Accueil > Revue de presse
English version
Revue de presse
Pascal Boniface


Israel-Palestine peace opportunity ignored
par Pascal BONIFACE (Gulf News, 1er novembre 2008)



Zbigniew Bzrezinski and Brent Slow Scowcroft, the two former security advisers to the Presidents Carter and Bush senior, were key actors in the foreign policy decision-making process. As respected analysts, both in the United States and abroad, they were also the kind of experts who could have a comprehensive view on strategic issues.

While the electoral campaign ongoing, a fascinating debate took place over the foreign policy priorities that will face the next president and the two observers outlined the main points.

In a realist approach to international relations, Zbigniew Bzrezinski and Brent Slow Scowcroft consider American domestic interests first and refute an ideological or moralist way of thinking. According to them, the foreign policy of George W. Bush has both undermined America's moral influence and damaged its reputation and power in the world.

First, they pointed out the challenges inherited from the Bush administration's failures in foreign policy. It is the first time, says Bzrezinski, that the whole of humanity is politically active. Actually, the centre of gravity of world power has shifted from the Atlantic region to Asia. We are now facing world challenges such as global warming and widespread poverty. All of this makes very clear that the war against terrorism is not the main ideological challenge of the 21st century, as George W. Bush believes.

On the contrary, Democrats say that Osama Bin Laden benefited the most from the US reaction to the September 11 attacks, just as the Bush administration's war on Iraq helped terrorism spread.

Second, as we know that the continuation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict fuels terrorism, the two analysts agree that establishing peace and security in this region should be the top priority for the next president of the US.

Should we therefore regret Bill Clinton's election in 1992? Actually, the Clinton years were golden years for America, if we compare them with the George W. Bush's failures as president for eight years.

Does that mean that George Bush would have done better if he were reelected in 1992? Yes, says Brent Scowcroft. His priority might have been the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Arab emotions

After invading Kuwait, Saddam Hussain played on Arab emotions in order to mobilise them. He said that Iraq would finally withdraw from Kuwait only if Israel did the same from Palestine. But George Bush was quite serious when he said that he would deal with the Palestine question only once he would settle the Kuwait war. As a result he received supports from nearly all Arab countries.

Besides he had already committed himself to the Conference of Madrid and had opposed Itzhak Shamir on Israeli colonies issue. Israeli officials paid attention to his recommendations. In fact all they cared about was not being cut off from the US. At that time Washington proved that backing Israeli government policy was not the only option.

In the event that George Bush were successfully reelected while benefiting from the positive outcomes of the post Cold War (we should say that for Scrowcroft the end of the Cold War began with the Soviet decision to cooperate with the US against Iraq in 1990), there is no doubt that he could advance peace prospects between Israelis and Palestinians. American voters and history decided differently.

Brzezinski agrees with his Republican alter ego: the US have missed an opportunity after accomplishing their mission against Iraq. An Israeli-Palestinian agreement backed by the US would have prevented both anti American feelings from intensifying in the Middle East and Bin Laden from taking advantage in this region.

Contact presse
Gwenaëlle SAUZET
Responsable de la communication
carcanague@iris-france.org
01 53 27 60 87