or whether he wishes to end his presidential term with an historic account other than that which depicts him as a failure, limiting his role to the war in Iraq, and imposing on him unpopular and controversial decisions.

If it is a trouble-free ending that he wants, then his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice should put an end to her repeated trips to the Middle East to reach peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Because reaching peace demands confronting Israel's sabotage of the peace process with several policies and measures. In fact, if his choice is to avoid confrontation and yield to the demands of compromise, President Bush himself should stop insinuating that he will not yield to Iran and its nuclear and regional ambitions, and that he will not allow Syria to cause trouble in Lebanon and paralyze it.

If the American president needs to avoid whatever may upset the farewell photos of his visit to the Middle East in two weeks, then he must not pretend that he is truly committed to establishing a Palestinian state. He will hopefully stop distributing promises to establish this state before illusory deadlines. However, if the American president has not only analyzed the factors that will contribute to his historic reputation, but also those that will serve American interests and protect the US in the long term, he will quickly conclude that he must adopt a strategy of taking initiative. This will demand bold decisions that may not enjoy immediate popularity, tough but farsighted and crucial decisions for the American individual, and not only for the people of the Middle East. Most prominent among these: preventing Israel, Syria and Iran from bargaining over Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq by taking tangible, painful and costly measures; preventing bargaining over moderation and radicalism as commodities in the dangerous game of gambling or the terrible game of ignorance that prevail among many decision-makers as well as within American public opinion.

Syrian-Israeli flirtation, the agreement allegedly desired by them, and the communications through Turkey, all fall within entertainment and distraction. The Syrian-Israeli negotiations are no longer about the Sea of Galilee and the occupied Golan Heights, but are now more focused than ever on Syria's relationship with Hezbollah, Iran, and the Palestinian factions and organizations in Damascus.

In the past, Syrian leadership under President Hafez Al-Assad enjoyed a margin of maneuver in its relationship with Hezbollah, Iran and the Palestinian factions, within the framework of potential peace with Israel. In the past, Lebanon was an asset controlled by Syria and subject to its desires. At the time, Hezbollah did not enjoy the level of independence from Damascus and accountability to Iran that it has today.

Things are different now. Lebanon is no longer a guaranteed asset in the hands of Syria's current president, Bashar Al-Assad. Trust between him and Hezbollah no longer exists; he is not certain that Iran views him as indispensable; he no longer enjoys Arab protection, having sacrificed his ties with major Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt; nor is he able to break away from Iran and Hezbollah, even if he wanted to. Consequently, the margin he once had in reconciling or maneuvering with Israel has now vanished.

The Syrian president knows that Israel is aware of the new conditions which he is restricted and subjected to. Israeli leadership is aware that the Syrian leadership knows what Israel knows. They are all playing on the ridiculous assumption that Syria can be separated from Iran or that Damascus can sacrifice Hezbollah, as if Syrian leadership has any choice in the matter.

Syrian leadership does not have the ability to make those decisions over which Israel is pretending to be courting Damascus. It has neither the capability to break free from Iran, nor the capacity to control Hezbollah inside Lebanon now that the latter has achieved this much progress in establishing its own state within the state of Lebanon, as it now possesses all the infrastructure and weapons that it needs. Moreover, Hezbollah is not an entity independent from Iran, especially with respect to its relationship with Syria. Hence, Syria's margin of bargaining with Israel over controlling or sacrificing Hezbollah is virtually nonexistent.

Consequently, all this desperate Israeli talk about flirting with Damascus to isolate it from Iran and to make it abandon Hezbollah is mere nonsense aiming only at diverting attention away from Israel's violations of the agreements with the Palestinians and its breaches of international humanitarian laws. There is neither any progress in negotiations to return the Golan Heights to Syria, nor a bilateral Syrian-Israeli peace deal, since the conditions for such a deal are currently impossible.

As a matter of fact, there is a Syrian-Israeli agreement to maintain the status-quo until after the American presidential elections. In fact, even talk of a truce between the Palestinian factions and Israel takes place within the context of Israeli-Syrian arrangements.

This is the purpose that the Palestinian factions serve: neither war nor peace between Syria and Israel. Additionally, these Palestinian factions that operate in Lebanon under Syria's command may be useful for the Syrian leadership in case the relationship between Syria and Hezbollah became competitive or confrontational when the time comes for settlement and prosecution.

There are indications of attempts to divert attention to Hezbollah's responsibility in political assassinations in Lebanon, including the assassination of former Primer Minister Rafic Hariri and his companions, for which the special tribunal is being set up to prosecute those implicated. There is talk about conflicts behind the assassination of Hezbollah commander Imad Mughniyyah. If this is true, the pro-Syrian Palestinian factions in Lebanon may play a significant role, at least according to Syrian strategy, as may be the case for elements of al-Qaeda that are being sneaked through the Syrian-Lebanese border as part of such competition.

