Crisis in the Middle East: “The Bush administration needs to do its homework after Annapolis”
- On Monday November 26 2007, Israelis and Palestinians will meet in Annapolis, Md, at a peace conference organized by the White House (Picture: Palestinian man arrested by Israeli soldiers ©DR).
- Interview of Daniel Kurtzer, US ambassador to Israel between 2001 and 2005. Prior to the conference, the former diplomat assesses the Bush administration’s policy in the Middle East.
- According to him, George Bush will soon have to tackle the thorniest issues such as the status of Jerusalem and the Palestinian right of return.
New York.
Ambassador Kurtzer, how would describe the Bush administration’s policy in the Middle East?
Since July 2007, the Bush administration made clear it intended to move forward in 3 areas. First, in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Second, in Iraq where they see progress. And third, they said they would put pressure on Iran. Until July, they only focused on Iraq and Iran. The new development is that the White House concluded it was important to try to advance the Israeli-.Palestinian peace process. A lot of people say the Annapolis conference is too late and that the chances of success are slim. They are maybe right, but it is at least a shot.
But didn’t the Bush administration waste a lot of time?
Every day you do not do anything to try to improve the condition in the Middle East, is a lost day. It is very late to get involved in this area but it is better than not doing anything. Condoleezza Rice believes an agreement between the two sides is possible before George Bush leaves office in January 2009. It might be too optimistic but they are moving forward.
What convinced the Bush administration to get more involved in the Middle East peace process ?
Everything they heard from their Arab friends told them they had to restart their efforts if they wanted to have a chance to succeed in the Middle East.
In a column published on November 21 2007 in the International Herald Tribune, you write that the White House needs to set up a monitoring mission in the Middle East to oversee the parties’ commitments. But Israelis and Palestinians cannot agree on that. Do you think it is really feasible?
Without a monitoring mission, we cannot make any progress. In 2003, the Bush administration failed to dispatch such a mission when implementation of the Road Map was to have been started. The behavior of the two sides has been less than perfect to put it diplomatically. Without a monitoring mission and accountability, the peace process will collapse. If the Bush administration intends to dispatch such a mission, it needs to do it as soon as possible.
In 2003, the Geneva Initiative laid out concrete recommendations for a peace treaty between Israelis and Palestinians but it has been rejected by the parties involved in the process. Could it become a viable alternative to the Road Map?
I like it when people get together and work for peace. But no government is going to accept a deal worked out by non-governmental people. Therefore, the solution can only come from what can be worked out between the two sides.
You call for the creation of a back-room State Department operation to plan U.S. positions on the four core final status issues - territory, security, refugees and Jerusalem. That means that the US will have to make a stand on those divisive issues.
Yes. In 2002, president Bush called for the creation of a Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel. In 2004, Mr Bush made a commitment to Israeli Prime minister Ariel Sharon to preserve and strengthen Israel’s security. The White House has to prepare to take a stand on the borders of the future Palestinian state, on Israel’s security, on the questions of Palestinian refugees and on the status of Jerusalem. For the Israelis and the Palestinians, the issues of Jerusalem and of the Palestinian right of return are the most important ones. These issues are also the most challenging ones for us. President Bush does not have to decide right now but he should be in a position to decide. He can only do that if his administration does its homework.
You argue that to have a chance to find a solution in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, Condoleezza Rice’s diplomatic agenda has to be a top priority for the president. So is it currently the case?
I would not say it is a top priority but it is a priority. Some argue, that the administration’s efforts with the Israeli and Palestinians are a way to divert attention from Iraq and from the tensions with Iran. I don’t believe it is. It is a testing period for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process right now. What happens after the Annapolis conference will be important.
Could you elaborate?
Three critical questions have to be answered: are we going to have serious negotiations between the two sides? If the Israelis make commitment to stop settlements in Palestinian territories and if the Palestinians commit themselves to combat terrorism, will they really do it? And are we Americans ready to monitor the process? If these things happen, we have a chance to make progress.
What do you make of the White House’s decision to invite Syria to the Annapolis conference?
Without Syria, the conference could not take place. Last time I visited Damascus, I thought Syrians deserved at least another chance to restart negotiations but I do not think the Bush administration is ready to do that.
You were the US ambassador to Israel at the time the Bush administration was accused of not doing much to advance the Middle East peace process. Do you regret anything?
No. I was a career diplomat for 29 years and it was a great privilege to serve my country in Israel. I would have hoped more involvement from the administration but I do not regret anything.
Jean-Cosme Delaloye / New York
Daniel Kurtzer was the U.S. ambassador to Israel from 2001 until 2005. He is now visiting professor in Middle East Policy Studies at Princeton University.
Israeli-Palestinian conflict: where we stand
The Bush administration argues that the Annapolis conference will be seen as a success if Israelis and Palestinians agree to launch negotiations. The implementation of the so-called road map for peace drafted by the United States, Russia, the United Nations and the European Union has been stalled since 2003 because both sides have been unable to make progress on two fronts: Israel has not frozen settlement activities in the Palestinian territories and the Palestinian leadership did not halt the violence.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas have apparently been unable to agree on a work plan. The Palestinian leadership and its Arab allies expected the Annapolis conference to tackle the most problematic issues: the status of east Jerusalem, occupied by Israel in 1967, the boundaries of a future Palestinian state, the status of Palestinian refugees and the Jewish settlements. The Israeli governement instead wanted a vaguer document, stating a list of principles on which to base negotiations.
The Second Intifada (n.d.l.r.: Arabic word for uprising) began in 2000. The death toll of this wave of violence between Palestinians and Israelis is estimated to be over 4,300 Palestinians and over 1,000 Israelis.
In the last few years, the major development in the region was the unilateral Israeli disengagement plan from Gaza, which was completed in September 2005. The move did not halt the violence. Today, Palestinians are deeply divided between the Hamas-controlled Gaza strip and the Fatha-controlled West Bank.
J-C De
Comments
