Bottom Line
Bush's visit to Israel on 60th anniversary
PRESIDENT Bush travelled to Jerusalem to take part in the celebration of the country's 60th anniversary on May 14, the day Israel was carved out of Palestinian territory.
Israeli President Shimon Peres said that Mr. Bush had stood alongside Israel "like nobody else." Mr. Bush said that he believed a full peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians was possible by the time he left office in January next year.
This was his second visit to Israel; the last one was in January this year. His five-day trip included Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
Media reports indicated that the visit was partly intended to bolster an Arab coalition against Iran's growing power in the region and partly to show solidarity with Israel on the anniversary.
Meanwhile, Lebanon is in a political crisis and a near civil war is raging between the pro-Wester Siniora government and the Hezbollah, supported by Syria and Israel. The instability in Lebanon underscores the "question mark" surrounding the Bush administration's policies in the Middle East.
What is being witnessed in Lebanon is not an ordinary civil war, it is a proxy war for supremacy of power between the US and Israel and Syria and Iran in the Middle East.
Was the visit to Israel on the 60th anniversary appropriate?
Many Arab leaders consider that President Bush's participation in Israel's 60th anniversary celebration shows insensitivity to the feelings of dispossessed Arabs. May 14, 1948, is considered by 700,000 Palestinians, who'd lost their homes, their land and, in many cases, their lives in May, as a day of "catastrophe, dispossession, displacement, exile and occupation." Since that time, their peaceful lives were ruined, society fragmented, possessions pillaged, and hope for freedom and nationhood still remains unfilled even today. Millions of Palestinians nourish their aspiration for freedom and dignified living within a free nation-state. Arabs think there is no reason to celebrate the creation of Israel. Late Edward Said, a well-known author and a Palestinian, commenting on the 50th anniversary of Israel wrote: "Even after fifty years of living the Palestinian exile I still find myself astonished at the lengths to which official Israel and its supporters will go to suppress the fact that a half century has gone by without Israeli restitution, recognition, or acknowledgegment of Palestinian human rights and without, as the facts undoudtedly show, connecting that suspension of rights to Israel's official policies … the Palestinian Nakba (catastrophe) is characterised as a semi-fictional event … caused by no one in particular." As earlier said, the lives of dispossessed Palestinians were forever shattered. For example, a BBC journalist recently filed a report on the occasion of the 60th anniversary on how a Palestinian, who was evicted from his house at 17, in 1948, became a homeless person; and now he is in his 70s. He has spent almost all his life in a refugee camp at Shatila in southern Lebanon. He never went to school or learned to read and write. Israel at 60 is a state that is illegally occupying Palestinian and Arab lands. It is a theocratic state, meant only for Jews, and treats its own Arab citizens with institutionalised discrimination. Israel is not a democratic state as is ordinarily meant because, in a democratic state, people of many religions live peacefully with equal rights and opportunities. But in Israel, non-Jew Arabs are "second class" citizens, and there is conspicuous silence in Western countries about it. Palestine was never a land without a people. Israel is persistently and grossly breaching international law and infringing fundamental human rights with impunity afforded to it through the diplomatic, economic and military support of the US. Today, those 700,000 Palestinian refugees have grown to 7 million. Four million live under illegal occupation. Three million live as non-citizens in Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and other countries. How does this homeless person feel about President Bush's participation in celebrations of Israel's 60th anniversary? Can the leaders of Western nations, including the US, who have expressed congratulations to Israel on its 60th birthday, not spare a moment to remember the suffering of the Palestinian people 60 years ago, and the daily consequences of their dispossession, displacement, exile and occupation? Arabs and people who have conscience think that participation of the US president in the celebration of "Israel at 60" is tantamount to ignoring gross abuse of human rights and freedom, against which President Bush has committed himself for the region and for the world. People ask, how does the participation in Israel's anniversary reconcile with the president's message of protection of freedom and human rights? Difficulties of the peace deal
