The U.S. secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, has recently been the subject of comprehensive articles about her first few months in the White House.
A Washington Post piece recently headlined her quest for "practical idealism" and what is practical idealism if not enthusiastic support for the disengagement, and only afterward coming up with a decision about what to do the day after?
Progress
U.S. involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is deepening. No one disputes that. To what extent this will continue on the road to a comprehensive settlement, is hard to say at this time.
On the one hand, Rice herself said not long ago that in the end, the sides will have to be the ones to reach agreements. Yet at the same time, she is also pressing Israel to upgrade its efforts to strengthen the Palestinian Authority.
For example, to supply more ammunition to the forces of Palestinian Interior Minister Nasser Yousef. (The Palestinians told the Americans that Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said that if Yousef really has a shortage of ammunition, he should buy on the black market.) Or, for example, to ensure that the Gaza Strip does not become one vast prison - meaning that some movement of residents out of the Strip should be permitted, and not only to Egypt but in the direction of the West Bank as well. Or, for agreements to be reached speedily on the movement of goods, on tax and customs levies, on building a seaport and more.
On one of her recent visits to Israel, Rice met with a group that included Yuval Diskin, the chief of the Shin Bet security service. As security people are wont to do, Diskin wagged a finger and said, "You have to do this and you have to do that." But Rice, a tough lady, did not fall for the shtick. This week, The Washington Post reported about how she scolded the defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, in a meeting. In Israel, she chided Diskin: "Now tell me what you are going to do" and then, with a smile, invited him to visit the U.S.
Rice has undergone something of a revolution in her attitude toward the disengagement plan. Initially, she reacted with cautious puzzlement. "Isn't it a surrender to terrorism?" she asked an Israeli interlocutor in one of the first meetings that dealt with the plan. In time, though, her suspiciousness faded almost entirely and now the disengagement is the only game in town.
"The problem with the disengagement," says an Israeli who occasionally takes part in talks with the Americans, "is that on the day after, or two months after, it will be forgotten."
Priority
Lieutenant General William Ward and his team will decide what the Palestinians need, a State Department spokesman said last week, when asked about the details of the items that the United States wants to supply to the Palestinian Authority.
Ward, a U.S. envoy who is in the territories to assist the Palestinians carry out security reforms, and James Wolfensohn, who is dealing with economic issues related to the rehabilitation of the Gaza Strip, currently have the greatest influence in the administration, at least until after the disengagement. So much so, that former U.S. ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk remarked that the administration has "subcontracted" the work on the peace process to Ward and Wolfensohn.
Israeli officials enjoy working with the two envoys. Relations are in the businesslike-to-good range. There are no major disagreements, only minor ones. Still, once in a while, Israeli officials take a stand.
"Why are you insisting on strengthening Nasser Yousef?" Ward was asked by one of the Israelis he is in contact with. "Don't you see that it doesn't stand a chance?"
Ward, however, is an American, not an Israeli. In other words, he believes in "process" and doesn't want to cut corners, even if that may produce quicker results. "The decision is that the interior minister is responsible for security," he explained to his interlocutor, and to many others like him. "Yousef is the interior minister. I am working to strengthen Yousef." In Congressional testimony, Ward said that PA reform is a "long-term" process.
"In this disagreement over the question of Yousef versus, say, [PA Civil Affairs Minister] Mohammed Dahlan, the facts are not in dispute," says an Israeli diplomat. The disagreement is over the desirable solution. In the meantime, anger at Dahlan and his actions is growing in the administration. The word reaching Washington and not only from the Israelis, also from Palestinian sources, is that Dahlan is interfering.
According to several testimonies, there are people who think that the moment is approaching when he will either have to be calmed down or, alternatively, someone will have to "make him serviceable" by seeing to it that he is appointed to a suitable post, so that he will stop throwing a monkey wrench into the works.
Grade
Edward Walker, a former assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs and now the president of the Washington-based Middle East Institute, gives PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) a low grade of C+, but notes that the task imposed on him "is not easy."
The administration appears to take the same view. There is no great satisfaction with the pace of reforms, but there is a feeling that Abbas "wants" to change, as the current assistant secretary, David Walsh, stated in a Congressional hearing.
