Analysis: Sharon beats Abbas in battle for Bush

Haaretz ^ | 7/30/2003 | Akiva Eldar

[stevejackson]

The clear impression from the White House press conference held by George Bush and Ariel Sharon on Tuesday is that the U.S. president accepted the Israeli prime minister's argument that the primary issue is the dismantling of armed groups by the Palestinian Authority.

In other words, Bush did not accept the argument put forward by Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud (Abu Mazen), at their meeting last Friday, that he cannot move against groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, because this would precipitate a civil war.

This is a clear indication that Bush is not prepared to get into a confrontation with Sharon, and that what is uppermost on his mind now, are electoral concerns. A recent poll showed his approval rating to be at its lowest since Sept. 11.

The upshot is that from now until the presidential elections in November 2004, Bush will not pressure Sharon on anything. Today, Bush is more attentive to the advice of his political advisers, like Karl Rove, than to Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice.

Abu Mazen apparently believed – mistakenly, or maybe it was a case of wishful thinking – that he had convinced the U.S. administration of his position. He may have convinced some key people in the administration, but not the key individual – President Bush.

Sharon succeeded in tying Bush into the terror agenda, whereas Abu Mazen had tried to tie him into an agenda of occupation, but failed. Sharon even managed to link the West Bank fence to the issue of terror: Islamic Jihad and Hamas are terror organizations and the fence can prevent terror. And, if it can prevent terror, then it can help promote the peace process.

Bush also did not mention the dismantling of illegal outposts in the West Bank. On the contrary, he showered Sharon with compliments for having taken a decision to release Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails and for having eased restrictions on the Palestinians in the territories. Bush said the fence was a "sensitive" issue, but he did not call it a "wall" or "a problem," like he did in his press conference with Abu Mazen.

The bottom line coming out of the press conference is that the onus is on the Palestinians, and any gains Abu Mazen thinks he might have made in his meeting with Bush, have not held up even for a week.

On the domestic political front, Sharon also comes home intact. He can tell the right-wing that he did not make any concessions, and he can tell the left that the president was highly complimentary of the measures he has taken.

[stevejackson]

Abbas needs to stop avoiding the inevitable: the destruction of Palestinian terrorist groups.

[dinok]

"Abbas needs to stop avoiding the inevitable: the destruction of Palestinian terrorist groups."

Don't hold your breath. The nuts are rearming and training new bombers are we speak. They will smuggle explosives in to Israel and start over just in time for Christmass and the new US Election season.

[Torie]

Why is the Bush administration opposing building the Wall? Please help me with that one. Thanks.

[Torie]

Why John?

[stevejackson]

I can only figure that Bush is opposing the fence because it sounds good to some of the people pulling at his political sleeves (e.g., Colin Powell and the State Dept., Liberals in Blair's party and therefore Blair, members of the "Quartet," like Russia and the EU, etc.).

Israel is always held to an impossible standard. While Abbas "negotiates" with terrorists for a "cease-fire," Israel pulls out of Gaza, releases terrorist prisoners, takes down road-blocks, tears down settlements, etc.

I wouldn't take Bush too seriously on this one. I think he is paying lip-service on the fence issue. I think he really believes that Step 1 is demolishing Palestinian terror groups. I think his position on the fence is to look "flexible" in public while privately standing behind Sharon (the best thing that ever happened to Palestinian terrorists).

Hope this helps.

[Torie]

Perhaps, but Bush is being too Byzantine by half IMO. He would be better off saying that if the West Bank can't curb its terrorists, and is unwilling to bite the bullet, than the Wall, an understandable interim measure to reduce the body count in Israel, might well become the permanent de facto border. Sometimes, just saying the obvious truth is best. Do you not think it best in this context?

I wonder what Bush would do if he was the PM of Israel, grew up there, and was Jewish, given his hard wiring beliefs and world view. You don't need to answer that.

[Drammach]

Don't hold your breath. The nuts are rearming and training new bombers are we speak. They will smuggle explosives in to Israel and start over just in time for Christmass and the new US Election season.

Response: Massive retaliation.
I would support it.
When the terrorist attacks begin, ending the "truce", ( read; "re-arming" ) simply target the palestinian community nearest to the border and demolish it.

Repeat treatment until problem is "cured".

[stevejackson]

I agree. We should state the obvious. If it were up to me, I'd have U.S. B-52's dropping daisy-cutters on the Bekaa Valley, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP, Arafat, etc. I would continue Israel's policy of targeted assasinations of all terrorists in the West Bank and Gaza until there weren't any left. Then we wouldn't need the fence.

[jwalsh07]

Hey, I'm with you onboard the "Strong Fences Make Good Neighbors" bus.

I can think of no good reason for the Bush administration to oppose same except for that famous quote, "Tear down this wall Mr Gorbachev".

[dinok]

"Response: Massive retaliation."..."When the terrorist attacks begin, ending the "truce", ( read; "re-arming" ) simply target the palestinian community nearest to the border and demolish it. Repeat treatment until problem is "cured"."

If it was only that easy. Kind of hard to do when the US Govenrment is threatning to cut off aid money and arms sales. Israel's part in this was in the deal for us entering the Arab world to take care of Saddam. Did we all think Kuwait and all the other Arab nations let us in there with out a price?

The price is a nation called Palestine.
I have to go take a shower after saying this