There is no doubt about the intentions of the US President George W. Bush which he detailed last Monday in his "Remarks on the Middle East," the low-keyed White House title of his welcome suggestion for an international peace conference in the autumn.
On the other hand, cynics might be intrigued to point out the well-known saying that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
One wonders why it took the American president five years to follow up on his historic statement of June 2002 in which he proudly recalled that "I became the first American President to call for the creation of a Palestinian state" because of his belief that "Palestinians should not have to live in poverty and occupation".
Oblivious
Yet, regrettably, Bush seemed oblivious of the heart-felt expectations of Palestinians, who have been living under Israeli occupation for more than 40 years in one-fifth of their original homeland despite his recognition that strife-torn Iraq, America's overwhelming concern at present, "is not the only pivotal matter in the Middle East".
The marginalising of Hamas - the powerful Islamist Resistance Movement after its ouster of the secularist Fatah - by the United States, Israel and the European Union could derail any chances for a successful peace conference.
The Americans for Peace Now stressed in a statement that the Bush administration's "policy of freezing out Palestinian leaders and political players it does not like, in the naive hope that this will disempower (sic) or transform them into Western-style democrats has failed".
It underlined that the "vital interests" of both the US and Israel "demand sober, pragmatic policies, not moralising and sloganeering".
In Bush's opinion this is "a moment of clarity for all Palestinians" which ought to be followed by "a moment of choice", but he, too, was neither clear nor even-handed.
The feeling here is that this may have been a rushed presidential statement that the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has committed herself to help in settling this decades-old conflict, had a hand in, and other aides welcomed the opportunity that it would deflect the country's preoccupation in the verbal war over the administration's failed policies in Iraq.
Responsibility
The focus was primarily on what is expected from the Palestinians and, as usual, much less Israel's responsibility despite the fact that it is Israel's harsh policies and military actions that have contributed to the deplorable situation in the two Palestinian areas.
Even Israel's nominal gestures - the promised release of 250 Palestinian prisoners while nearly 10,000 Palestinians remain in Israeli jails - in the hope of shoring up the standing of the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas - were not dismissed in the presidential remarks as laughable.
Moreover, Bush promised to provide the Fatah government more than $190 million in US assistance and another $80 million to strengthen its security services. This pittance is obviously no match to what Israel has received since its establishment.
Chris Hedges, a former New York Times correspondent, wrote recently, "Israel, without the United States, would probably not exist."
Hamas was delivered "a firm message" that it "must accept the legitimate Palestinian government" but it must have skipped Bush's mind that it was Hamas that has won the last parliamentary election.
Bush told Hamas that it must recognise Israel's right to exist, forgetting that Hamas as well as all the Arab countries have subscribed to the Arab Peace Initiative which included acceptance of Israel should a final settlement is reached.
Bush also declared that "Arab nations should also take an active part in promoting peace negotiations," but he, conveniently overlooked Israel's refusal last week to receive, for the first time, an Arab delegation, headed by the foreign ministers of Jordan and Egypt, to pursue peace talks on behalf of the 22-member Arab League.
Israeli obligations were dealt cursorily. "(The Israelis) must guarantee that a Palestinian state is viable and contiguous" and the projected negotiations "must lead to a territorial settlement, with mutually agreed borders reflecting previous lines and current realities, and mutually agreed adjustments".
Overlooked were all UN resolutions, which the US had supported, that called for total Israeli withdrawal. At one point, he said, "the Israelis should find other practical ways to reduce their footprint without reducing their security" - a mind-boggling suggestion.
If nothing else, it is time for the US, and certainly Israel, to speak more clearly and straightforwardly about their vision for the Middle East and stop skirting the issues.
George Hishmeh is a Washington-based columnist. He can be contacted at ghishmeh@gulfnews.com