His first visit to Israel took place on January 9 this year, to nudge Israelis and Palestinians towards an end to their decades-long conflict. The trip was partly a follow-up to a Middle East peace conference at the Annapolis naval base last December, which ended with vague promises to try to resolve the conflict by the end of 2008. Syria attended the Annapolis conference but is regarded by the Bush administration as a hostile state which supports terrorism. The current visit is to show commitment, and to remind the world that this is a moment that has presented itself, and it's time for everyone to seize the opportunity to make sure that the Palestinians and the Israelis are supported. It appears to be almost impossible that a peace treaty will be signed before the president leaves office next January. On May 13, US Secretary of State, Dr. Rice, reportedly said that reaching a deal within the next eight months "might be improable but not impossible." Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, in his role as international envoy to the Middle East, in a recent interview with BBC acknowledged that there was not a great deal of time for progress to be seen on the ground. Critics say there are hurdles on the way to a peace treaty, before the president leaves the White House in January 2009, for several reasons, some of which are described below: First, both the Israeli prime minister and the Palestinian chairman are politically too weak to take tough decisions. Olmert is a prime minister of a government that is fragile. He has been weakened by corruption allegations, which police are investigating. Chairman Abbas, on the other hand, has no control over the Gaza Strip, and he is unable to take decisions on behalf of all Palestinians because Hamas will reject any peace agreement with Israel unless it has a voice in it. Second, difficult questions, such as borders, status of Jerusalem, return of Palestinian refugees and dismantling of illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank, are not likely to be solved within one year. Third, unless Syria is involved in the negotiations for a comprehensive peace including withdrawal of Israeli occupation from the Golan Heights, peace will remain elusive in the region. Fourth, Israeli-Palestinian issue should not be confused or merged with other several simultaneous major issues in the Middle East, including the Lebanon situation, US-Syria feud, a high profile US-Iran-Europe-IAEA contest on the nuclear program in Iran, and a widening cycle of terrorism. Some of these are linked and many are not. The US may identify the distinct nature of most of the issues and not linkages with Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Fifth, the Bush administration has not held diplomatic middle ground on this issue. The administration has always exercised its veto power in the Security Council whenever any issue relating to Israel's occupation of the Palestinian lands came before the Council. Finally, change in policies and conduct of the Bush administration will only happen if a single standard of morality and law is applied to Israelis and Palestinians. If double standard remains the norm, President Bush's attempt to force a certain policy on this issue will only generate resistance and defiance. It is interesting to note that Dr. Aaron David Miller, who has played a central role in US efforts to broker Arab-Israeli peace under both Republican and Democratic administrations, in his book The Much Too Promised Land, (March 2008: Random House) writes that the Bush team in eight years has managed to put America in a unique position in the Middle East where "it is not liked, not feared, and not respected … we stumbled for eight years under George Bush over how to make war there" and the result is "an America that is trapped in a region which it cannot fix and it cannot abandon." There is a widely-held view that if the Bush administration initiates a policy of inclusion and impartiality on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it may see the light in resolving one of the most intractable disputes in the world. President Bush may partially turn around his current negative image if he succeeds in forging a peace treaty between Israelis and Palestinians before he leaves the White House by January 2009.
Many Arab leaders consider that President Bush's participation in Israel's 60th anniversary celebration shows insensitivity to the feelings of dispossessed Arabs. May 14, 1948, is considered by 700,000 Palestinians, who'd lost their homes, their land and, in many cases, their lives in May, as a day of "catastrophe, dispossession, displacement, exile and occupation." Since that time, their peaceful lives were ruined, society fragmented, possessions pillaged, and hope for freedom and nationhood still remains unfilled even today. Millions of Palestinians nourish their aspiration for freedom and dignified living within a free nation-state. Arabs think there is no reason to celebrate the creation of Israel. Late Edward Said, a well-known author and a Palestinian, commenting on the 50th anniversary of Israel wrote: "Even after fifty years of living the Palestinian exile I still find myself astonished at the lengths to which official Israel and its supporters will go to suppress the fact that a half century has gone by without Israeli restitution, recognition, or acknowledgegment of Palestinian human rights and without, as the facts undoudtedly show, connecting that suspension of rights to Israel's official policies … the Palestinian Nakba (catastrophe) is characterised as a semi-fictional event … caused by no one in particular." As earlier said, the lives of dispossessed Palestinians were forever shattered. For example, a BBC journalist recently filed a report on the occasion of the 60th anniversary on how a Palestinian, who was evicted from his house at 17, in 1948, became a homeless person; and now he is in his 70s. He has spent almost all his life in a refugee camp at Shatila in southern Lebanon. He never went to school or learned to read and write. Israel at 60 is a state that is illegally occupying Palestinian and Arab lands. It is a theocratic state, meant only for Jews, and treats its own Arab citizens with institutionalised discrimination. Israel is not a democratic state as is ordinarily meant because, in a democratic state, people of many religions live peacefully with equal rights and opportunities. But in Israel, non-Jew Arabs are "second class" citizens, and there is conspicuous