A New Push For Peace

Peace in the Middle East has proved to be unusually elusive. Since the establishment of Israel in 1948, the region has been devastated by three major wars and numerous insurgencies on what are today Palestinian territories known as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The efforts of many U.S. presidents and several supposed breakthroughs have proved fruitless. This millennium, the prospects for peace have seemed unusually bleak: More than a thousand Israelis have been killed as a direct result of the terrorist tactics employed by Fatah, Hamas and other Palestinian groups since 2000, while Israeli counterattacks and military operations have killed more than 4,000 Palestinians.

In spite of the region’s tragic history, there may yet be hope on the horizon. In the past two months Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas have committed to a two-state solution where Israel and Palestine could co-exist peacefully. Since then, the pressure to engage in a new peace process has been applied by President Bush during his first visit to Israel as president. While it is all too possible that this latest process will also be unsuccessful, a continual push toward peace is necessary, and a two-state solution is the best hope.

This new accord could not have come about without the leadership of President Bush. While we have been critical of Bush’s foreign policy in the past—especially his ill-advised invasion of Iraq in 2003—his plan for a two-state solution is a sound one, and a good example of how American power in the world can be used toward just ends. The United States is in a particularly unique global position to influence the peace process, and it is our moral duty to make the most of it. Although Bush’s involvement in the Middle East is belated, it is better to see him tackling this issue head on now than never.

Yet American initiative alone cannot bring peace to the Middle East. Israel and Palestine must be wholeheartedly committed to following a course towards peace. The specific details of an agreement—such as the dismantling of Israeli settlements, reparations for Palestinian refugees, and the dividing of Jerusalem—must be settled in a fair and firm manner through diplomacy between the two parties. Both sides must also realize that a solution will involve compromises by both sides. In particular, Israel will have to give up land and dismantle its settlements in the West Bank. Palestinians need to forget the notion of a right of return—at this point it is too late to hit the rewind button—and instead focus on reparations. The two sides must also take action to control their militant wings so that the interests of the few who oppose a settlement do not torpedo a brokered peace.

Although we welcome Bush’s initiative, we worry about his desire to have a peace in place by the time he leaves office. The peace processes should not be dictated by the electoral cycle and a lame duck president’s desire to craft a legacy. The process cannot be rushed, and the end of the second Bush presidency should not be the end of the current push for peace, as the end of the Clinton administration was seven years ago.