President George Bush will complete his second term in the White House in one year and two weeks, at his successor?s inauguration. Bush?s final year in office is already under the shadow in the battle over succession. Because of this, the U.S. media is expected to focus during his visit to the region next week on the first formal stages of the nominating process of the two main parties in Iowa and in New Hampshire, rather than on Bush?s meetings with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
But precisely because the new administration will need considerable time to make appointments and formulate its policies, in a manner that is liable to make 2009 a wasted year, Bush must frame one final, concerted effort to close the gaps between the Israeli and Palestinian positions.
When it cames to the moderate positions of both peoples, these gaps have never been narrower and more bridgeable. To the foundation of the programs discussed at the end of the term of Bush?s predecessor, Bill Clinton, at the Camp David summit between then-prime minister Ehud Barak and then-Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat, and the talks that Clinton led later on and at Taba, Bush added America?s commitment to an independent Palestinian state next to Israel, while implying support for the annexation of the large settlement blocs close to the Green Line as part of a territorial exchange agreement.
Formulas are needed for marking the borders between the two states, for defining the precise status of Jerusalem which will be divided between both of them, and for solving the issues of the Palestinian refugees and the Israeli settlers. These are components of the arrangement, but no less important is the need to make it clear that the concessions by both sides will eventually bring about the end of the conflict and give both parties security. Otherwise, the confrontation will break out once again.
The Palestinians, for their part, must choose between a leadership that is willing to compromise and an extremist element that aspires to total religious control - even if it is delayed for tactical reasons - over the entire territory between the sea and the Jordan River. If the Palestinians let Hamas, which is also guided by its ties to Iran, lead them into perpetual war, Israel will not be able to impose peace over them.
Recognition of this fact does not exempt Israel from its obligation to work toward an agreement, without waiting for the fall of the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip and the unification of the two parts of Palestine under a single, moderate leadership. The present government represents a large, realistic and willing-to-compromise majority of the Israeli public. Bush is likely to hear other voices - ones which purport to know better than Israel itself what is best for the state - from within the Jewish community in the U.S. and from political elements, particularly in Congress, that are influenced by it. His brief stay in Israel is an opportunity to persuade him, and indirectly also those who aspire to succeed him, that in the eyes of the Israelis who live here, the friendships of the president and of American legislators is not measured in terms of tougher stances than those of the government in Jerusalem.
At Annapolis, both parties undertook to act continuously in order to get closer to the precious goal by the end of 2008. Since that summit, both Jerusalem and Ramallah have been affected by weakening positions, coupled with evasion and procrastination. Bush?s mission during his upcoming visit will be to convince his hosts of his determination to see his vision - which is also their vision - realized.