SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL, VOL. II: Andrew Sullivan speaks for many bloggers when he opines that by pressing Israel for a cease-fire, it is selling Israel out and faltering in the war on terrorism. I agree that from a moral standpoint, the reversion to State Department-style peace processing is wrong. But I think there is much more to the administration's moves, and much less succor to the Palestinian terrorists, than meets the eye. Here's a semi-organized explanation:
1) The Bush administration deserves the benefit of the doubt. The unqualified support they have given to the Sharon government over the last several months, in the face of international opposition and the scorn of media "sophisticates", is more than any recent administration has done - perhaps not since the Johnson administration gave Israel a tacit green light to launch the 1967 war. (For all of Clinton's affinity for Israel, he reverted to the James Baker playbook as soon as Netanyahu was elected; his administration's support for Israel not-so-coincidentally coincided with the intervals in which Israel was most willing to comply with the wishes of international polite opinion. I think it is far more impressive that the U.S. government has supported the man regularly and unfavorably compared to Caligula in the international media (on a good day).)
2) The support being given to Arafat is much less than it seems. In a brilliant piece originally published in July in the Weekly Standard, David Brooks noted that the Palestinians and Israelis were then (and certainly now) at the stage where they were negotiating cease-fires in a way that would force the other side to break them first. The Tenet plan was a victory for Israel in that respect:
It forces Yasser Arafat to perform a series of politically unpalatable tasks—like arresting terrorists and confiscating illegal weapons from his troops—before it forces Israel to do anything politically unpalatable, such as freeze settlement construction on the West Bank. Therefore, Arafat will have to break the cease-fire first and bear the brunt of the ensuing American disapproval.
The agenda that Zinni is now pushing is the Tenet plan. Today's supposed breakthrough - the news that Dick Cheney would be willing to meet Arafat - is, as the Washington Post understands, a politically adept move which returns the onus to Arafat to:
meet certain conditions, including a public declaration that violence by Palestinians must end and that his Palestinian Authority security forces enforce a cease-fire, once it is agreed on, in areas under Palestinian control.
...Israeli officials said neither Cheney nor Zinni had pressured them to make political concessions -- or even discuss possible concessions -- before the Palestinians arrest militants, seize illegal weapons and crack down on groups that have carried out terrorist attacks.
(As an aside, don't expect the NY Times to pick up on any of this, as usual.)
Also, there is little doubt that Sharon has been taking a page from Arafat's book and escalated the Israeli response right before the Zinni visit, so as to create an opportunity for a "concession" (along the lines of the Palestinians reducing the number of shootings on Israelis from dozens to 5 per day).
3) The current situation will be swept away in the whirlwind of what is about to happen. I've seen many journalists couch this scenario in qualifiers so as to not confront the ramifications. But you read this site for descriptions of the ramifications. So:
Israel will be attacked with chemical weapons in the next year.
When the U.S. attacks Iraq, there is little doubt that Saddam will fire whatever he can at Israel, as its nuclear deterrent will lose some effect once Saddam knows he is dead one way or another. (I still believe that it is worth taking him put ASAP, because failure to do so will only strengthen what he can and will fire at Israel and the U.S.) It is entirely possible that the attacks will, like his Scud attacks in the Gulf war, will fail to do much damage, but the storm resulting from the attempt will reshape the region to an extent we can barely foresee. (Not that I won't try.)
A regional war could easily result, especially if Israel retaliates with nuclear weapons. If that happens, the "peace process" will be pushed back at least a generation, and if (as will probebly be the case) the Palestinians join in the war, Israel may wreak destruction that will exceed the wildest fantasies of Al-Jazeera.
Even if a regional war does not result, Israel will be in a totally different position as a result of being the victim of an attack of weapons of mass destruction. And it appears that regardless of what happens, the U.S. will not be using much (if anything) in the way of Arab bases for the upcoming attack on Iraq; not as much of a "coalition" to pay lip service to. Thanks to that (and to the fact that unlike Bush 41, Bush 43's team is "unilateralist" by nature), the U.S. will feel less of a debt to the Arab countries than it did after the first Gulf War, meaning that James Baker-type pressure is unlikely to be applied.
Given all that, it makes sense that Sharon is going along with the U.S. now; it will cost him less than it looks at first and the situation will undergo complete upheaval when the U.S. attacks Iraq.
Have a good night.