And in any event, the Americans are committed to his success, because there is no one else. "There are indications that the administration will become more involved," Walker says. "They have crossed the Rubicon."
People involved in contacts between the sides say that in more private meetings, Abbas is hearing sharper criticism from the Americans than can be gleaned from their public statements.
He is getting lectures from Ward and Wolfensohn, of course, but also from Walsh and from Rice herself from Washington direct to Ramallah, without unnecessary middlemen. The Americans have little faith that Palestinian bureaucracy will transmit the message accurately.
Publicly, they will not criticize Abbas, certainly not in any serious way, and not before the elections to the Palestinian parliament are held, probably next January.
"They are afraid that Hamas will win," a Palestinian source says - "they" meaning the Americans. In the past, in meetings with members of Congress, Abbas was told that it would be no big deal if he postponed the PA elections, even though that would not sit well with "democratization." If you think Hamas is going to win, just postpone the elections, a senator told him. And he did.
"The Americans will try to provide Abbas with achievements that he can take to the Palestinian public," says an Israeli source, to ensure that Hamas does not win. So the Americans will be very insistent on progress being made, even if it is slow, by means of steps to improve the standard of living in the territories: dismantling checkpoints, issuing transit permits, creating employment arrangements. They might try to start building a seaport quickly. "If people see bulldozers at work, they will get the feeling that something is happening," a Palestinian source said, in a tone that was partly expectant and partly cajoling, according to his own testimony.
"The real question," says Walker, "is not the withdrawal itself but what will happen afterward - how good the Palestinians' life will be."
Appreciation
The media battle for American public opinion after the disengagement has already begun.
The Palestinian message will be that Gaza has become a prison, while Israel will argue that separation will prevent violence; the Palestinians will say that the withdrawal is a tactical move and not a historic one; Israel will insist that Gaza is more accessible to the world than it has ever been.
As for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon: If all goes well, he will visit the United States as a victor as early as September, attending the annual United Nations General Assembly session in New York. In one of the polls here, the public has already had its say: "The Sharon plan is a courageous step toward promoting peace," said 71 percent of the respondents.
More than anyone, President George Bush is appreciative of Sharon's move. True, his involvement, which was never especially active to begin with, has lessened a little more. From the minute Condoleezza Rice took over at State, it was clear that she would take the lead in this area. The Pentagon, which is struggling to find a solution in Iraq, has been shunted out of the Israeli-Palestinian arena. Similarly, the office of Vice President Richard Cheney is not as involved as it once was.
Bush, though, has the sensitive antennae of a politician who has already been through a contest or two in his life. More than Rice, and more than any other appointed official, he is capable of appreciating a brave move by an elected official, of discerning the political risk and the great gamble entailed. And, it follows, of understanding that Sharon now needs full support so that his government will not collapse.
Like Abbas, who will get support as the elections approach, Sharon, too, will get something that will help him present the disengagement as an achievement, as a move that brings with it hope for change and is not a capitulation to terrorism. It might take the form of money. Certainly, he will receive a very public pat on the shoulder, maybe a friendly good-will gesture (but no, Jonathan Pollard will not be released.)
In the background, however, the question of what lies down the road will still loom large. Here in Washington, the Americans are hearing from European representatives that the Palestinian leadership has no chance of dismantling the terrorist infrastructure as long as there is no political plan on the table. At the same time, a European source says, the Americans are listening, and are protesting less at this notion than they used to.
Involvement
An important Jewish leader once told former secretary of state Colin Powell, "I understand that there are sometimes disagreements in the administration and that you don't always like what Sharon does but why do you personally always have to be the freak who takes the most extreme position against Israel?"
It's worth keeping Powell's response in mind, because it is equally relevant for the State Department under Rice: "Unlike others, I also have to deal with 22 Arab states," he replied.
And, it should be added, also with quite a few European countries. Thus, in regard to U.S. policy after the disengagement, several factors have to be taken into account. Above all, as an Israeli diplomat says, "the establishment of a Palestinian state has become an American interest." Second, as The Los Angeles Times noted last week, the Europeans are pressing Washington to heighten its involvement. Third, the Israeli evacuation from Gaza is an achievement that can be brandished but it is also a precedent: Washington has taken note of Israel's readiness, at times, to withdraw without a quid pro quo (from Lebanon and now from Gaza), which it was never called upon to do in the past.
