Bush, Kerry dance Sharon’s tunes
IN the Middle East maelstrom, all parties acknowledge one fixed point: forceful US diplomatic engagement is essential if the
IN the Middle East maelstrom, all parties acknowledge one fixed point: forceful US diplomatic engagement is essential if the central Israel-Palestine conflict is ever to be resolved.
But far from taking the lead over the past four years, the Bush administration has been mostly led by the nose. The man responsible for this extraordinary feat is Israel’s prime minister, Ariel Sharon.
Sharon was running a “war on terror†when George Bush was still running a baseball team in Texas. So not surprisingly, perhaps, it is Bush who, since September ll, has followed Sharon’s example rather than the other way round.
In his many visits to the Bush White House, Sharon has exerted telling influence on America’s post September 11, agenda.
Knowing Bush was bent on war in Iraq, he helpfully highlighted Saddam Hussein’s links to terrorist groups and financial aid to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Now he eggs on the US in its confrontations with Israel’s enemies, Iran and Syria.
It was Israel, which as far back as 1967, perfected the concept of pre-emptive war.
It is Sharon, not Bush, who is the present master of the targeted assassination and mass detention without trial. It is Israeli military tactics, which the US now apes in places like Falluja and Najaf.
Deeming him unreliable, Sharon refused to deal with the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat - and Bush followed suit. His insistence on absolute security as a precondition for negotiations and his contemptuous dismissal of contrary UN and European views, won support - and a broader, damaging emulation in Washington.
Most of all, Sharon’s basic contention that the homeland is under attack by ruthless forces bent on its utter destruction, has been adopted wholesale by Bush and applied to the US itself.
These politics of fear now form a central plank in his re-election platform.
Brent Scowcroft, the national security veteran, recently described Bush as “mesmerised†by Israel’s leader. And for the most part, it does indeed appear that Sharon policy is Bush policy, rather than vice-versa.
Whether the issue is Israel’s illegal security fence, unilateral disengagement from Gaza, expanding West Bank settlements, the fate of the moribund road map for peace, or US vetoes at the UN, Sharon calls the shots.
He has the world’s only super power dancing to his tune. Unless Sharon loses office - a not impossible scenario given the rebellion in his Likud party over Gaza - this well-established dynamic is unlikely to change during a second Bush term.
Dismayingly for the Palestinians and others opposed to Sharon’s policies, it also seems unlikely that a John Kerry presidential victory would make any significant difference. Like Bush, Kerry in theory supports a viable Palestinian state.
“The conflict will not be an afterthought, but a priority,†he has said. But he also wants a new Palestinian leadership as a precondition for progress.
He backs Sharon’s Gaza withdrawal plan, rejects the right of return, and says it is “unrealistic†to try to reinstate the 1949 armistice lines.
These positions coupled with his strongly pro-Israel Senate record hardly suggest an even-handed approach - or the forceful US engagement so lacking under Bush.
“When I am president of the United States, my promise to the people of Israel will be this,†Mr Kerry told the Anti-Defamation League in May.
“We will never pressure you to compromise your security. We will never expect you to negotiate for peace without a credible partner. And we will always work to provide political, military and economic help for your fight against terror.
“Building a stronger Israel and a stronger America means working together to combat the terror that threatens us all.â€
Not much wiggle-room there; and no corresponding list of promises for the Palestinians. Bush could not have said it better. As for the guileful Sharon, he must be laughing all the way to the West Bank.
Guardian
But far from taking the lead over the past four years, the Bush administration has been mostly led by the nose. The man responsible for this extraordinary feat is Israel’s prime minister, Ariel Sharon.
Sharon was running a “war on terror†when George Bush was still running a baseball team in Texas. So not surprisingly, perhaps, it is Bush who, since September ll, has followed Sharon’s example rather than the other way round.
In his many visits to the Bush White House, Sharon has exerted telling influence on America’s post September 11, agenda.
Knowing Bush was bent on war in Iraq, he helpfully highlighted Saddam Hussein’s links to terrorist groups and financial aid to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Now he eggs on the US in its confrontations with Israel’s enemies, Iran and Syria.
It was Israel, which as far back as 1967, perfected the concept of pre-emptive war.
It is Sharon, not Bush, who is the present master of the targeted assassination and mass detention without trial. It is Israeli military tactics, which the US now apes in places like Falluja and Najaf.
Deeming him unreliable, Sharon refused to deal with the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat - and Bush followed suit. His insistence on absolute security as a precondition for negotiations and his contemptuous dismissal of contrary UN and European views, won support - and a broader, damaging emulation in Washington.
Most of all, Sharon’s basic contention that the homeland is under attack by ruthless forces bent on its utter destruction, has been adopted wholesale by Bush and applied to the US itself.
These politics of fear now form a central plank in his re-election platform.
Brent Scowcroft, the national security veteran, recently described Bush as “mesmerised†by Israel’s leader. And for the most part, it does indeed appear that Sharon policy is Bush policy, rather than vice-versa.
Whether the issue is Israel’s illegal security fence, unilateral disengagement from Gaza, expanding West Bank settlements, the fate of the moribund road map for peace, or US vetoes at the UN, Sharon calls the shots.
He has the world’s only super power dancing to his tune. Unless Sharon loses office - a not impossible scenario given the rebellion in his Likud party over Gaza - this well-established dynamic is unlikely to change during a second Bush term.
Dismayingly for the Palestinians and others opposed to Sharon’s policies, it also seems unlikely that a John Kerry presidential victory would make any significant difference. Like Bush, Kerry in theory supports a viable Palestinian state.
“The conflict will not be an afterthought, but a priority,†he has said. But he also wants a new Palestinian leadership as a precondition for progress.
He backs Sharon’s Gaza withdrawal plan, rejects the right of return, and says it is “unrealistic†to try to reinstate the 1949 armistice lines.
These positions coupled with his strongly pro-Israel Senate record hardly suggest an even-handed approach - or the forceful US engagement so lacking under Bush.
“When I am president of the United States, my promise to the people of Israel will be this,†Mr Kerry told the Anti-Defamation League in May.
“We will never pressure you to compromise your security. We will never expect you to negotiate for peace without a credible partner. And we will always work to provide political, military and economic help for your fight against terror.
“Building a stronger Israel and a stronger America means working together to combat the terror that threatens us all.â€
Not much wiggle-room there; and no corresponding list of promises for the Palestinians. Bush could not have said it better. As for the guileful Sharon, he must be laughing all the way to the West Bank.
Guardian