26/11: Bush and the Middle East
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Very briefly:
The storyline today concerning background for the Annapolis summit has been the Bush administration's complete lack of interest in the Middle East peace process for the last seven years.
Much of the "expert" analysis has come from former Clinton administration officials (often not identified as such), who portray their boss as an engaged and talented diplomat in contrast to the current president, whom they paint as clueless and lazy.
Two things wrong with that commentary:
1. If Bush accomplishes absolutely nothing regarding the Middle East in eight years, that makes him even with nearly all of his predecessors (Clinton included). No points for heartbreakingly close calls. No points for kidding yourself that almost succeeding has anything in common with actual success.
2. Bush has not sat idly by for seven years. The mainstream media chorus today had it absolutely wrong in that mindless oversimplification. Bush met with the current leader of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, and the then-PM of Israel, Ariel Sharon, back in 2003. He was the first president of the United States to call for a two-state solution (a Palestinian state), which is a big deal. He was the first president to take an active role in sidelining Yasser Arafat, which he accomplished for the most part. He was instrumental in bringing democratic reforms to Palestine (which, granted, has not worked out all that well). And, most importantly, for good or for ill, Bush committed United States blood and treasure to "remaking" the Middle East into a less hostile more modern place. The decision is still very much in doubt whether he will have one bit of success on the bigger plan--but it is pretty facile to begin every news story today with the premise that President Bush is not/has not been deeply involved in the Middle East peace process.
The storyline today concerning background for the Annapolis summit has been the Bush administration's complete lack of interest in the Middle East peace process for the last seven years.
Much of the "expert" analysis has come from former Clinton administration officials (often not identified as such), who portray their boss as an engaged and talented diplomat in contrast to the current president, whom they paint as clueless and lazy.
Two things wrong with that commentary:
1. If Bush accomplishes absolutely nothing regarding the Middle East in eight years, that makes him even with nearly all of his predecessors (Clinton included). No points for heartbreakingly close calls. No points for kidding yourself that almost succeeding has anything in common with actual success.
2. Bush has not sat idly by for seven years. The mainstream media chorus today had it absolutely wrong in that mindless oversimplification. Bush met with the current leader of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, and the then-PM of Israel, Ariel Sharon, back in 2003. He was the first president of the United States to call for a two-state solution (a Palestinian state), which is a big deal. He was the first president to take an active role in sidelining Yasser Arafat, which he accomplished for the most part. He was instrumental in bringing democratic reforms to Palestine (which, granted, has not worked out all that well). And, most importantly, for good or for ill, Bush committed United States blood and treasure to "remaking" the Middle East into a less hostile more modern place. The decision is still very much in doubt whether he will have one bit of success on the bigger plan--but it is pretty facile to begin every news story today with the premise that President Bush is not/has not been deeply involved in the Middle East peace process.
