All We are Saying Is: Give Appeasement a Chance
Is the apparent incoherence of Bush's Middle East policy simply a clever contrivance, intended to disguise and deflect attention from the real underlying coherent strategy? Are the admonitions to Israel to curtail its pursuit of terrorists and to leave some of the terrorist infrastructure intact delivered with a wink? Is Bush just talking sternly in public to appease the Europeans and Arabs while privately sending the message to Sharon that he has the administration's blessing to continue the crackdown? Has the time-honored determination of the State Department to adhere to its preferred pattern of engagement with Arafat and his terrorist minions (a period of denunciation, closely followed by sucking up spell, rinse, repeat) suddenly and fundamentally and secretly transformed itself, the new policy to be revealed at some future date?
Is there any basis, beyond mere wishful thinking, for this conspiracy theory in reverse? I would love to be mistaken, but the widespread "rope-a-dope" interpretation of US maneuvering (as Glenn Reynolds has called it) seems more doubtful than ever. Of course, I don't think there can be anyone, within the administration or outside of it, who thinks that Powell's "peace mission" ever had any hope of success. That is to say, no one actually believes that it will secure anything like "peace," nor even the basis for some future peace, nor even a temporary cessation of hostilities, nor, in fact, anything at all. In this sense, the Powell mission was indeed clearly intended to fail, in order to buy time, to forestall the inevitable re-escalation of attacks, perhaps even to allow Israel to proceed with a bit more of its ruthless crackdown and round-up of terror perpetrators, to put off the terrible choices which must inevitably be made. The failure has succeeded, but at a cost: the sacrifice of the moral clarity which was once the administration's chief strength in the debate, despite European charges of "simplisme." In a way, the administration has in fact adopted the "sophisticated" approach preferred by the Europeans (though I daresay Bush will get scant credit from them for the conversion.) All they are saying is "give appeasement a chance." It will not work.
The weakly-worded condemnation of terror, which could be extracted from a reluctant Arafat only by applying maximum diplomatic pressure, changes nothing. Its real message was that he has every intention of maintaining his policies exactly as before, to continue to "write in blood the map of the one homeland and one nation." Despite the statement, and even as Powell was meeting with Arafat, the Palestinian Authority explicitly announced its determination to continue the suicide bombing campaign. Meanwhile, Arafat refuses to consider a "cease fire" (that is, he denounces, but refuses to call a halt to the terrorism he claims to condemn) until his demands are met.
Israel is certainly not beyond reproach, and the Palestinians have legitimate grievances. Nevertheless, offering concessions under the threat of terrorist attack amounts to a guarantee of, and an effective acquiescence to, further atrocities. It hardly matters whether or not the concessions are "real." It hardly matters whether or not the President is "winking" when he delivers his comments. All that is required is that the promoters and practitioners of terrorist activity as a form of political "activism" or "resistance" believe that such blackmail allows them to gain ground against the powerful forces arrayed against them. As it stands, they have every reason to believe that suicide bombings advance their cause; thus, they have every reason to continue them. Israel is their current target; but we're next. Therefore, US policy should not only allege that such activity is futile, but also attempt to demonstrate this futility.
Perhaps the final round of the "rope-a-dope" is not yet at hand, and the shining brilliance of the real strategy behind the "sideshow" will soon be revealed. I'm not holding my breath, though.
UPDATE: Steven den Beste says that Powell's answer to Arafat's refusal to rein in terror means that "Arafat is now out of the loop." I think they'll find a way to keep him in the loop. But I hope den Beste is right.
Posted by Dr. Frank at April 15, 2002 10:48 AM | TrackBack