Bush met with Ariel Sharon today in Crawford (to surprisingly little fanfare) and took the necessary steps to attempt to keep Israel on his
roap map to peace.
President Bush, concerned about the progress of negotiations toward peace in the Middle East, prodded Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon Monday to abandon plans to expand a key Jewish settlement in the West Bank.
Sharon said he agreed with Bush on the general outlines of the internationally negotiated "road map" peace plan, but that some settlements in the West Bank are considered part of Israel and would remain under his government's control.
Whether or not Sharon ends up capitulating, and you'd have to expect that he'll meet Bush halfway here, Bush has been exhibiting some nuance and patience in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. We're also seeing some democratic murmurs in the region. Is he responsible?
More below the fold...
Regardless of your political preferences on this issue, it's obvious that with the death of Yasser Arafat and Israeli plans to leave Gaza
[editor's note, by BSchac] entirely this summer, there is progress being made on in the Middle East. The Road Map is, at the very least, a plan to establish some sort of peace that will aid in eventually ending this conflict, though it's naive to think that day is anywhere close. The closer Israel and Palestine stick to the Road Map, the more likely we are to see progress, and to see an extended period of decreasing tension that can bear momentary violent aberrations.
If Bush were truly dedicated to a simply pro-Israeli agenda, he'd probably just accept Sharon's claim that expansion of the settlements of Ma'aleh Adumim is simply building on permanent settlements and should not be considered expansion of settlements in the West Bank. The Administration is sticking to its guns here, in asking Sharon not to expand. The last thing the conflict needs right now is another point to argue.
Additionally, as reported earlier by Miss Devore, there has been recent conflict between Israeli police and elements of the Israeli Extreme Right, who oppose plans to withdraw from Gaza. The situation is Israel remains extremely volatile, and in previously unforeseen and frightening new ways:
PM: Atmosphere in Israel looks like eve of civil war
In an interview with NBC News on Monday, Sharon spoke of the growing threat of violence by extreme-right Jewish activists in Israel ahead of the disengagement plan.
"The tension here [in Israel], the atmosphere here looks like the eve of the civil war," Sharon said. He also said that although he had been defending Jews all his life, steps are now taken to protect his own life from attacks by Jews.
So Sharon and Bush and Abbas are faced with the juggling act of satisfying the multitude of parties involved in the conflict. Hindering this further is Sharon's nature as an occassionally less than pliant leader and Abbas' obligations to assuage the nastier Palestinian elements. Our best chance of making it through these turbulent waters is by sticking to the plan and exercising moderation at all times. This strikes me as exactly what Bush is doing. He's not roaring his extreme support or opposition to the plan; rather he's taking a nuanced and sensible approach by speaking to directly to Sharon and encouraging him to reconsider. This is the type of diplomacy we'd like to see more of from Bush.
The fact is, Bush has a chance to do something special in the Middle East. Now, I'm no supporter of the Iraqi War. I have serious doubts about our exit strategy, about the solidity of the Iraqi government, about our conduct during the war. But what's done is done, and what's best for the Middle East at this point is to look to the future. There are some grumblings of democracy in the Middle East and to say Bush had nothing to do with it would be unfair. And to say that Bush's vision of the Middle East is without any merit would also be unfair. The administration of post-War Iraq was, and continues to be, abysmal, but the concept was, in a lot of ways, spot on. As Fareed Zakaria put it in this fantastic article in the March 14 Newsweek, What Bush Got Right:
The other noted political scientist who has been vindicated in recent weeks is George W. Bush ... [P]eople are nervously asking themselves a question: "Could he possibly have been right?" The short answer is yes. Whether or not Bush deserves credit for everything that is happening in the Middle East, he has been fundamentally right about some big things.
Bush never accepted the view that Islamic terrorism had its roots in religion or culture or the Arab-Israeli conflict. Instead he veered toward the analysis that the region was breeding terror because it had developed deep dysfunctions caused by decades of repression and an almost total lack of political, economic and social modernization. The Arab world, in this analysis, was almost unique in that over the past three decades it had become increasingly unfree, even as the rest of the world was opening up. His solution, therefore, was to push for reform in these lands.
Is Freedom on the March? Not yet. But maybe it's taking baby steps, and maybe the Bush Adminstration deserves a tiny slice of credit for that among our maelstrom of outrage.