The president seeks peace without abandoning principle.Posted on 04/04/2002 8:06:56 PM PST by Pokey78
The president seeks peace without abandoning principle.
Well that was one big, broad, bold statement from our president on the Mideast yesterday. His Rose Garden speech seemed to come late in the drama, but it may turn out that George W. Bush spoke at the right moment--when the action had reached its peak, with the Church of the Nativity surrounded, the tanks rolling through Nablus and on to Hebron, the watching world exhausted, and the rush of adrenaline that had sustained both sides the past week wearing off, leaving some combatants shaky and wondering no doubt if there wasn't a way back from the brink.
Mr. Bush's speech said there was. And he demonstrated it by seeming to take a step back himself from his own previous statements. Although his people will soon be calling it not a step back but an elaboration or extension of his previous position.
His announcement that he would send Secretary of State Colin Powell to Israel next week appears to be risky--certainly all the foreign-affairs professionals are calling it a big gamble--but it isn't, really. Things are so bad in the Mideast that if Mr. Powell makes any progress at all, sending him will seem a brilliant move. If Mr. Powell fails, who wouldn't have failed? It's the Mideast. And what would failure look like, anyway? Just more of the same.
As for how Mr. Powell's presence will be perceived, the Arab world, which understands him to be one Bush cabinet member who is not reflexively pro-Israeli, will not complain; the Israelis understand him to be representing a president with a history of commitments to Israel; the Europeans see him as an American who has a detached view of the Mideast.
And Mr. Powell is a national and international hero. He has the power of the unhated man. His presence has force because his persona is dense with meaning: hero, leader, minority member who struggled to triumph in white institutions, a dove by nature who knows how to fight. He knows how to say tough things in a boring way, a great talent in diplomacy. He radiates warmth but is a reactor cool at the core. He can lower the temperature just by walking in. And the world press both admires and enjoys celebrating him.
So he's a good man to send at a time such as this. And just as Mr. Powell needs Mr. Bush in order to continue as secretary of state, Mr. Bush needs Mr. Powell for the signals his presence sends, and for the stature he lends. They need each other, know it, negotiate around it without acknowledging it, and work well together.
As for Mr. Bush's speech, it was impressive and, I suspect, clever. What was needed was a definitive statement of America's understanding of, and views on, what is happening in the Mideast, but a statement that didn't make things hotter or more passionate or encourage action that would not be helpful. Mr. Bush needed to give the world a sense of the context as he sees it. What was not needed was rhetorical flight, and he didn't take one. He needed words that weren't each of them little hand grenades but words that had a simple and definite meaning that became sentences that, strung together, built a suspension bridge of thought and well-meaning.
That's what he did. Neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis hold the immediate guilt; a fanaticism which "induces" an 18-year-old Palestinian girl to strap a bomb on her back and blow herself up, killing a 17-year-old Israeli girl, is the evildoer. "Suicide bombers are not martyrs," Mr. Bush said, "they're murderers, and they undermine the cause" for which they stand.
He said, essentially, that both sides in the struggle have a case, a plea that can be made to the world's conscience. He made it clear he remains a supporter of Israel's right to defend itself and to assert its right to nationhood and freedom. "I speak as a committed friend to Israel." But Israeli settlement activity must stop, and Israel should "lay the foundations of future peace" by halting its incursions into Palestinian areas, and in fact withdrawing from them. He asked Israel to show "a respect" for those who feel humiliated by the actions of its soldiers.
This was a step back from Mr. Bush's previous statements that Israel had a right to defend herself, period.
At the same time Mr. Bush made no bows to Yasser Arafat, saying he had "betrayed the hopes of his people" by failing to strongly or steadily oppose terrorism. Mr. Bush warned that terrorism could "blow up" the best chance for a Palestinian homeland. He challenged the leaders of Arab countries to play a constructive role, and warned Syria and Iran that they must "stay out" of the conflict.
At the end of remarks some bravado: He expects better leadership in the Mideast, and "I expect results."
