Certainly, the Bush Administration has made its fair share of foreign policy mistakes. But the most recent Annapolis convention could be a victory for the U.S., not to mention Israel and Palestine. TCW's Jon Detzel explains how.

Iraq has dominated George W. Bush’s presidency.For better or for worse, the fate of Iraq will determine how, decadeslater, history perceives Bush’s legacy.

But this is all poised to change on Tuesday if the Arab-Israeli conference in Annapolis, Maryland, goes according to plan.

The Arab-Israeli issue has confounded American presidents since the creation of the Jewish state in 1948. Finding a lasting peace between all players involved has proved evasive and difficult, a sad stain on the diplomatic record of the United States. The reasons are many and complex, but a simple explanation would go something like this:

On one hand, Israel refuses to cede territory to or end hostilities with the Palestinians owing to repeated acts of terrorism. On the other hand, Palestine has been reluctant to countenance even the very existence of the state of Israel, instead clinging to native claims on their ancestral homeland.

Annapolis thus began an unprecedented opportunity, as foreign ministers from over 40 countries, including, importantly, Syria and Saudi Arabia, met to discuss the potential terms for what could begin a fresh round of future two-state negotiations. American cajoling and the imprimatur of impartial arbitration are once again emerging on the international stage, but this time for good.

Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice finally appear to be saying the right things. And it is quite a surprise from an administration that has so consistently erred in policy-making and foreign relations since the Iraq debacle began in 2003. As a result of what are likely end-of-term frustrations and the implicit imperative that all presidents must at least pay lip service to the Arab-Israeli conflict while in office and especially as a prelude to progress on other Mideast fronts, America and the world stand on the cusp of real, tangible steps toward peace.

To give credit where it is due, the so-called “two-state solution” is a responsible approach to continuing the road map to peace in the Middle East. It effectively exploits the obvious common ground between the conflicting parties – the desire for lasting peace to put an end to decades of violence – by offering (at least under the surface) the natural compromise: a land deal.

Indeed, on the table at Annapolis was more than just creating and recognizing a Palestinian state. The delegates, at least implicitly, focused primarily on territory, on the fundamental details of trading land for peace: internationalizing Jerusalem, swapping parts of Gaza and the West Bank, and remaking communities across new borders.

But of further value to Israel and the U.S. is forging a deal with Syria. Just as with Egypt and Jordan in the latter half of the twentieth century, Israel hopes to start the twenty-first anew with a stable agreement to end the current state of hostilities with Syria. Here the deal is clear: Israel returns the Golan Heights to Syria in exchange for a cessation of Syrian support of terrorism. American and UN troops will likely be offered to, quite literally where the new border in the Golan Heights is considered, seal the deal.

President Bush is even keeping his usually close-minded tongue to himself on the eve of the conference. Monday afternoon, at a press conference that followed private meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Bush intelligently opined that the U.S. could not impose peace, but could certainly “facilitate it.”

Hopefully, for the first time in seven years, he just gets it. So we ought to expect grand results in the  wake of last week's summit. The stage is set, the issues have never been more important, and the key players are, at least publicly, on the same (and right) page.

The irony is that, even despite screwing the Middle East up so thoroughly by plunging Iraq into chaos, Bush might just leave office with an accomplishment no other president can claim: peace in the Holy Land. What a legacy that would be, even for a silly Liberal like me.

0 Comments

Email Name		Comment smaller | bigger
		Subscribe via email (Registered users only) Write the displayed characters Add Comment