Analysis: Bush's role in peace

He'll be back, the White House promises, as President Bush digs into trying to settle the Arab-Israeli conflict more than seven years into his presidency.

Critics suggest he delayed far too long in getting involved and that his policies skew too much toward Israel. Supporters call him a pioneer for declaring publicly that the Palestinians are entitled to a state of their own. He has some credibility — and even possibly a Nixon-went-to-China sort of chance at forging peace — because most Israelis trust him as a caring friend.

He will have only a year, though. However well-intentioned Israel and the Palestinians are on coming to terms, they also know they can filibuster their way until Bush's time runs out and thereby duck tough decisions.

And then, once again, peacemaking would be in limbo while a new president makes his or her own assessments and choices.

A year isn't a long time when measured against 60 years of disagreement.

"I am committed to doing all I can," Bush said Thursday in Jerusalem. His national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said the president would return "at least once and maybe more."

His current trip is his first as president to Israel and his first ever to the Palestinian-controlled land. He limited his travels in Palestinian territory to the West Bank governed by Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, and steered clear of Gaza, which is controlled by the militant Hamas movement.

But Bush's promise to work hard at peacemaking, his upbeat rhetoric, and his promise of other travels to the area, including dispatching Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other U.S. diplomats, do not guarantee an agreement.

Around the world, there is a consensus that only the United States can mediate between the two sides. But there also is a theory that intensive involvement by outsiders could give the parties an opportunity to sit on their hands. So far, the administration has given no indication it will shift from the position that it is really up to Israel and the Palestinians themselves to conclude an accord on their own.

Still, Bush is saying more now on where he stands.

Calling for a Palestinian state was a landmark declaration. Bush on Wednesday supplemented that declaration by calling Israel's hold on most of the West Bank a military occupation and demanding it be ended.

He was unclear, however, whether he intends Israel to relinquish east Jerusalem, which Israel took over with the ouster of Jordanian troops in the 1967 Mideast war. And he again signaled Israel that it has his approval to try to retain some large clusters on the West Bank. "Any agreement will require adjustments," he said.

Bush's main point, though, was that the Palestinians were entitled to a state of their own "just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people." Moreover he said that state should be contiguous, not a crazy-quilt of interrupted parts. "Swiss cheese isn't going to work when it comes to the outline of a state," he said.

He acknowledged, however, the enormous hurdle posed by the split between Abbas and Hamas, which rejects Israel's existence, may not be cleared this year.

And since Hamas has rockets to fire from Gaza into Israel, that looms as a probable spoiler no matter how many compromises Israel and Abbas strike with American prodding.

___

EDITORS' NOTE: Barry Schweid has covered U.S. diplomacy in the Middle East for AP since 1973.