silence in Western countries about it. Palestine was never a land without a people. Israel is persistently and grossly breaching international law and infringing fundamental human rights with impunity afforded to it through the diplomatic, economic and military support of the US. Today, those 700,000 Palestinian refugees have grown to 7 million. Four million live under illegal occupation. Three million live as non-citizens in Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and other countries. How does this homeless person feel about President Bush's participation in celebrations of Israel's 60th anniversary? Can the leaders of Western nations, including the US, who have expressed congratulations to Israel on its 60th birthday, not spare a moment to remember the suffering of the Palestinian people 60 years ago, and the daily consequences of their dispossession, displacement, exile and occupation? Arabs and people who have conscience think that participation of the US president in the celebration of "Israel at 60" is tantamount to ignoring gross abuse of human rights and freedom, against which President Bush has committed himself for the region and for the world. People ask, how does the participation in Israel's anniversary reconcile with the president's message of protection of freedom and human rights? Difficulties of the peace deal
His first visit to Israel took place on January 9 this year, to nudge Israelis and Palestinians towards an end to their decades-long conflict. The trip was partly a follow-up to a Middle East peace conference at the Annapolis naval base last December, which ended with vague promises to try to resolve the conflict by the end of 2008. Syria attended the Annapolis conference but is regarded by the Bush administration as a hostile state which supports terrorism. The current visit is to show commitment, and to remind the world that this is a moment that has presented itself, and it's time for everyone to seize the opportunity to make sure that the Palestinians and the Israelis are supported. It appears to be almost impossible that a peace treaty will be signed before the president leaves office next January. On May 13, US Secretary of State, Dr. Rice, reportedly said that reaching a deal within the next eight months "might be improable but not impossible." Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, in his role as international envoy to the Middle East, in a recent interview with BBC acknowledged that there was not a great deal of time for progress to be seen on the ground. Critics say there are hurdles on the way to a peace treaty, before the president leaves the White House in January 2009, for several reasons, some of which are described below: First, both the Israeli prime minister and the Palestinian chairman are politically too weak to take tough decisions. Olmert is a prime minister of a government that is fragile. He has been weakened by corruption allegations, which police are investigating. Chairman Abbas, on the other hand, has no control over the Gaza Strip, and he is unable to take decisions on behalf of all Palestinians because Hamas will reject any peace agreement with Israel unless it has a voice in it. Second, difficult questions, such as borders, status of Jerusalem, return of Palestinian refugees and dismantling of illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank, are not likely to be solved within one year. Third, unless Syria is involved in the negotiations for a comprehensive peace including withdrawal of Israeli occupation from the Golan Heights, peace will remain elusive in the region. Fourth, Israeli-Palestinian issue should not be confused or merged with other several simultaneous major issues in the Middle East, including the Lebanon situation, US-Syria feud, a high profile US-Iran-Europe-IAEA contest on the nuclear program in Iran, and a widening cycle of terrorism. Some of these are linked and many are not. The US may identify the distinct nature of most of the issues and not linkages with Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Fifth, the Bush administration has not held diplomatic middle ground on this issue. The administration has always exercised its veto power in the Security Council whenever any issue relating to Israel's occupation of the Palestinian lands came before the Council. Finally, change in policies and conduct of the Bush administration will only happen if a single standard of morality and law is applied to Israelis and Palestinians. If double standard remains the norm, President Bush's attempt to force a certain policy on this issue will only generate resistance and defiance. It is interesting to note that Dr. Aaron David Miller, who has played a central role in US efforts to broker Arab-Israeli peace under both Republican and Democratic administrations, in his book The Much Too Promised Land, (March 2008: Random House) writes that the Bush team in eight years has managed to put America in a unique position in the Middle East where "it is not liked, not feared, and not respected … we stumbled for eight years under George Bush over how to make war there" and the result is "an America that is trapped in a region which it cannot fix and it cannot abandon." There is a widely-held view that if the Bush administration initiates a policy of inclusion and impartiality on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it may see the light in resolving one of the most intractable disputes in the world. President Bush may partially turn around his current negative image if he succeeds in forging a peace treaty between Israelis and Palestinians before he leaves the White House by January 2009.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments