Middle East conflict signals a victory
for U.S. radicals in President George W. Bush’s administration,
analysts and columnists here say.
Other
puzzling statements from Bush’s office over the escalating Israeli
aggression against Palestinians mirror an unending scuffle between the
radical hawks of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the
Realpolitikers, led by Secretary of State Colin Powell.
However,
a string of successes for the hardliners and some militant-like
Washington officials in many previous major foreign-policy issues show
the strengths of Rumsfeld and his ally, Vice President Dick Cheney,
along with the insistent pressure crusade, led by pro-Likud forces to
link Palestinian President Yasser Arafat to Bush's larger “war
against terrorism”.
''Each
period of Palestinian restraint was greeted with Israeli
assassinations, home demolitions or incursions into Palestinian
territory,'' wrote Mideast veteran Jackson Diehl in the Washington
Post last week.
For
months, groups like the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute
(AEI) have played a steady drumbeat, chiefly through the Wall
Street Journal and the Weekly, attacking Arafat
and his Arab allies, belittling Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah's peace
initiative, and pressing the administration to shun the inclination to
rein in far-right Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
As
Sharon's tanks were imposing their blockade of Arafat's headquarters
in Ramallah last week, the Journal, an increasingly
right-wing newspaper that is based in New York, suggested that the
only way out was "to let the two sides confront each other until
they decide they have no choice but to talk again. This means letting
Israel defend itself against the kind of terror that Mr. Bush would
never tolerate if it took place in New York. If that includes the
exile of Mr. Arafat, so be it.''
But
the Washington Post noted Tuesday that five days into
Israel's biggest military incursion on the West Bank since 1967,
“the only daylight between American and Israeli positions appears to
be over whether Arafat himself should be considered a terrorist''.
While
Sharon has denounced him as ''an enemy of Israel [and] the entire free
who
can negotiate for peace and stop the anti-occupation bombing.
Many
foreign journalists here say that they feel that the administration's
actions have given an effective green light to Sharon, much as former
president Ronald Reagan gave him a green light to invade Lebanon up to
the suburbs of Beirut 20 years ago when the Israeli war-fan served as
defense minister.
The
hawks and their pro-Likud allies in Congress and the media have
productively pressed the State Department to further link the
Palestinians to Bush's wider, anti-terrorist agenda by listing Hamas
and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, which is loosely associated with
Arafat's Fatah organization, as terrorist groups.
Kathleen
Christison, author of the just-released “Perceptions of Palestine:
Their Influence on U.S. Middle East Policy” and a former CIA
political analyst, said Tuesday that the U.S. foreign policy did not
face what the Palestinians really wanted.
“We
have not faced exactly what the occupation has meant to the
Palestinians
But
despite such opinions, Bush has concentrated nearly totally on what he
describes as Palestinian “terrorism” as the grounds of the present
predicament, adopting wholesale the viewpoint and rhetoric of Sharon
and ignoring the Israeli leader's own months-long record of
aggravation, provocation and over-reaction, according to observers,
including many in the State Department and Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA).