Palestine-Mandate

It has looked as though POTUS (the President of the United States, who happens to be George W. Bush at the moment) will be going to the Muqata’a in Ramallah, and to the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem (which Condi found a moving experience). Jericho had reportedly also been on the schedule, but this is not certain.

Then, one of the Israeli papers seems to suggest Saturday evening that Bush will be having all his meetings in the King David Hotel in West Jerusalem (for security reasons?) — but this could just be the not-unusual Israeli ignoring of anything Palestinian to the extent possible.  (Other reports suggest that the IDF recent operations in Gaza and in Nablus could affect the Bush itinerary — though of course he is not going to Gaza at the moment, unfortunately…)

POTUS will be going to Yad Vashem next Friday — an obligatory stop, paying homage to the millions of Jewish victims of the Holocaust in World War II, an event which underpinned the urgency of the establishment of the State of Israel. But, but, as the Palestinians will say, he will not make stop at Deir Yassin (the sight of a 1948 massacre of Palestinian civilians), which is right nearby — thus failing to acknowledge the Palestinian “narrative”. (To be fair, virtually no heads of state visiting Israel have ever done such a thing, either).

Kim asked me yesterday in an email, after I complained that I feared Bush would not see even half of the story here, “If you were one of his handlers, what would you schedule him to do?”

OK, I’ll bite. Just off the top of my head, a non-exhaustive list …

If I could make his program, I’d take on a tour of The Wall — without missing the huge Qalandia checkpoint between Jerusalem and Ramallah (he’ll be going by another way if he goes to Ramallah — a DCO checkpoint for international organizations which is usually not too bad. I’d let him go and just hang out at a couple of checkpoints for a while — like the Israeli ladies from Machsom (Checkpoint) Watch. I’d take him to a refugee camp or two. I’d take him to Nablus, where the IDF has just been operating non-stop for three days, destroying a new and vaunted program approved by Gen. Dayton for PA Security deployment there (except at night, when the IDF normally ruled, to PA chagrin). I’d take him to downtown Hebron, where the settlers throw rocks at old women and Palestinian children have to be escorted to school by internationals. I’d drive him through East Jerusalem, and let him see the garbage piling up. I’d also take him on an East Jerusalem tour run by Ir Amim to explain the settlements intertwined all around and between Palestinian almost everywhere. I’d take him to the sites of a couple of house demolitions. I’d take him to the area around Bethlehem, where settlements are growing faster than mushrooms. I’d take him to Ofer prison camp, just outside Jerusalem, where people arrested in the West Bank are usually taken — many are processed and taken elsewhere, inside Israel — but many still remain in Ofer. Just last week, a 13-year-old was released from there after some two month’s detention. There are between 150-200 children detained at any point in time. I’d even take him to Gaza — and if not, then at least to Erez crossing into Gaza, which has a zone like a scene in Star Wars between the Israeli military and where the Gazans are allowed to come. It’s a pity he wouldn’t probably be allowed to visit the sites of targetted assassinations inside Gaza. I’d take him to the Dead Sea, then up the Jordan valley — now totally Israeli controlled — to the Sea of Galilee. I’d let him see the baptismal spot on the Jordan River where Christians immerse themselves in robes made of white sheets — just above, literally, by meters, a tourist complex where the toilets open directly into the river…

Gideon Levy has written passionately in Haaretz today about U.S. President George Bush’s imminent visit:

“George Bush is coming to Israel this week. He will take pleasure in his visit … There are also few other countries where the lame duck from Washington would not be greeted with mass demonstrations; instead, Israel is making great efforts to welcome him graciously. The man who has wreaked such ruin upon the world, upon his country, and upon us is such a welcome guest only in Israel … He led the U.S., and the free world in its wake, into two brutal and completely futile wars of conquest, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. He sowed mass killing in these two wretched countries under the false pretext of a battle against global terror. But the world after these two wars is not a better world or a safer one … In Western Europe, in South America, in Asia, in all parts of the Arab and Muslim world and in parts of Africa, the sole global superpower has come to be viewed as a hostile, arrogant and ostracized entity. This is not good for America and it is not good for the world. Closer to home, it is worth remembering the damage Bush has caused to the Middle East. His seven years in power have been wasted years, barren and dangerous. Never has there been a president who gave Israel such an automatic carte blanche and even encouraged it to take violent action, to deepen and entrench the occupation. This is not friendship with Israel. This is not concern for its future. A president who did not even try to pressure Israel to end the occupation is a president who is hostile to it, indifferent to its future and fate. A president who endorsed every abomination – from the expansion of settlements to the failure to honor commitments and signed agreements, including those with U.S. such as the passages agreement and the freeze on settlement construction – is not a president who seeks the best for Israel or aspires to peace … This is all we got from Bush: a more entrenched and brutal occupation with the open, or tacit, encouragement of the U.S.; a green light for another superfluous war in Lebanon; a Hamas government in Gaza, which the U.S., and consequently the rest of the world, is boycotting – a measure that has only led to the starvation of Gaza, while failing to weaken Hamas; and U.S. authorization for “the settlement blocs.” The Middle East has only moved further away from peace during Bush’s tenure. His belated and feeble attempts to change this fact have not produced anything. Until a determined president is inaugurated in Washington who will engage in a serious effort to bring an end to the occupation, no peace will prevail here. Bush could have done this, but he abused his office” … This article by Gideon Levy on Bush’s impending visit is here.