Still, statements, both public and background, by top U.S. officials attest to several clear directions: increasing impatience with the settlements; erosion of the tough stance regarding the dismantlement of the terrorist organizations in the territories; and a more powerful desire than in the past to show achievements and here senior Israeli officials point an accusing finger at Rice: "This is beginning to look like a subject that challenges her personally. I even see a similarity between her and [former U.S. president] Bill Clinton on this issue," says an Israeli who was present in several conversations with the secretary of state.
The problem is that beyond terrorism and the settlements, both of which must be dismantled, real policy also requires issues that involve putting things together but the administration has not entirely worked these out. Will Washington agree to skip stages in the road map plan?
The Palestinians hope so and have also informed the Americans. The Israelis believe this will not happen (though this may be a case of wishful thinking). Will the Americans put forward their own plan - a "Bush blueprint" to match the "Clinton blueprint"? Israelis and Palestinians who are in contact with Washington find it hard to see any plan other than that of Clinton, but also do not believe that the administration will adopt an almost identical formula.
In the absence of a clear direction, what remains is the technical question: to what extent U.S. "involvement" will be heightened. Former U.S. consul general in Jerusalem, Edward Abington, now a lobbyist for the Palestinians in Washington, is declaring from every possible platform that the administration is not yet demonstrating sufficient commitment. Martin Indyk, in a public position paper, calls on Rice to become even more deeply engaged, on the assumption that it is better to take the risk of failure than to sit idly by. As for the administration, the path is clear: In its view, three visits by Rice, the constant presence of Ward and Wolfensohn, and forays by "babysitters" David Walsh and National Security Council official Elliot Abrams, broadcast resolute determination.
Aftermath - Disengage, dismantle, and then what?
By Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz
(This article sheds a lot of light as to what is really going on or what may go on. Ted Belman)
WASHINGTON - Everyone is looking for a simple answer to a short question: What will the United States do after the disengagement plan is implemented?
But there is no ready answer. Not because it's a secret and not because it's sensitive and not even because U.S. officials are wary about talking. The fact is that it's simply impossible to come up with a decision now as to what will be done afterward. No real decision, anyway.
"When you, the Israelis, know exactly what you want to happen after the disengagement, the administration will know, too," says one knowledgeable official.
The U.S. secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, has recently been the subject of comprehensive articles about her first few months in the White House.
A Washington Post piece recently headlined her quest for "practical idealism" and what is practical idealism if not enthusiastic support for the disengagement, and only afterward coming up with a decision about what to do the day after?
Progress
U.S. involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is deepening. No one disputes that. To what extent this will continue on the road to a comprehensive settlement, is hard to say at this time.
On the one hand, Rice herself said not long ago that in the end, the sides will have to be the ones to reach agreements. Yet at the same time, she is also pressing Israel to upgrade its efforts to strengthen the Palestinian Authority.
For example, to supply more ammunition to the forces of Palestinian Interior Minister Nasser Yousef. (The Palestinians told the Americans that Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said that if Yousef really has a shortage of ammunition, he should buy on the black market.) Or, for example, to ensure that the Gaza Strip does not become one vast prison - meaning that some movement of residents out of the Strip should be permitted, and not only to Egypt but in the direction of the West Bank as well. Or, for agreements to be reached speedily on the movement of goods, on tax and customs levies, on building a seaport and more.
On one of her recent visits to Israel, Rice met with a group that included Yuval Diskin, the chief of the Shin Bet security service. As security people are wont to do, Diskin wagged a finger and said, "You have to do this and you have to do that." But Rice, a tough lady, did not fall for the shtick. This week, The Washington Post reported about how she scolded the defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, in a meeting. In Israel, she chided Diskin: "Now tell me what you are going to do" and then, with a smile, invited him to visit the U.S.
Rice has undergone something of a revolution in her attitude toward the disengagement plan. Initially, she reacted with cautious puzzlement. "Isn't it a surrender to terrorism?" she asked an Israeli interlocutor in one of the first meetings that dealt with the plan. In time, though, her suspiciousness faded almost entirely and now the disengagement is the only game in town.
