Abbas’ day, Assad’s night, Friday, October 21, 2005

Considering the fact that George W. Bush is not known for nuance and subtlety, the Israeli press spent a lot of time analyzing his comments in the Rose Garden yesterday with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at his side, trying to find the quotes to prove, as one columnist wrote this morning, that Abbas got nothing from Bush.

Thus, the Israeli press, at least that part of the press that reckons its job is to report what the prime minister and his people say, brushed off all the Bush comments about what Israel has to do to help move the political process forward, like easing economic conditions and transportation for the Palestinians; tried to ignore the fact that Bush essentially okayed Hamas-affiliated politicians running for election; and it played up the fact that Bush did not promise Abbas a Palestinian state by the end of Bush’s stay in the White House in 2009.

True, the State Department clarified overnight that Hamas is a terror organization, but it doesn’t take a political genius to understand that Hamas could run its candidates on a list with a different name than Hamas, the way the IRA had Sinn Fein; and Abbas himself has made clear that all those running for office must comply with the ‘one PA, one law, one gun’ principle.

None seemed to notice that if one does take Bush’s words yesterday seriously, it seems he has made the step that many second-term American presidents take, from a partisan of the Israeli side to the conflict, to that of an honest broker, a mediator between the two sides. He balanced every demand he made of Abbas – and there was really only one demand, disarm the terrorists, with demands of Israel with regard ending settlement expansion, dismantling illegal outposts, easing economic conditions and transportation problems for the Palestinians, and making sure the barrier, which has slowed down to a snail’s pace because of law suits pending before the High Court of Justice, not be a political barrier, but a security one. Not that Bush is about to convene a Camp David. Far from it, he went out of his way to explain he would not pressure either side to fit American political schedules. But the message was clear to those who listened: ‘The key thing, as far as I'm concerned, is that there are partners in peace. Prime Minister Sharon wants there to be peace. President Abbas wants there to be peace. And both men are showing strong leadership toward achieving that objective,’ which, the president explained, is two democratic states living side by side in peace.’ In short, nearly a year’s worth of Israeli efforts trying to explain to the U.S. that Abbas is not a partner because he is not a strong leader, has gone down the drain.

In any case, most of the Israeli press, like most Israelis, remain firm believers that there is only a win-lose proposition in the conflict, meaning that the prevailing attitude toward the Palestinians is that whatever bad happens to them is good for Israel, and vice versa. And that holds for its attitude toward most of the Arab world, so, the release of the UN investigative report on the assassination of Lebanese billionaire and former premier, Rafik Hariri dominated the news, overshadowing the Abbas-Bush session.

There was much said about the naming of at least four senior Syrian officials, including the brother of Syrian President Bashar Assad, Maher, and their powerful brother in law, Asef Shawkat (by marriage to an Assad sister) and the late Ghazi Kenaan, who either committed suicide or was forced to do so, earlier this week as he faced mounting charges in the Lebanese press of corruption, including taking millions of dollars in bribes -- and how it might topple the Assad regime.

So, the press eagerly went over the details of what could happen to Assad’s minority Alawite regime, with Shimon Peres, the Middle East’s most veteran politician – he’s been around since Eisenhower was president – predicting that a shakeup is coming in Damascus. Trouble is, too much of a shakeup could lead to an Iraqi-style chaos. Sanctions approved by the UN Security Council, with the U.S. and France working together to push them through that body, is the most likely immediate outcome of the UN report.

But even before then, the Lebanese body politic will no doubt go through embarrassing exposure as full of corrupt politicians, with the Lebanese president’s office already issuing denials that he had ‘contact’ with one of the named Syrian generals. Palestinian politics might also be affected – there are rumors that the PFLP might have been involved in the Hariri killing. The PFLP in Damascus denies it. Lebanon’s already in the throes of attempted democratic reforms and the newfound transparency imposed on its political arena by the UN report, will probably be healthy for it. The only way Assad can avoid the full pressure of UN sanctions would be to undertake real democratic reforms in Syria. But any such reforms, if genuine, would hardly be likely to leave in power a family from a minority that has ruled through brute force for more than 30 years, no matter how afraid of chaos the Syrian public may be.

More news from today || Yesterday's situation (Archive)

© Today's Situation From Ariga, http://www.ariga.com by Robert Rosenberg; Feel free to pass this page on, including this line: Subscribe to get it daily by email -- or unsubscribe -- at http://www.ariga.com/signup.shtml >>>>>>>>>>RSS Feed

Feed Shark

Today's Situation || Yesterday's Situation