Speaking of Daniel Pipes, he has an editorial in today’s National Post, in which he claims that Bush’s policy on Israel and the Mideast is one of the only ambiguous and unclear areas of his presidency:
There is no ambiguity, no guessing what his real position might be, no despair at interpreting contradictions. Even his detractors never complain about “Tricky George” or “Slick Bush.”
But there is one exception to this pattern. And — couldn’t you have predicted it? — the topic is the Arab-Israeli conflict. Here, Bush not only seems unable to make up his mind but he oscillates between two quite contrary views.
Despite the fact that most people perceive the U.S. and Israel as strong allies, Pipes points out several cases in which the Bush administration backed the Palestinian side against Israel. For example, his simultaneous criticism of Palestinian terrorism and of the Palestinian Authority’s role in this terrorism, and calling upon Israel to make moves towards peace. Or in first demanding new Palestinian leadership as a prerequisite to more peace talks, and then backtracking in the so-called “roadmap” to peace.
Despite this, Pipes draws the conclusion that Bush’s token support of Palestinian statehood is due to pressure he is getting from international sources . . . but in truth his position is solidly on Israel’s side:
Observing these contradictions through two years of the Bush administration leads me to one main conclusion: In key ways — sympathy for Israel’s plight, diplomatic support, providing arms — Bush tends to ignore his own Palestinian-state rhetoric and stand solid with Israel. His statements demanding this from Israel and promising that to the Palestinians appear to be a sop to outside pressure, not operational policy.
In short, look at what President Bush does, not what he says, and you’ll find his usual consistency, this time hiding under a veneer of apparent indecision.
If this is accurate, then the road map is for show, not true policy, and U.S. endorsement of a Palestinian state remains remote.
Israel, on the other hand, seems more inclined to wariness where American initiatives towards peace are concerned. They recall all too well the pressure during the Clinton years to make concession after concession, all of which only served to weaken Israel’s position when the talks ultimately fell apart.