Additionally, at the Lebanese level, everyone expects political assassinations in Lebanon to resume soon, perhaps during the period between the end of American presidential elections in November and the date at which the president-elect will assume office in January of next year.

Those planning the assassinations believe this period to be convenient on the basis that the US would then be in a state of paralysis preventing it from responding and handing out punishment. Moreover, by that date, the initiation of the international tribunal will have taken shape, which may drive the "assassins" to decide to ignite wars in Lebanon, either to divert attention away from the tribunal, and to intimidate against its consequences in the hope of scaring those who deal with or work within, or as a result of realizing that the tribunal is inevitable, and that there is no choice but to "sink the ship with everyone in it".

Israel has no influence that can hinder the tribunal regardless of how hard it tries to convince its friends and foes otherwise. Israel may be able to use its influence with the US, France, or Britain to reduce the enthusiasm of these states for the tribunal. It may succeed in buying time and postponing by using its influence with these Security Council member states, but neither Israel nor any other state will succeed in stopping the tribunal, whatever it may do. In fact, the signs of disagreement with the US administration over this issue have started to appear.

The tension in American-Israeli relations was obvious when the US administration revealed the silent Syrian-Israeli deal, as well as the motives and the results of the Israeli military operation against the alleged North Korean nuclear reactor in Syria. Such revelations came simultaneously with news about a Syrian-Israeli deal and calls to reintegrate Hamas into Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, in hopes of diverting attention away from the Israeli government's foiling of both efforts for a two-state solution and negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.

It is not enough for the US president to say that he is committed to the establishment of a Palestinian State and to supporting Lebanon against the Syrian-Israeli-Iranian trio, each for its own reasons. It is not acceptable for George Bush to merely be upset at Israel's attempts to strike him at the knees, especially as he has publicly vowed, as the president of the United States of America, that his decision to support Lebanon and Palestine is at the core of America's short-term and long-term interests.

If George Bush is truly serious about safeguarding strategic American interests, protecting American citizens and their right to freedom and travel without fear, and protecting American cities from terrorism - as he has repeatedly said - then he must confront Israel seriously and decisively. He must take the courageous step which no previous American president has ever dared to take, and say: American interests demand that a permanent solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is immediately reached. It is not enough for him to boast that he is the first American president to speak of a Palestinian state. Developments in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran demand that he safeguards American interests. This requires removing the Palestinian issue from the table with a fair and permanent solution. Only by doing so can half the battle against terrorism be won, as those who trade with the Palestinian cause will lose their deluded battles if this issue is resolved. With such a solution, the ranks of the moderates can be reinforced, just as those of the radicals grow stronger with the failure to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Even the Syrian-Israeli peace maneuvers must be exposed quickly, as their aim to prolong the Palestinians' suffering will only increase the anger of Arab and Islamic populations. If Israel and Syria want bilateral peace, then let it be so: it is their right and a step desired by every advocate of peace and moderation. However, if these flirtatious maneuvers only aim at weakening the American president, then he should do something about it.

I wish that George Bush had not decided to visit the Middle East in the next two weeks, because his participation in the celebrations of the establishment of the state of Israel coincide with his failure and the failure of his promises to establish the Palestinian state, amidst sentiments of catastrophe among the Palestinians.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and the team that has accompanied him for decades, as a result of the conviction that peace can be reached through negotiations, have become frustrated and disappointed. These may not be new sentiments for the Palestinian leadership that has chosen the path of peace and wagered on America's promises. But today is another day.

Let them be warned of carelessly wasting the opportunity to achieve peace between the Palestinians and Israel. If George Bush or Condoleezza Rice allows the failure of Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayad, then they and the American public opinion must realize that this would be a great loss for the strategy of peace and for America's desire to live in peace.

Let them be warned against complacence and pretending that whatever is happening in Lebanon is acceptable. If George Bush and his administration were to fail Lebanon, then they will all have to understand that this signifies a collapse in the front lines of the battle for democracy and moderation as well as of the battle against radicalism and oppression.

Let them be warned against complacence and making empty statements and threats against Iran, Syria or other parties. If Syria and Iran emerge victorious in Iraq and Lebanon, this will only precipitate the fall of American greatness, not only in the Middle East but also on the international scene, with costly consequences and implications for the American individual.

Let them be warned against complacence, procrastination and pretense. It is time to choose between appeasement and courage, before it is too late.

Share this Article:           
Feedback? We want to hear your thoughts!