Editorial: Peace takes two

A little more than two months ago, US President George Bush announced a radical and welcome about-turn in policy. He spoke of his Administration's intention of returning to wholehearted engagement in the Middle East, recording his support for a Palestinian state, while calling for an end to terrorism and the withdrawal of Israel from all occupied territory.

The speech delivered by the President this week could hardly have been more different. Gone were the calls for an immediate Israeli withdrawal and halt to the building of settlements. In their place was an out-and-out demand for the replacement of the Palestinian leadership as a necessary condition for a settlement.

Mr Bush did not mention Yasser Arafat by name, but his message was clear. Until the Palestinians elected leaders more congenial to the United States and to Israel, there could be no peace.

In tackling the question of the Palestinian leadership head-on, Mr Bush has said no more than is acknowledged behind the closed doors of diplomacy: it is hard to envisage a lasting peace so long as Yasser Arafat holds the reins of Palestinian power.

But what Mr Bush omitted to say is that the cause of peace is unlikely to be furthered while Ariel Sharon holds power in Israel. It takes two to make peace, and neither leader seems disposed to make the requisite concessions or show the requisite vision. This is what makes third-party intervention so urgent, and where all the inadequacies of Mr Bush's latest approach start to show.

- INDEPENDENT

Feature: Middle East

Related links