Last week President Bush embarked upon a week-long tour of the Middle East, meeting with regional leaders in Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Egypt to demonstrate the U.S.'s commitment to securing peace and advancing freedom. The President's most troubling remarks, however, emerged in his address to the Israeli Knesset, in which he pledged America's unconditional support for Israel.

"Israel's population may be just over 7 million," the President stated on May 15. "But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you."

President Bush, in this bold statement, committed all U.S. citizens ipso facto citizens of Israel. The decades-long U.S.-Israel alliance aside, the President presumed that all American citizens welcome our country's friendship with Israel with the same warmth and admiration which Bush so readily delivered on behalf of the American people last week. What the President did not consider was that many American citizens conscientiously object to the ongoing occupation of the Palestinian Territories. Among them are Christians and Jews who have joined Muslim and Arab Americans who oppose Israeli policy toward the Palestinians. All are eagerly waiting for the time when the U.S. can have a serious, balanced discussion regarding this issue.

It is impossible to ignore the suffering of the Palestinians and the continued challenges to their realizing statehood and securing their rights. Recent attempts at creating peace by addressing core issues--including the status of Jerusalem, the right of return of refugees, Israeli settlements, and establishing borders--have been largely unsuccessful. The absence of U.S. leadership in peace talks since it renewed its commitment at the Annapolis, Md. Conference in November 2007 have increased skepticism and frustrations on both sides. Last week, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas threatened to resign if no peace agreement is reached this year. "Israel will not have a better partner than the group leading the PLO today, which believes the Palestinian interest is a historic reconciliation with Israel and a Palestinian state alongside it," and that Israel could "find itself with no partner at all."

It is therefore imprudent to ask, or even presume, that all Americans favor a U.S. foreign policy that has emerged under this administration as combative and antagonistic, serving to alienate regional leaders and members of the negotiating community. In his speech to the Knesset, President Bush likened the thought of negotiating with "terrorists and radicals" today with the Nazis under the leadership of Adolf Hitler. The President quickly dismissed this thought, affirming that the U.S. has "an obligation to call this what it is--the false comfort of appeasement."

On the contrary, dialogue--especially for the purpose of creating a just and lasting peace--must never be considered appeasement. To expect otherwise is to guarantee failure. Dialogue has proven to be the most effective and enduring method of conducting foreign relations, a means by which negotiators can protect their interests, as well as hold the other party responsible for compromises agreed upon. Similarly, dialogue with individuals who express dissent is an essential element of policymaking and nation building. As former Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer stated this week at a House Foreign Relations Committee hearing assessing the U.S.-Israel-Egypt trilateral relationship: "It is not appeasement to talk to your enemies." Negotiation does not necessitate agreement or concession, for that matter; rather, successful dialogue is only possible with full agendas exposed so discussion is open, honest, and responsible.

The United States can no longer "urge" or "support" the Israelis and Palestinians in their efforts; either the current approach is faulty, a tired habit, or simply, prejudices are being allowed to influence policy. Much like the 1978 Camp David Accords were brokered by former President Jimmy Carter, this round of peace talks desperately needs the hands-on dedication of President Bush and a serious team of foreign policy mediators who understand the nuances of the politics of the region, and all of whom must be keen on both sides realizing the manifestations of peace. The future of the Middle East, and the nature of America's relationship with the region, is contingent upon the realization of a final status agreement.

Comments (0) >>

Write comment

Name

Title

Comment

Add Comment