Powell's Mission: The Balance Sheet
By Geoffrey
Kemp
From the April 28, 2002 edition of Al-Ittihad
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell’s recent mission to the Middle East did not bring about a cease-fire. Israeli did not withdraw "without delay" from occupied Palestinian towns and villages as President Bush had demanded. There was no Palestinian commitment to curb terrorist attacks against Israel. Therefore many regard the mission as a failure and an embarrassment for President Bush whose explicit wishes were ignored by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat. Most Arab governments and the Palestinians believe Powell was too gentle with Sharon. Many Israelis and Powell’s opponents in Washington think he was too gentle with Arafat and pandered to European and Arab leaders by showing excessive "even handedness."
However it is too early to write off the U.S. initiative. There are three reasons why Powell’s efforts may yet bare fruit. First, he has succeeded in committing President Bush to a much deeper engagement in the Arab-Israeli conflict, a step the President and many of his advisers have been reluctant to take. Bush will now find it very difficult to distance himself from Powell’s initiation. If he does, as some of his right wing critics want him to, the Democrats will pounce on Bush with glee. Since September 11th they have been unwilling to challenge the President on foreign policy issues for fear of appearing unpatriotic. But Bush’s handling of the Palestinian crisis has given them a new opening. Bush has been criticized roundly on all sides, including by some of his own supporters, for being either too cautious on getting engaged in the efforts to resolve the conflict or blurring the clarity of his "war on terrorism" which demands universal opposition to terrorism and for foreign governments to declare whether "they are with us or against us."
Second, in terms of achievements in the region, Powell seems to have impressed upon both Syria and Lebanon that they have a great deal to lose if Hezbollah continues its escalatory attacks against Israel along the Lebanese-Israeli border. In recent weeks Hezbollah has fired rockets at targets within Israel and beyond the disputed Sheba Farms area. Powell has warned Syrian and Lebanese leaders that if they do not take stronger steps to stop Hezbollah’s operations they can expect a harsh Israeli response. Indeed most Israeli analysts agree that if a Hezbollah rocket kills a number of Israeli civilians in Israel proper, Israel will use its overwhelming air power to attack multiple targets in Lebanon and possibly Syria, including infrastructure targets. Such an attack would be a major escalation in the conflict and would mean huge economic losses for Beirut and Damascus at a time when their economies can ill afford further setbacks.
Third, Powell’s continuing commitment to finding a solution to the conflict will get solid support from Europe and will be cautiously backed by both Israel and the Arab moderate governments. While more violence is probably inevitable, Powell has no option but to stay involved and return soon to the region. This will not be popular with his domestic critics who want the President to get on with the campaign to rid the region of Saddam Hussein. They regard the threat from Iraq more dangerous and more urgent than the Palestinian crisis. But Bush now realizes that he cannot by-pass the Arab-Israeli conflict and that if he wants eventual support for the Iraq contingency, he must convince Europe, especially Britain, as well as the moderate Arab leaders that he is prepared to spend some serious political capital to end the current violence. To this extent Powell can take solace from the fact that he has, at last, gotten the attention of the White House.
