Arafat has not called for new elections, even though they should have happened, and the Palestinian Legislature was never given the power that it should have had.
I think the Administration is really pinning its hopes on municipal elections and getting a stronger legislature filled with those who have advocated compromise.
Alexandria, Va.:
President Bush spoke of the plight and future of Palestinian refugees.
Does that mean that Bush is calling on the Palestinians to give up their demands to settle inside of Israel's pre-1967 borders, or does it mean that Israel must agree to let them in?
Rachel Bronson: The refugee issue is considered a final status issue, to be resolved in the future. Bush did not make any statement more than that.
Given the initiative put forward by Crown Prince Abdallah of Saudi Arabia, and other statements made by Palestinian leaders and Israeli leaders, I do not expect that the refugees will ever be allowed to return to Israel, except as part of a family reunification program.
They would be enouraged to go to the State of Palestine, when that is established, to other Arab States or other countries in the West. I would expect the US, Europe and others to provide considerable compensation for the refugees. But I don't expect them to their go back to pre-1967 homes.
Alexandria, Va.:
Has the fence that separates Gaza from Israel been effective in keeping suicide bombers from Gaza out of Israel?
Would a similar fence around the West Bank also be effective?
Rachel Bronson: The Fence that seperates Gaza from Israel has reduced the number of suicide bombers successfully making it into Israel. Will it have the same effect around the West Bank? The Israelis argue that it will establish check points making it easier to search everyone coming in to Israel. Many, myself included, think that such a fence will lead different kinds of attacks, including rocket attacks, like we see coming from Lebanon.
Seattle, Wash.:
What would happen with existing Israeli settlements when a Palestinian nation is born?
Also, don't the continued existence of the settlements place a question in Palestinian minds as to whether Israeli negotiators are sincere about the creation of a viable Palestinian state?
Rachel Bronson: They would be removed.
The continued Israeli settlement buidling/expansion, is one of the main Palestinian complaints against Israel. The Mitchell report, put forward by former Senator George Mitchell and a team of respected international observers, referenced this, as have American leaders over the decades.
Terre Haute, IN:
Hi, I'm a college student. Call me stupid, but can you explain to me why the President even bothered to give his speech? Didn't he just about say the the very same thing using different wording a few months ago? So, why should we act like something "new" is in the mix?
Rachel Bronson: The tenor of this speech was much different than past ones. In his past speeches he wasn't as direct that the current Palestinian leadership must go because they are "compromised by terror."
So there really was a policy shift of the President directly calling for the removal of the leadership.
But I, like you, am unsure why the President decided to make this speech. I think he was backed into a corner saying several days back, or maybe weeks at this point, that he was going to say something. Many of us believed there really was going to be a coherent policy. A road map of some sort. Perhaps the establishment of a provisional state.
I think for reasons internal to the Administration, and events on the ground in the region, he backed away from putting forward other ideas.
He was therefore left with having said he'd make a speech, the world waiting for it, and great big new ideas.
But in fairness I guess, directly calling for regime change is no small matter.
New Brunswick, N.J.:
Will the Israelis see this speech as a green light to continue their rampage against the Palestinians and their policy of re-occupation?
Rachel Bronson: Probably.
Washington DC :
What do you say to skeptics reiterating that the calls for reform and elections in the Palestinian authority are only a pre-text used to delay (forever) the creation of a Palestinian state?
Rachel Bronson: I actually largely agree. I think the PA needs to be reformed. The Palestinians have been calling for it for years. European and Arab states want it, because portions of their foreign aid has disappeared. There is no doubt that it should happen.
The question is whether or not this should be a top American priority. I think there are other things that Washington should be saying such as:
attacks against civilians must end, it doesn't matter how you do it, it doesn't matter whether the government is authoritative or democratic, it must end.
Such a statement may or may not lead to regime change, but it would empower the Palestinian voices that are calling for the end of suicide bombings, get Israel what it wants and get Washington what it wants.
WASHINGTON DC:
I am Palestinian and I want President Arafat gone, him and his authority are coruppt and because he is more concered with maintaining his grip on power than he is about his own people. also because I find him absolutly shameless in praising Bush's speech and constantly trying to please American demands. This speech to most Palestinians, has proven that the American administration will always support Israel no matter what, so now what would the Bush administration do if a more hard-line Palestinian leader came into power as most Palestinians now want.
Rachel Bronson: I think your concerns about a more hard-lined Palestinian leadership emerging are warrented. The clear hope is that it will not. I suspect if a more hard-lined group does emerge, the Administration will choose not to engage it. But I, like you, am concerned that the speech did not give momentum tomoderate voices, but rather will strengthen the radicals.
Washington, DC:
Do you believe that the US government would ever resort to military force if Arafat refuses to relinquish power?
Rachel Bronson: No. But they are unlikely to criticize the Israelis if they choose to do so.
Gaithersburg, MD:
Whreas the suggestion of getting a new more responsive leadership in Palestine is commendable how does one go about getting one ? Each time there is a perception that the US sides with Israel, Arafat gets more popular - any ideas
Rachel Bronson: Two ideas. If the Administration had focused only on terrorism, and the problem of suicide bombers I think they could have built more support for the moderates, who are signing a petition against such tactics.
Second, and a bolder idea, is if the President referenced the Clinton Plan (calling it something else), in which the President described what the final deal will probably look like and committed himself to working to such ends, I think he would have really moved the debate in favor of those who thought he should have taken the deal in the first place. This would have been costly to the President domestically, but it would mark a bold departure that would actually provide a "light at the end of the tunnel."
Rachel Bronson: I was disappointed by the President's speech.
I believe in many ways it returns us to the days of Oslo without the heady optimism. The Palestinians have a new layer of demands they must meet. They are required to meet the challenging goals of democracy, the end of corruption, and the end of terrorism and in return will get a provisional state, which in my mind they already have. They must do all these things with Israeli tanks sitting in Ramallah and elsewhere.
I do not think the President's speech will really change dynamics on the ground. Suicide bombers will still blow themselves up in Israeli cities and Israeli military attacks will continue. Those trying to create alternative dynamics were not helped in any way be the speech.
There were a few useful aspects of the speech. He did reference the fear, frustration and anger on both sides. He did talk about the end of occupation and the end of terror. He also made action a key requirement.
However, in the end I don't think it will change much. Given the amount of time the Administration has spent in recent days on this issue alone, I think we could have expected more.
I appreciated your questions.
| |
© Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
