He was less optimistic on the settlement within Palestine - he is not sure that the head of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) Mahmoud Abbas will be able to resolve this problem in the foreseeable future.
No impressive results were expected from Bush's first visit to the Holy Land as president. It seemed that his administration was much more concerned about the Iranian problem than Palestinian-Israeli settlement. The Iranians poured more oil on the flames with this mysterious story about the detention of American ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Bush immediately lashed out at Tehran. The Iranian topic was much more interesting for most journalists and political scientists than the vague prospects of Palestinian-Israeli settlement.
Bush said nothing new during his visit and the situation in the Middle East is now determined by the confrontation between Iran and the United States. But paradoxically as it may seem, Bush considers it a matter of honor to achieve peace agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis against the backdrop of this confrontation.
"The peace agreement should happen, and can happen, by the end of this year... and I am committed to doing all I can to achieve it," Bush promised.
The more often the U.S. president talks about the establishment of the Palestinian state by the end of his term, the more he believes in it. He is almost ready to swear on the Bible.
No policymaker has dared talk about peace in the Middle East with such certainty (not in theory but quoting deadlines). Numerous agreements and international resolutions required that the warring parties should fulfill their commitments by certain dates but it all remained on paper.
Much more seasoned diplomats and politicians crossed swords over a peace settlement. But strange as it may seem, Bush with his cowboy manners may achieve success because he believes in his historical mission. As distinct from previous peacemakers, he doesn't stumble at such trifles as a split between the Palestinians, Israel's settlement policy or shooting of Israeli territory from the Gaza Strip.
Bush followed the same logic when he engineered the downfall of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq - without going into details how the country would live after the U.S. invasion. Saddam is "absolute evil," whereas freedom and democracy are indisputable values - there is no doubt. He is guided by the same logic when talking about Palestinian-Israeli settlement. Peace agreements and the formation of the Palestinian state are an objective necessity. Why couldn't it take place now? For Bush this would be a moral victory over the forces of evil - Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and numerous groups operating in Iraq and the entire Middle East. But most important for the American leader, this would spell victory over Iran.
Bush does not suggest any new recipes - all stages of Mid-Eastern settlement were repeatedly discussed in general before him. The U.S. president is simply saying that they will resolve the problem. Even if all analysts in the world insist that this is impossible, Bush's can-do spirit can make it happen. Going into details seems inappropriate in the face of his messianic zeal. It is more fitting to make forecasts not about the signing of Palestinian-Israeli agreements, but about developments after their signing.
It is again possible to draw a parallel with the situation in Iraq, where the worst predictions of experts given on the eve of the coalition's invasion came true. But are we discussing today whether Hussein's regime had to be toppled down? We have a new reality and everyone has to deal with it.
The Palestinian-Israeli situation will be the same. But it makes sense to avoid the bitter mistakes of Iraq and think in advance of a detailed course of action for the future. But this is hardly possible. Today, Bush is talking about "painful concessions," which the Palestinians and Israelis should make on the road to peace. But soon they will have to deal with quite painful consequences of that peace.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
