Colin Powell: a shift in US Mideast policy?

Ahmed Bouzid

The very first question posed to Colin Powell after George W. Bush announced him as his nominee for the post of Secretary of State concerned the Middle East. In answering it, Colin Powell seemed to be delivering the usual pre-packaged, sanitized response, but if one listened carefully, one could detect an undertone that at least slightly differed from the one that Albright, Clinton, or Gore had been using with remarkable consistency for the past eight years. Any of those three would have answered it by saying, first, that all violence must cease, second, that both sides must return to the negotiating table, and third, that the United States remains firmly committed first and foremost to Israel's security. Colin Powell's answer shifted things around slightly, but not insignificantly: first, he stated the obligatory "the United States is a good friend of Israel", delivering it in a surprisingly perfunctory tone, but then he added : "but the Palestinians also have concerns that need to be listened to and addressed." Unremarkable as his statement may sound, anyone who had been following the language, emphases and vocabulary the Clinton administration had been using when talking about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict would not have failed to pick up the subtle nuance.

Since then, Colin Powell has clearly been sending messages that things are not as they used to be. Indeed, only a few hours after seven Israeli soldiers and an Israeli civilian were killed on February 14 by a Palestinian bus driver, Colin Powell reiterated that the most important step towards bringing the vicious cycle of bloodshed and violence to an end is to address the severe economic hardship that Palestinians have been enduring for decades. Had Albright, Clinton, or Gore been at the microphone, we would no doubt have instead heard the usual tiresome screed about the evils of terrorism, the need to ensure the security of Israel, and an urgent call for Arafat to bring the bloodshed to an end. That an American Secretary of State would spend the better part of his answer to a question regarding the killing of eight Israelis by talking about Palestinian suffering is something to take note of, to say the least.

Does this mean that we are witnessing a shift in America's position? Not necessarily. Shifts in policy do not occur overnight. But what is certain is that all the main elements are now present for a potential important change in American policy regarding the Middle East conflict.

First, the election of Ariel Sharon to the premiership has done away with the false premise that Israel is committed to a peace process that will quickly bring finality to the conflict and relief for the Palestinians. What Ariel Sharon means when he says he is willing to engage the Palestinians in peace talks, is simply that he is willing to engage them in a series of interim agreements that will take years, if not decades, to implement. Of course, what Ariel Sharon is proposing is nothing more than a return to the status quo ante -- i.e., to a policy of quiet creeping annexation of Palestinian lands, of confiscation of Palestinian property -- and most importantly, of building settlements, and more settlements. That is why the ending of violence is an essential pre-requisite to any peace talks as far as Mr. Sharon and his government are concerned: as long as there is violence in the colonies, the eyes of the world will remain on Israel's behavior and actions. And that is precisely why the Palestinians have refused to abandon their struggle.

Second, the economy is not ready for an oil crisis. Indeed, the two longest recessions America endured since 1929 were the 16 month contractions from November 1973 to March 1975 and from July 1981 to November 1982. Both were largely ignited by an oil crisis on the world market. Back in 1990, George Bush Senior mobilized the US armada to protect American oil interests in the Gulf region. Now, George W. Bush faces a much more intractable problem that no smart bomb can take out: the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The necessity of heading off another oil crisis must be high on Colin Powell's agenda as he tackles the Middle East conflict in the months and years to come.

And third, and most importantly: this intifada, make no mistake about it, is a war for independence. And like all true wars of independence, it is being waged by the people, with their leadership doing all they can to catch up with them, lest they lose control. Putting down a guerilla insurgency is tough enough. Putting down the uprising of a whole people is impossible.

Facing an inflexible Ariel Sharon, a shaky economy, and a Palestinian people determined to take matters into their own hands and push forward for their own independence, the current US administration confronts a beast altogether different from the one Bill Clinton and his team faced only a year ago. Back then, the so-called "dovish" Barak stood as the epitome of a seemingly benign Israel striving hard to achieve peace, the US economy roared, while the Palestinians as usual patiently and quietly waited for their leadership to deliver on their promises. That world is long gone now. What remains is naked, stark reality: a dispossessed people committed to struggling for their freedom and facing brutal occupation and deadly suppression.

Have George W. Bush and Colin Powell grasped this qualitative shift and will they act accordingly? Early indications are that they may have. But only the coming weeks and months will reveal more clearly if America will finally begin to nudge away from its usual mindless catering to Israeli ambitions and towards a policy based on rationality and long-term self-interest.