President Bush in Iraq and Israel: A Pattern of Error

The Journal Editorial Report this weekend, includes a segment with Michael Oren--a Senior Fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem. On the topic of Condoleezza Rice's shuttle diplomacy to get Israel and the PA 'back on track', Oren points out what should be obvious but is quietly brushed aside:

Well, it is only true that Arab-Israeli peacemaking has been the litmus test of the prowess of every American administration going back to Harry Truman. And, alas, there have been few successes. One of the more remarkable successes was the Egyptian-Israeli peace accord of 1979. And that negotiation worked because you had two leaders, Menachem Begin in Israel and Anwar Sadat in Egypt, who were very, very strong leaders. They had the support of their people. They were committed to the process.

And that is precisely what is missing today. You have Ehud Olmert, who is beleaguered. He's under investigation for criminal charges. He has the lowest rating of any Israeli prime minister in history, and is literally fighting for his political life, while Mahmoud Abbas is fighting for his life, period, facing a possible civil war. So these circumstances would not tend to augur well for the success of Condoleezza Rice's mission.

Olmert has been called upon repeatedly by Rice to take measures (read 'concessions') to bolster Abbas' standing among his own people and on one occasion she called upon Abbas to return the favor--and both leaders are barely treading water. It is absurd to rush through such radical changes vis-a-vis a Palestinian state in light of the political weakness in Israel on the one hand and the outright chaos in the PA on the other. One gets the inescapable impression that Rice, and apparently President Bush, are far more interested in the ends than the means--or the ultimate consequences.

The US support for Abbas is reminiscent of its support for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whom Andy McCarthy notes is

the "moderate" leader gushingly praised by Secretary of State Rice and on whom the administration is betting the ranch in Iraq."

Sound familiar?

There was a time that the US was notorious for backing despots who ruled with an iron fist. Now it backs leaders who not only have not been willing to crack down on terrorism, but are associated with it. When the New York Times reports:

“We are implementing a strategy to embolden a government that is actually part of the problem,” said an American military official in Baghdad involved in talks over the plan. “We are being played like a pawn.”

--it could just as well be describing Abbas, whose Fatah has neither rejected terror nor accepted the right of Israel--its peace partner--to exist. Meanwhile, Rice assures us that both Maliki and Abbas are moderates.

As Instapundit has pointed out: democracy is a process, not an event--and neither the elections in Iraq nor in the Palestinian territories have on their own ushered in a new era of real democracy. There was a time that elections in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Palestinian territories, and limited municipal elections in Saudi Arabia--combined with Mubarak's promise to allow multiparty elections, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon and the Orange Revolution in Ukraine seemed to be part of a new wave of democracy and a source of great optimism.

After a large dose of reality, the US is now finally getting back to the basics in Iraq--but in Israel the White House continues to blindly pursue a plan that defies common sense.

Technorati Tag: Olmert and Abbas and Maliki.