The U.S. State Department spokesman added a few details on Bush’s upcoming visit to Israel and the West Bank in a briefing on Friday 4 January — revealing (1) Gen Jim Jones, the supposed Annapolis Arbiter is probably not coming (in fact, he is nowhere to be seen, raising questions about his role and what’s happening, and (2) Condi is just coming along for the ride:

“QUESTION: On the Middle East, I have a very technical question which you may refer me to the White House on. Do you know if General Jones is going or is there or what his — is he going with the President or –

MR. MCCORMACK: Let me check for you, Matt. Off the top of my head, I don’t think he is, but let me check for you and see if he’ll be in country.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Who from the State Department is going with the President besides the Secretary?

MR. MCCORMACK: David Welch will be and I’m not sure who else from the Near East Bureau, but David Welch is the principal person other than the Secretary who will be traveling.

Yeah, Charlie.

QUESTION: Are there discussions about extending the trip to Jordan with Secretary Rice and President Bush?

MR. MCCORMACK: I hadn’t heard that, Charlie. The White House folks will be in charge of the itinerary. She’s part of the traveling party this time around”…

This transcript from the U.S. State Department was received by email.

Daniel Levy has just written a piece which is on his blog, and which was placed in other media as well (including Haaretz), in which he said that: “The finishing touches are being applied to preparations for next week’s presidential visit. After more than 2,500 days in the White House, George W. Bush will grace the Holy Land with his presence, and Ehud Olmert can notch up an achievement denied to his predecessor, Ariel Sharon – of hosting an American president. The script for such an occasion almost writes itself. The president will visit all the usual Israeli and Jewish sites of history, heartbreak and heroism, identifying with our suffering and marveling at our achievements. In pledging allegiance to the peace process, Olmert and Bush will leave no vow of sincerity unspoken. Each country’s media will speculate on motivations – Olmert may be hoping for a protective, pre-Winograd-report presidential blanket; Bush may want to leave behind a peace legacy. Everybody goes home happy, but that’s it. Except, presidents don’t visit every day, and today the dilemmas facing both nations as they look around the region seem more basic, weighty and troubling. The story of Olmert’s political journey and his frequent statements about Israel’s future suggest that he is not in office to tread water; he has a purpose. The one part of the visit that is probably not finalized – what Olmert intends to tell Bush in private – provides Israel’s leader with an opportunity to develop the kind of substantive agenda with which he has previously flirted. It would require a little hubris, but next week Olmert could help shape Middle East policy for Bush’s last year. And let’s face it, for an Israeli leader to display some chutzpah would hardly be breaking new ground…”

Then, Daniel offers a series of helpful suggestions, two of which include these points:

“If this leads to Fatah and Hamas exploring new understandings for Palestinian power-sharing, especially if brokered by the Egyptians or Saudis, then the best U.S.-Israeli response might be to test the results on the ground. In retrospect, actively undermining the previous Palestinian unity government was not smart …” and

“Israel’s talks with the Mahmoud Abbas-led Palestinian team will be turbulent, certainly when it comes to the daily issues and roadmap commitments, on which 100 percent delivery by either side is unrealistic. As discussed at Annapolis, an Israeli-Palestinian framework agreement on permanent status issues is possible during the term of this U.S. administration. Privately, American involvement toward this end would be welcome”…

This piece by Daniel Levy can be seen on his blog — or in Haaretz here.

The U.S. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley gave a press briefing at the White House on Thursday 3 January on the upcoming POTUS [President of the United States] trip to the Middle East:

“On Wednesday afternoon the President arrives in Tel Aviv — that would be on Wednesday, January 9.

On Wednesday and Thursday, January 9 and 10, while in Israel and the West Bank, the President will have meetings with Israeli President Peres and Prime Minister Olmert, and separately with Palestinian President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad.