The most surprising aspect of Mr. Bush's remarks was that they were so specific. They were not bland and vague as one might have expected from a diplomatic statement by a president to a world that fears a widening war. His remarks were highly specific and informational, full of citations on United Nations resolutions and support of past peace plans that could become a blueprint for progress. Which means his remarks gave everyone--the Palestinians, the Israelis, the Europeans, the foreign-policy community, the media, the Arab street, the Israeli street--something to think about, chew over. As most people can't think, chew and shoot at the same time, his specificity may turn out to have been a contribution.
But in general, at times like this, an American president simply has to speak. He must come forward with a voice that reflects the thinking of a great nation that is trying to be fair. It is good he finally spoke, good that he was comprehensive, good that he launched a new mission. To use the word good three times in a piece about the Mideast after the past six months feels . . . pretty good.
Methinks that something is going on between the US and Israel that is clandestine in nature. President Bush gave the Israelies time to accomplish what they needed to do while coming out with a position that minimizes the anti-US fires in the Arab world.
The Islam world is heating up to a pro-war explosion. Something has to be done to cool that process while bringing protection to an acceptable level. Was this the reason for the speech?
President Bush may need time for certain military assets to be in place, or more time for the construction of missiles and other necessities. He's playing for time, be it to cool tempers or to horde weapons and personnel it's fine with me.
This is a rather silly remark. Isn't the old adage, "Anyone under 30 who isn't liberal has no heart, anyone over 30 who isn't conservative has no brains"? You not only insult President Reagan's best speech-writer, but you also alienate every person who has ever 'grown-up', and you exclude any possibility of increasing the number of us on the right through reasoned arguments and education. Either your logic circuit has been turned off, your Christian forgiveness has malfunctioned, or your political sensibilities are counter-productive. In any of the 3 cases, you certainly don't help the Right by expressing yourself in that manner.
Well said! Thanks.
Interesting formulation of a strategy for improving the situation.
Harrison: It does seem more than a coincidence that these Iraqi sponsored attacks have intensified since there are rumours of a campaign against Saddam. It seems he is provoking a deadly diversion.
...and cementing anti-American/anti-Israel sentiment throughout the Arab world so much so that even Kuwait has come out against an American attack in Iraq.
Well said. I was thinking along similar lines myself and was going to post when I ran accross yours.
It bears repeating.
Nah, it's just a matter of being able to freely bloviate about policy and what Bush "should have done," without ever having to worry about any consequences beyond what shows up on the "Replies" page.
It's awfully rare to see the usual suspects consider any consequences beyond the next day or two.
I have felt all along that Saddam was behind the latest spate of suicide bombings, even BEFORE I heard he was buying the children of the poor Arabs so they could blow themselves up! I'm not expecting Bush to be able to solve the problems in the Middle East. I'm glad he's thinking more of the needs of the US, though he made it perfectly clear in his speech that he is a friend of Israel as well. We can't expect results in that area of the world overnight; it will take years. The best Bush can do is try to keep it from exploding into a nuclear holocaust!
Just to let you know, I appreciate all of your posts.
Now she supports and lauds Bush backing down from supporting Israel.
Bye-bye Peggy.
The political Taliban speaks.
I agree Peggy is brilliant. She can sell any idea no matter how wrong. On first reading this article I was sold, but my belief in governing princples revolted. I believe the Bush administration has made a blunder. I hope to see them remedy it. Already they are giving Israel more time to complete the operation. But they must deal with Arafat as he deserves, to set matters right.
I disagree, this was a blunder. Weakening our terrorist policy will gain us no respect. And gaining Arab support to place another democracy in the middle-east, when they can't tolerate the one there now(Israel), is hopeless. The only reason we had their support in the Gulf war, was because we were replacing an authoritarian regime. Had we wanted to completely defeat and install a democracy, only Kuwait would have supported us. The only way to end the middle-east conflict is to break the will to fight of the authoritarian establishment. Which means overthrowing every monarch, dictator, and theocracy in the arab world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.