"The problem with the disengagement," says an Israeli who occasionally takes part in talks with the Americans, "is that on the day after, or two months after, it will be forgotten."
Priority
Lieutenant General William Ward and his team will decide what the Palestinians need, a State Department spokesman said last week, when asked about the details of the items that the United States wants to supply to the Palestinian Authority.
Ward, a U.S. envoy who is in the territories to assist the Palestinians carry out security reforms, and James Wolfensohn, who is dealing with economic issues related to the rehabilitation of the Gaza Strip, currently have the greatest influence in the administration, at least until after the disengagement. So much so, that former U.S. ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk remarked that the administration has "subcontracted" the work on the peace process to Ward and Wolfensohn.
Israeli officials enjoy working with the two envoys. Relations are in the businesslike-to-good range. There are no major disagreements, only minor ones. Still, once in a while, Israeli officials take a stand.
"Why are you insisting on strengthening Nasser Yousef?" Ward was asked by one of the Israelis he is in contact with. "Don't you see that it doesn't stand a chance?"
Ward, however, is an American, not an Israeli. In other words, he believes in "process" and doesn't want to cut corners, even if that may produce quicker results. "The decision is that the interior minister is responsible for security," he explained to his interlocutor, and to many others like him. "Yousef is the interior minister. I am working to strengthen Yousef." In Congressional testimony, Ward said that PA reform is a "long-term" process.
"In this disagreement over the question of Yousef versus, say, [PA Civil Affairs Minister] Mohammed Dahlan, the facts are not in dispute," says an Israeli diplomat. The disagreement is over the desirable solution. In the meantime, anger at Dahlan and his actions is growing in the administration. The word reaching Washington and not only from the Israelis, also from Palestinian sources, is that Dahlan is interfering.
According to several testimonies, there are people who think that the moment is approaching when he will either have to be calmed down or, alternatively, someone will have to "make him serviceable" by seeing to it that he is appointed to a suitable post, so that he will stop throwing a monkey wrench into the works.
Grade
Edward Walker, a former assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs and now the president of the Washington-based Middle East Institute, gives PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) a low grade of C+, but notes that the task imposed on him "is not easy."
The administration appears to take the same view. There is no great satisfaction with the pace of reforms, but there is a feeling that Abbas "wants" to change, as the current assistant secretary, David Walsh, stated in a Congressional hearing.
And in any event, the Americans are committed to his success, because there is no one else. "There are indications that the administration will become more involved," Walker says. "They have crossed the Rubicon."
People involved in contacts between the sides say that in more private meetings, Abbas is hearing sharper criticism from the Americans than can be gleaned from their public statements.
He is getting lectures from Ward and Wolfensohn, of course, but also from Walsh and from Rice herself from Washington direct to Ramallah, without unnecessary middlemen. The Americans have little faith that Palestinian bureaucracy will transmit the message accurately.
Publicly, they will not criticize Abbas, certainly not in any serious way, and not before the elections to the Palestinian parliament are held, probably next January.
"They are afraid that Hamas will win," a Palestinian source says - "they" meaning the Americans. In the past, in meetings with members of Congress, Abbas was told that it would be no big deal if he postponed the PA elections, even though that would not sit well with "democratization." If you think Hamas is going to win, just postpone the elections, a senator told him. And he did.
"The Americans will try to provide Abbas with achievements that he can take to the Palestinian public," says an Israeli source, to ensure that Hamas does not win. So the Americans will be very insistent on progress being made, even if it is slow, by means of steps to improve the standard of living in the territories: dismantling checkpoints, issuing transit permits, creating employment arrangements. They might try to start building a seaport quickly. "If people see bulldozers at work, they will get the feeling that something is happening," a Palestinian source said, in a tone that was partly expectant and partly cajoling, according to his own testimony.
"The real question," says Walker, "is not the withdrawal itself but what will happen afterward - how good the Palestinians' life will be."
Appreciation
The media battle for American public opinion after the disengagement has already begun.
The Palestinian message will be that Gaza has become a prison, while Israel will argue that separation will prevent violence; the Palestinians will say that the withdrawal is a tactical move and not a historic one; Israel will insist that Gaza is more accessible to the world than it has ever been.