On Friday, January 11, the President will meet with Quartet representative Tony Blair to get an update on efforts to help build the institutions of a Palestinian state and enhance the Palestinian capacity to self-govern. The President will also lay a wreath at the Holocaust memorial Yad Vashem (before traveling to Kuwait) …

On Wednesday, January 16th, President Bush will travel to Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, where he will meet with President Mubarak. And the President will depart Sharm el-Sheikh on Wednesday January 16 in the afternoon en route to Andrews Air Force Base…”

Asked if it wasn’t a bit late for Bush to be travelling to the region, this being the eighth year of his administration, Hadley replied:
“I would say to you the President has been working fairly consistently over seven years to put in place the building blocks of what now offers an opportunity for peace. And he has seized that opportunity — that’s what Annapolis was all about … [T]his trip is an opportunity for him to show his own personal commitment by going to the region and hearing from the parties directly, and encourage them to seize the opportunity that is before them … What — as the President has talked about — what you see in the Middle East right now is a struggle between extremists and those who have a more hopeful vision for the future of the Middle East. And the extremists have made clear that they view democracy and those people who try to build it as enemy number one. And you see it in the shelling that you see coming from Gaza into Israel, as an effort to undermine this process that got started in Annapolis. There are also some additional tracks. One of the things we’ve agreed to do is to monitor the progress of implementation of the road map. And implementation of the road map needs to go in parallel with negotiations. So the issue of settlements, that is a road map issue, and it is something that needs to be addressed in that context. Increasing the capability of Palestinian security forces is something that is part of the building of Palestinian institutions and the carrying out their commitment in the road map to provide greater security. So what I would say to you is — and I think one of the President’s messages are going to be — these issues that are important — like settlements, like the violence — need to be addressed, can be addressed in those discussions about the road map. But at the same time, President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert need to begin to sit down and deal with the hard issues that need to be negotiated for the establishment of a Palestinian peace. That’s one of the reasons the President is going on this trip.”

However, Hadley said, in response to questions from journalists, that there is not a trilateral meeting (Bush-Olmert-Abbas) on the schedule yet — “and at this point I think it’s probably going to be a series of bilateral meetings”.

A little bit later, Hadley confirmed that the scenario was still in a bit of flux:
“Q Can you describe for us a little bit about the time he will spend on the West Bank? Obviously there is no Palestinian state to visit — how you chose where he’s going to go, who he will see beyond President Abbas and the Prime Minister, what that West Bank time will be like?
MR. HADLEY: I’ll try to — I will tell you, partly because of the holidays, this — we’re still nailing down the specifics of this trip. He’s going to Ramallah because that really is the Palestinian capital at this point in time. That is where their government meets. And he will go to the center of the Palestinian — where the government meets in the Muqata. The President thinks that’s an appropriate thing to do, an appropriate setting. We are obviously going to go to Jerusalem and meet with the Israeli government. We are looking now at whether there are other stops that he may undertake, the President may undertake while he is in the region, and when those get nailed down, we’ll release them to you. But the agenda and the itinerary is a little bit in flux. Obviously the main focus is going to be with President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad”.

Hadley also added: “We’re working on finalizing an agenda that will have him opportunities to talk to business people, to students, and to others in the region. But I think the main thing that the President can bring is a message of hope for the region, a commitment to finding a way towards supporting those who support freedom and democracy and justice in the region. We think that is what most of the people in the region want: a normal life in which they can take more responsibility for themselves — that is going to be the President’s message — and also the things he’s willing to do and the policies he’s pursuing to do that: support of the government in Iraq, supporting of the Siniora government in Lebanon, willingness to support actively the Israeli-Palestinian process”…

Pressed by the press, Hadley went on: “As I said, there are really three tracks now going forward. One is the negotiation track, the implementation of the road map, concrete steps by Israelis and Palestinians to advance addressing issues that are critical for building confidence among Israelis and Palestinians, which we think will contribute to the success of the negotiation. And also, in parallel with those two tracks, building the institutions of a Palestinian state in parallel with discussing what those borders will be. We think all three need to proceed in a mutually reinforcing way, and that’s the approach that we’re taking.
Q If I can follow up there?
MR. HADLEY: Yes, sir.
Q The Saudi Foreign Minister said in advance of Annapolis, when he was here in town, that Hamas — there would have to be a rapprochement between Hamas and Fatah before a final peace deal was necessary. So with regards to, say, political institutions on the Palestinian side, do you believe that Hamas and Fatah have to have a rapprochement before peace with Israel is possible?
MR. HADLEY: We believe that President Abbas has the authority to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinian people under his PLO mandate. We hope that those negotiations will be successful in terms of creating the structure for a Palestinian state, and, as the President has said many times, we hope then, at that point, the people of Gaza will have an opportunity to choose — do they want to be part of a Palestinian state along the lines that will be negotiated between President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert or do they want to continue the situation in which they now exist, which is a desperate situation for the people, the Palestinians living in Gaza. And the President is confident, as we’ve seen historically every time people have a real opportunity to vote for freedom and the ability to take control of their own futures, they vote that way every time”.

On the issue of Israeli settlements — after Bush indicated he was not happy about continued “unauthorized” activities — Hadley said: “As you know, we have talked privately and publicly to Israel about settlements. It was one of the things that was talked about before, during and after the Annapolis meeting. It is an obligation in the road map to freeze further settlement activity. I think it’s interesting that Prime Minister Olmert, in his comments this week, addressed this issue of settlements in terms of how — that there would be no additional confiscations, no new settlements, and no confiscation of land, that sort of thing — no expansion of settlements”.