Bush's Time Running Out?
PERHAPS it is over-optimistic to believe that George Bush's time may be running out, but it is hard to believe that recent actions - both in Iraq and about the Middle East - will be without consequence in his race for a second term.
In Iraq, recent US military actions appear to have precipitated not
a civil war, as some claim, but rather an uprising against the
occupation forces.
The former presupposes a people fighting among themselves, and
what is really happening in Iraq now is counter to that - groups
long alienated, like Shia and Sunni - are uniting in their
opposition against US military rule.
With regard the Middle East, Bush's recent pledge (or perhaps
concession would be a better word) to endorse Israeli plans to
impose a settlement of their choice on the Palestinians, might be -
as one columnist put it - the last straw to break the camel's
back.
Both in Iraq and the Middle East, US policies are exacerbating
already deteriorating circumstances.
It was only recently that Israel assassinated Sheik Ahmed
Yassin, founder and leader of Hamas.
Although he was a staunch supporter of the use of force against
Israel's military occupation of Palestinian territory, he was also
an elderly paraplegic who was widely regarded as a holy leader.
His assassination, not condemned by the Bush Administration, was
perceived as declaring war on Allah.
Bush has now followed up on Israeli actions by breaking with the
road map for the Middle East and supporting the unilateral actions
of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
The US is looking to take similar action in Iraq: attempting to
kill Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, and if carried out, this will
surely be a recipe for total conflagration there.
Already things have deteriorated to a point where even staunch
Bush supporters are beginning to have second thoughts about the
efficacy of his 'war on terror' and the death toll, both among
civilians and US military, that is rising daily in Iraq.
A New York Times editorial this week called Bush's concession to
Sharon a 'costly blow to America's credibility as an honest broker
for a Middle East peace'.
It added that by "accepting Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's terms
absent any negotiation between the parties, Mr. Bush is essentially
supporting Israel's right to impose a settlement of its choice on
Palestinians".
Calling this a 'drastic and unfortunate policy reversal', the
Times said that at his meeting with Egyptian President Hosni
Mubarak just days earlier, Bush had indicated that he was not
prepared to approve Sharon's plans to unilaterally declare that
Israel will keep its West Bank settlements on the Israeli side of
the recently constructed security barrier.
He has now done so.
And although it may be argued that Sharon would have done so
even without the US President's backing, it is certain to mean that
in the Middle East, patience is now finally running out.
Palestinian violence in the past has been targeted almost
exclusively at Israel, but it is not impossible that Bush's
reversal of the US role as 'honest broker' in the Middle East, may
precipitate similar attacks against the US or its citizens.
If anything, Bush appears to be fuelling, rather than fighting,
what he calls 'international terrorism' and this can only bode
worse for a world already reaping the whirlwind as far as US
actions in the so-called war against terror are concerned.
For decades now, both Republican and Democratic administrations
in the US have agreed that Israel's border could only be changed by
negotiated agreements between that country and the Palestinians,
and now Bush has summarily announced a new US policy that can not
only further alienate crucial Arab opinion, but much of that in the
Western world as well.
All the above would appear to indicate that surely not even
Bush's usually high opinion poll ratings in the US itself will be
unaffected by these new and dangerous developments.
Is it too much for the world to hope that these actions will
indeed spur on support for a Democratic presidency, and, hopefully
in turn, a new and more positive turn towards a more peaceful
world?
The former presupposes a people fighting among themselves, and what
is really happening in Iraq now is counter to that - groups long
alienated, like Shia and Sunni - are uniting in their opposition
against US military rule.With regard the Middle East, Bush's recent
pledge (or perhaps concession would be a better word) to endorse
Israeli plans to impose a settlement of their choice on the
Palestinians, might be - as one columnist put it - the last straw
to break the camel's back.Both in Iraq and the Middle East, US
policies are exacerbating already deteriorating circumstances.It
was only recently that Israel assassinated Sheik Ahmed Yassin,
founder and leader of Hamas.Although he was a staunch supporter of
the use of force against Israel's military occupation of
Palestinian territory, he was also an elderly paraplegic who was
widely regarded as a holy leader.His assassination, not condemned
by the Bush Administration, was perceived as declaring war on
Allah.Bush has now followed up on Israeli actions by breaking with
the road map for the Middle East and supporting the unilateral
actions of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.The US is looking to
take similar action in Iraq: attempting to kill Shia cleric Moqtada
al-Sadr, and if carried out, this will surely be a recipe for total
conflagration there.Already things have deteriorated to a point
where even staunch Bush supporters are beginning to have second
thoughts about the efficacy of his 'war on terror' and the death
toll, both among civilians and US military, that is rising daily in
Iraq.A New York Times editorial this week called Bush's concession
to Sharon a 'costly blow to America's credibility as an honest
broker for a Middle East peace'.It added that by "accepting Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon's terms absent any negotiation between the
parties, Mr. Bush is essentially supporting Israel's right to
impose a settlement of its choice on Palestinians".Calling this a
'drastic and unfortunate policy reversal', the Times said that at
his meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak just days
earlier, Bush had indicated that he was not prepared to approve
Sharon's plans to unilaterally declare that Israel will keep its
West Bank settlements on the Israeli side of the recently
constructed security barrier.He has now done so.And although it may
be argued that Sharon would have done so even without the US
President's backing, it is certain to mean that in the Middle East,
patience is now finally running out.Palestinian violence in the
past has been targeted almost exclusively at Israel, but it is not
impossible that Bush's reversal of the US role as 'honest broker'
in the Middle East, may precipitate similar attacks against the US
or its citizens.If anything, Bush appears to be fuelling, rather
than fighting, what he calls 'international terrorism' and this can
only bode worse for a world already reaping the whirlwind as far as
US actions in the so-called war against terror are concerned.For
decades now, both Republican and Democratic administrations in the
US have agreed that Israel's border could only be changed by
negotiated agreements between that country and the Palestinians,
and now Bush has summarily announced a new US policy that can not
only further alienate crucial Arab opinion, but much of that in the
Western world as well.All the above would appear to indicate that
surely not even Bush's usually high opinion poll ratings in the US
itself will be unaffected by these new and dangerous
developments.Is it too much for the world to hope that these
actions will indeed spur on support for a Democratic presidency,
and, hopefully in turn, a new and more positive turn towards a more
peaceful world?