The conventional wisdom has long been that the Bush administration “disengaged” from the Middle East peace process. As the New York Times editorialized, “the administration has allowed the situation in Israel to turn into a stalemate.” Back in August, Aluf Benn, diplomatic correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, challenged this cliche. “The Bush administration, which appears indifferent, has been far more involved than any previous administrations in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” Benn wrote. Now, David Brooks reports on the fruits of Bush’s approach:
It almost makes you think that all those bemoaners and condemners don’t know what they are talking about. Nothing they have said over the past three years accounts for what is happening now. It almost makes you think that Bush understands the situation better than the lot of them. His judgments now look correct. Bush deduced that Sharon could grasp the demographic reality and lead Israel toward a two-state solution; that Arafat would never make peace, but was a retardant to peace; that Israel has a right to fight terrorism; and that Sharon would never feel safe enough to take risks unless the U.S. supported him when he fought back. Bush concluded that peace would never come as long as Palestine was an undemocratic tyranny, and that the Palestinians needed to see their intifada would never bring triumph.
If that’s disengagement, it’s not half-bad.
–Steven Menashi
The Dish 