As for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon: If all goes well, he will visit the United States as a victor as early as September, attending the annual United Nations General Assembly session in New York. In one of the polls here, the public has already had its say: "The Sharon plan is a courageous step toward promoting peace," said 71 percent of the respondents.
More than anyone, President George Bush is appreciative of Sharon's move. True, his involvement, which was never especially active to begin with, has lessened a little more. From the minute Condoleezza Rice took over at State, it was clear that she would take the lead in this area. The Pentagon, which is struggling to find a solution in Iraq, has been shunted out of the Israeli-Palestinian arena. Similarly, the office of Vice President Richard Cheney is not as involved as it once was.
Bush, though, has the sensitive antennae of a politician who has already been through a contest or two in his life. More than Rice, and more than any other appointed official, he is capable of appreciating a brave move by an elected official, of discerning the political risk and the great gamble entailed. And, it follows, of understanding that Sharon now needs full support so that his government will not collapse.
Like Abbas, who will get support as the elections approach, Sharon, too, will get something that will help him present the disengagement as an achievement, as a move that brings with it hope for change and is not a capitulation to terrorism. It might take the form of money. Certainly, he will receive a very public pat on the shoulder, maybe a friendly good-will gesture (but no, Jonathan Pollard will not be released.)
In the background, however, the question of what lies down the road will still loom large. Here in Washington, the Americans are hearing from European representatives that the Palestinian leadership has no chance of dismantling the terrorist infrastructure as long as there is no political plan on the table. At the same time, a European source says, the Americans are listening, and are protesting less at this notion than they used to.
Involvement
An important Jewish leader once told former secretary of state Colin Powell, "I understand that there are sometimes disagreements in the administration and that you don't always like what Sharon does but why do you personally always have to be the freak who takes the most extreme position against Israel?"
It's worth keeping Powell's response in mind, because it is equally relevant for the State Department under Rice: "Unlike others, I also have to deal with 22 Arab states," he replied.
And, it should be added, also with quite a few European countries. Thus, in regard to U.S. policy after the disengagement, several factors have to be taken into account. Above all, as an Israeli diplomat says, "the establishment of a Palestinian state has become an American interest." Second, as The Los Angeles Times noted last week, the Europeans are pressing Washington to heighten its involvement. Third, the Israeli evacuation from Gaza is an achievement that can be brandished but it is also a precedent: Washington has taken note of Israel's readiness, at times, to withdraw without a quid pro quo (from Lebanon and now from Gaza), which it was never called upon to do in the past.
Still, statements, both public and background, by top U.S. officials attest to several clear directions: increasing impatience with the settlements; erosion of the tough stance regarding the dismantlement of the terrorist organizations in the territories; and a more powerful desire than in the past to show achievements and here senior Israeli officials point an accusing finger at Rice: "This is beginning to look like a subject that challenges her personally. I even see a similarity between her and [former U.S. president] Bill Clinton on this issue," says an Israeli who was present in several conversations with the secretary of state.
The problem is that beyond terrorism and the settlements, both of which must be dismantled, real policy also requires issues that involve putting things together but the administration has not entirely worked these out. Will Washington agree to skip stages in the road map plan?
The Palestinians hope so and have also informed the Americans. The Israelis believe this will not happen (though this may be a case of wishful thinking). Will the Americans put forward their own plan - a "Bush blueprint" to match the "Clinton blueprint"? Israelis and Palestinians who are in contact with Washington find it hard to see any plan other than that of Clinton, but also do not believe that the administration will adopt an almost identical formula.
In the absence of a clear direction, what remains is the technical question: to what extent U.S. "involvement" will be heightened. Former U.S. consul general in Jerusalem, Edward Abington, now a lobbyist for the Palestinians in Washington, is declaring from every possible platform that the administration is not yet demonstrating sufficient commitment. Martin Indyk, in a public position paper, calls on Rice to become even more deeply engaged, on the assumption that it is better to take the risk of failure than to sit idly by. As for the administration, the path is clear: In its view, three visits by Rice, the constant presence of Ward and Wolfensohn, and forays by "babysitters" David Walsh and National Security Council official Elliot Abrams, broadcast resolute determination.
Posted by Ted Belman at August 16, 2005 06:19 PM