Maof

On Sunday, February 23, 2002, at the opening plenary session of the JCPA Plenum, David Makovsky, Senior Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, author Ken Pollack, and Shibley Telhami, Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland, addressed the issue of, уThe United States and Israel: Facing Terror and Pursuing Peace,ф a discussion moderated by Lisa Hostein, editor, Jewish Telegraphic Agency.  The following is a summary of their conversation. Vol. 3, No. 11 February 26, 2003 х 24 Adar 1 5763
http://www.jewishpublicaffairs.org/

David Makovsky addressed the effect a U.S. war against Iraq might have on Israel and the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process.  He asserted that if the Arab states do not make a move to oust Arafat, there is a strong likelihood that after the war, the Israelis will remove him from power.  Makovsky also stated that despite Arafatтs announcement that he will appoint a Prime Minister, he is unwilling to share power, and any Prime Minister would be a powerless figurehead.

Finally, Makovsky asserted that the only way to achieve peace in Israel is if everyone ц both the Americans and the Arab states ц buy into the peace process.  Arab states will have to cut off funding to terrorists and replace Arafat.  The Bush Administration will have to keep the Israeli-Palestinian peace process high on its priority list, despite the fact that it will also have to focus to stabilize Iraq, continue its war on terror and weapons of mass destruction, and democratize the Mideast region.

Ken Pollack asserted that the war in Iraq is a fait accompli; therefore, the question of whether or not the U.S. should go to war is moot.  He said that we should be looking toward the future and making sure that the outcome of the war is positive.

Pollack said that although he believes that war with Iraq is necessary, he foresees a number of problems that may arise as a result, and he believes that the U.S. should take steps to minimize these problems.  He evaluated the Bush Administration in terms of its dealing with these issues, stating that in his opinion, the Administration gets three уAтsф, three уFтsф and two уincompletesф.

The Aтs:
The U.S. has committed to the use all force necessary to oust Saddam.  Pollack commended the administration for taking steps to ensure that the moderate Hashemite monarchy remains in power in Jordan by promising economic aid and compensation for the loss of Iraqi oil.  Finally, Pollack said that the U.S. is managing the Northern Iraq issue as best as it possibly can.  He stated that the Kurds and the Turks in Northern Iraq have a difficult history, and that the situation is tenuous, but that the U.S. is handling it well.

The Fтs:
In order to ensure the effective rebuilding of Iraq, the Bush administration needs the support of the European Union.  The EU can provide the money, resources, skills, and manpower that will be necessary for reconstruction.  Pollack said that even if some European governments support the war, their people are overwhelmingly against it.  According to Pollack, the Bush administration is at fault, because it has not presented its case convincingly.  Additionally, the administration has not been able to make Europeans comfortable with American foreign policy; the Europeans are wary of U.S. foreign policy and perceive the Bush administration as уa bunch of cowboysф intent on fighting a number of preemptive wars.

Pollack said that the U.S. is also failing at restarting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.  Despite the fact that the U.S. will not be able to resolve the crisis right now, Pollack asserted that they should be pushing the Israelis and Palestinians to resume negotiations.  He said that the administration has been unwilling to engage in the peace process, disappointing moderate Arabs, who are beginning to take responsibility for not pressuring Arafat at Taba, and who are articulating a commitment to work on reaching an agreement.

Finally, Pollack said that the U.S. is failing at the war on terror.  While he acknowledged that war with Iraq is necessary, he also noted that Saddam is several years away from building a nuclear weapon, whereas Al Quaida remains an immediate threat.  Yet the administration has chosen this place in time to preempt Hussein and is taking its focus off of Al Qaida.  Furthermore, the administration is alienating the Europeans with their push for an Iraqi war at a time when they need their cooperation in the war on terror.

The Incompletes:
The Bush administration still has not delivered a clear vision of a post-war reconstruction plan.  Pollack asserted that while the administration has done more in this area than it is being given credit for, the top level of Bushтs leadership must better outline the parameters of reconstruction.  When the time comes, the U.S. cannot be lead the rebuilding Iraq or it will be perceived as a colonial power intent on stealing Iraqтs oil.  A U.N. umbrella entity should be in charge of the operation.

Additionally, Pollack said the Bush Plan for the Middle East is not well defined.  There are two ways the administration could approach this issue:  They can take a military approach that will impose democracy on the region through force, or they can reach out to regional democratic forces and help those forces democratize from within, allowing them to transform their own society.  The latter is preferable in Pollackтs view, but we do not know which approach the administration will choose.

Shibley Telhami asked three questions about the outcome of war with Iraq:  1)  Is this war more likely to lead to more or less democracy?  2)  Will the war produce more or less militancy in the region?  3)  Will this war have an impact on Arab-Israeli peace?

Telhami asserted that even if the U.S. is swift and successful, there is little likelihood that a push toward democracy in the region will occur.  Furthermore, Telhami predicts that there will actually be more oppression in the region.  He noted that the U.S. will have to focus on protecting its ground troops in Iraq, keeping the country unified and stable, getting international cooperation, and fighting the war on terror.  Democracy will not be high on the priority list.

Telhami added that the situation will get worse in the rest of the region.  The Arab governments, which will have to cooperate with the U.S. after the war, will have to quiet their people, who are overwhelmingly against the war and who view it either as evidence of American imperialism or as a war orchestrated by Israel.  In order to prevent unrest in the Arab street, they will have to deploy security forces, further oppressing their people.

Addressing the issue of militancy in the region in the aftermath of war, Telhami said that what happened during the first Gulf war, when the war put militants in the region on the defensive, will not happen again.  In 1991, Telhami noted, radical forces in the region pinned their hopes on the prospects of Iraqi power.  This time, Telhami said, what is fueling militancy is the feeling of humiliation ц both on a regional and a global scale.  A defeat of Iraq will only increase these feelings.

Finally, Telhami said that there is no important direct relationship between U.S.-Iraq war and Arab-Israeli peace, and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is unlikely to be a priority to the Bush administration in a post-war scenario.  Therefore, any peace initiative is unlikely to succeed.  Telhami asserted that there can be no military solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.  A resolution will only come with bold leadership, he said.  Telhami added that he prays that this will come.

Russian versia