Gaza success is crucial to U.S. foreign policy

WASHINGTON – Though the withdrawal of settlers from Gaza poses a test of Israeli resolve and Palestinian restraint, it also presents a risk and an opportunity to the Bush administration, eagerly seeking a success in its much-criticized Middle East policy.

If Gaza establishes itself as even moderately stable and functional, it could help validate President Bush’s approach and set the stage for a greater U.S. push for peace. But if it devolves into a dysfunctional terrorist breeding ground, it could greatly complicate U.S. efforts in the Middle East and further damage American credibility in the Arab world.

“Anything that comes out of this which is chaotic, or which results in another intifada, or a breakdown in a serious effort toward Palestinian independence in the Gaza inevitably will be seen as an American defeat as well as an Israeli action – certainly in Arab parts of the world,” said Samuel Lewis, longtime U.S. ambassador to Israel under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. “It would imply that any attempt to start a two-state solution, in the near future at least, is seriously doomed.”

Bush from the outset has taken a relatively hands-off approach in the Middle East, partly as a reaction to the deep involvement of former President Bill Clinton, who some believe became too enmeshed in the region’s messy complexities.

At the same time, Bush has assured allies such as British Prime Minister Tony Blair that he is as interested in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as he was in invading Iraq. But many in the Arab world believe Bush has been overly solicitous of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Even marginal success in Gaza would go a long way toward answering those criticisms. A functioning Gaza would be a rare symbol of progress in the region instead of another hotspot requiring American attention at a time the United States is urgently trying to wind down a war and combat terrorism elsewhere in the Middle East.

“I can understand why people think this decision is one that will create a vacuum into which terrorism will flow,” Bush said in a recent interview with Israeli television. “I happen to disagree. I think this will create an opportunity for democracy to emerge.”

Israel, analysts say, bears the burden of not only fulfilling its promise of withdrawing from Gaza, but also of following through on withdrawals in parts of the West Bank and controlling the expansion of existing settlements. The Israelis also are responsible, some say, for giving the Palestinians breathing room to create a viable economy and government.

And the Palestinian Authority bears the burden of preventing militant groups such as Hamas from disrupting the pullout, while swiftly establishing order and the rule of law in an area suddenly open to land grabs and profiteering.

The United States, Britain and other industrial nations have pledged billions of dollars to support the Palestinian Authority’s development of democratic institutions The United States also is examining a new aid package for relocation of displaced Israeli settlers in the Galilee and Negev.

But as the region’s pre-eminent outside power with unparalleled sway over Israel, and as an enormous donor to Middle Eastern governments, the United States finds its credibility very much at stake.

America’s allies will watch “how successful the immediate aftermath is for the Palestinian Authority to get control of the Gaza Strip, keep some kind of rein on Hamas and begin to strengthen,” Lewis said. “If that goes well, it will be a very encouraging sign for those friends of ours in the region who want us to be successful peacemakers, and it will encourage our allies like the Brits and French and others to play active roles in the next phase.”

Despite the stakes, Bush has not embraced the peacemaker’s role eagerly adopted by previous presidents, including Clinton, Carter and to a lesser extent George H.W. Bush.

“This goes to a much broader issue which predated the Gaza issue – does this administration believe that the pursuit of Israeli-Palestinian peace, or even the management of it, is one of their priorities? The answer to date is no,” said Aaron David Miller, who has advised six secretaries of state on Middle Eastern affairs and served then-Secretary of State Colin Powell until January 2003.

Still, Dennis Ross, former envoy to the Middle East under Clinton, voiced confidence that the Gaza transfer would conclude peacefully.

But he said the United States must pursue follow-up commitments dictated by the U.S.-backed “road map” to peace, under which Palestinians are to curb violence and Israelis are to withdraw further from the West Bank.

“The administration has certainly cared about it, but not exposed itself in a way that would make this a major loss for the U.S. per se” should the Gaza withdrawal fail, Ross said. “Having said that, if this works out, you certainly can build something on it. But if it doesn’t work out, you are pretty much out of business on this issue for the rest of the administration.”