Robert Dreyfuss is the author of Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam (Henry Holt/Metropolitan Books, 2005). Dreyfuss is a freelance writer based in Alexandria, Va., who specializes in politics and national security issues. He is a contributing editor at The Nation, a contributing writer at Mother Jones, a senior correspondent for The American Prospect, and a frequent contributor to Rolling Stone.He can be reached through his website: www.robertdreyfuss.com
Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert calls it “convergence” or “realignment.” But whatever it’s called, Olmert’s new plan to impose unilateral final borders for the state of Israel by annexing chunks of the Israeli-occupied West Bank is inflammatory and dangerous. By 2010, Israel would complete the 415-mile-long barrier of concrete, barbed wire, and electric fencing that is snaking through the occupied territory. In the process, it apparently intends to formally annex areas of Jewish settlements, especially around the contested city of Jerusalem, retain most or all of the Jordan Valley, and permanently claim assorted other population centers in the area seized by Israeli forces in 1967.
Perhaps because its very unilateralism appeals to the president, or perhaps simply because Olmert has presented it as a daring assault against the forces of terrorism, the Olmert plan carries a strong appeal for President George W. Bush. Last week, during a triumphal visit to Washington, Olmert received support for his plan from the White House and utter adulation on Capitol Hill.
Western Europe, Russia, and the United Nations (the other three parties who, along with the United States, comprise the Quartet that is supposed to guide the Middle East peace process) are horrified about Olmert’s ideas. They rightly see them as the end of the “Road Map” for a Middle East peace settlement—one that is supposed to end in the creation of a viable Palestinian state. What Olmert is proposing is a one-sided peace by fiat, imposed by Israel through force of arms, with American backing. Former Palestinian security chief Mohammed Dahlan says flatly, “Olmert's plan is the most dangerous plan proposed in 10 years.”
To be sure, the ever-present split between realists and neoconservatives inside the Bush administration keeps them divided over Olmert’s plan, too. The striped-pants set at the State Department, who are institutionally committed to the Road Map and who recognize that Olmert’s ideas would condemn the region to another generation of strife, oppose what Olmert brought to Washington. But according to U.S. intelligence insiders, hard-liners in Vice President Cheney’s office—particularly John Hannah, the vice president’s national security adviser, and David Wurmser, the vice president’s Middle East adviser, both U.S. partisans of the Israeli far right that produced Ariel Sharon, Bibi Netanyahu, and Olmert—are strongly backing Olmert’s ideas. And last week they won a big battle. President Bush, referring to Olmert’s unilateral plan, called it “bold.” Bush added: “The prime minister's ideas could be an important step toward the peace we both support.”
Far down in an article in The New York Times, the battle over the Olmert plan inside the Bush administration was presented as a struggle over words:
Negotiations took place over the last week or so on how Mr. Bush would characterize Mr. Olmert's proposal for withdrawal, with the Americans eager not to be seen to support what the Palestinians would call an Israeli land grab of occupied territory. Having first suggested that Mr. Olmert's ideas were ‘interesting,’ the negotiators moved to ‘constructive’ and finally to ‘bold,’ which pleased the Israelis.
Needless the say, the Times doesn’t mention whether “reckless” was one of the adjectives batted around.
On the surface, the United States is ostensibly sticking with the old Road Map, making a great show of continuing to press the Israeli government to pursue talks with Abbas, who in turn is struggling to assert his power against the new Palestinian government led by Hamas. But Olmert, eager to seize on the rise of Hamas to justify abandoning the peace talks that his party has opposed for decades, misses no opportunity to disparage Abbas. “He is powerless,” says Olmert. “He is helpless.”
The United States is aiding Olmert immensely by adopting radical measures to isolate and embargo Hamas with heavy political and economic sanctions. And inside the Bush administration, neoconservatives such as Hannah and Wurmser in Cheney’s office and Elliot Abrams of the National Security Council insist that Abbas can no longer be a viable partner in a peace process. So, it seems, they’ve persuaded the administration to support Olmert’s unilateralism. It’s all moving quickly. According to Olmert, Israel will abandon even the hope of peace talks by the end of 2006 and then proceed with “convergence.” Haaretz, a leading Israeli daily, says that last week Bush and Olmert agreed on a plan to begin implementing the plan. In July, Haaretz says, “Israel and the United States will begin covert talks on the convergence plan.” The U.S. side will be led by Abrams.
Bush’s support for Olmert’s unilateralism is of a piece with the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the blustery U.S. war talk about Iran and all the rest. It blatantly disregards the U.N. and international law, it flouts alliances and it deliberately angers rivals like Russia and China. Taking it even further, Bush has repeatedly stated that the United States armed forces are committed to defending Israel against any and all attacks. “I told the prime minister what I've stated publicly before: Israel is a close friend and ally of the United States,” said Bush last week. “And in the event of any attack on Israel, the United States will come to Israel's aid.”
But don’t expect to hear a lot of criticism about the new Bush-Olmert axis from other parts of the U.S. political spectrum. Almost no one is asking exactly what Bush means when he says that the United States will “come to Israel’s aid.” Under what conditions? No defense treaty links the two countries, and Israel is not part of any alliances. Exactly what is President Bush committing the United States to do?
If you’re wondering whether Congress might get involved in all this, don’t worry. They won’t. Last week Olmert spoke to a joint session of Congress during his U.S. visit, and the transcript shows that he was interrupted no less than 39 times by applause. According to one report, he received fully 16 standing ovations. Olmert praised the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act, rammed through Congress by a bi-partisan coalition with only 37 nay votes earlier this month. That’s the measure that not only condemns Hamas, but would impose draconian sanctions on the Palestinians and even bar Abbas from visiting the United States. Olmert quoted the Bible (2 Samuel) to justify Israel’s policies, pitching that appeal to the Christian-Zionist right that sees Israel as the harbinger of Jesus Christ’s Second Coming. Claiming that the Palestinians apparently don’t want to talk peace, Israel will impose its own peace on them, he said. “Israel will seek other alternatives to promote our future and the prospects of hope in the Middle East,” warned Olmert.
If implemented, Olmert’s “convergence” plan will realize the Israeli right’s fondest wish: the formal establishment of a Greater Israel and the neutering of Palestinian statehood. By denying the Palestinians any part of Jerusalem, by creating a patchwork of Bantustans in Gaza and the West Bank, by preempting any Palestinian claim to their refugees’ “right of return,” Israel will plant the seeds for future conflicts, as no Palestinians will accept such a solution.
