Friday, November 30, 2007

The "Clintonization" of Bush

The "Clintonization" of Bush is well underway. You could see from the gleam in his lame duck's eye, that he thinks he can redeem himself for Iraq at Israel's expense. As one PA official put it in an interview, the success of Annapolis depends on how much pressure Bush is prepared to put on Israel during the negotiations!
This is what happens to every President, particularly following Bill Clinton's example. Clinton tried to use the Camp David negotiations to take the attention away from his tryst with Monica Lewinsky (remember her). Suddenly they see the possibility of success in the Middle East peace talks, as the arbiter between the Palestinians and the Israelis, as their ticket to immortality. Although everyone agrees this will be a difficult process, it makes it a lot easier if one side stands firm and the other waivers. Let's face it, Israel is in the US pocket, although the Arabs for the benefit of their huddled masses pretend that its the other way around.
Of the speeches at Annapolis, Bush's speech could have been Bill Clinton's word-for-word from Camp David in 1999, full of superficial platitudes and hope. Abbas' speech was pushing his people's positions and interests, and Olmert's was a typical Israeli leader's speech, whining for peace, and accepting reponsibility for the suffering of the Palestinian refugees. Did Abbas say one word in conciliation towards Israel's suffering, did he say he will put a stop to terrorism and improve security for Israel? Not at all!
If one examines the reasons for the elongation of this conflict beyond all others (not quite all, the Kashmir conflict is as longstanding), then one factor that has remained constant stands out, namely the fear of the Arabs/Muslims that their culture will be "westernised." From the beginning it was the introduction by the Israelis of western values of the individual and human rights that stuck in the craw of the Arabs. They cannot accept that women should have equal rights, nor that every person should have an equivalent vote. Democracy is foreign to them. They fight for their survival as a group, and against the infiltration of western values into their culture and social system.
This raises some difficult questions, for example, in order to progress along the Road Map to peace, Abbas is supposed to stop terrorism/violence from the PA. But, in order to do so the PA must make economic and social progress to improve the lives of the Palestinian people. But, this can only be brought about by democratization (a la Sharansky) and westernization, the very things the Arabs fear most! Within the heart of this contradiction lies the impossibility of progress, at least in the short term. We Jews are unlucky to have once again, just as in East Europe, landed in a sea of people who have no interest in democracy, are more interested in conquest than human rights and are motivated by religious and racial hatred.
But, since many others have now invested capital in the solution to the conflict "in all its aspects," then progress there must be! And who can give concessions to produce this progress? Well, according to the Saudis and others attending Annapolis, only Israel. So stand by for some unpopular concessions by Olmert to placate Clintonized-Bush and satisfy the ravening of the Arabs. Only when they see Israel making major concessions (removing the "occupation", stopping "settlements," allowing the "right of return", accepting the pre-1967 borders, redividing Jerusalem) will they feel that they have won this stage. Then they will up their demands and the violence. Am I being cynical, maybe, but I think I'm being realistic!

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home