Colin Powell's diplomatic mission to the Middle East produced few tangible results. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ignored the secretary of state's call for an immediate end to Israel's heavy-handed military operations in the West Bank. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat resisted Powell's efforts to extract a more straightforward disavowal of terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. And leaders of Arab governments in the region seemed more interested in lecturing Powell than in working constructively to bring the escalating violence under control.

To his credit, though, Powell had created no unrealistic expectations about what he could accomplish on this visit. Moreover, his patience and optimism, along with the personal respect he has earned among those on all sides of this conflict, raise hopes that his continued diplomatic efforts can lead to a breakthrough. Sharon, Arafat and the leaders of important Arab governments remain open to the idea of a new round of peace talks under international auspices. If the level of violence subsides, Powell will have an easier time persuading other governments to join in a collaborative effort to restart negotiations aimed at bringing long-term stability to the region.

Powell's Middle East diplomacy also is serving a constructive purpose within the Bush administration. For more than a year, President Bush tried to avoid becoming entangled in the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Powell's intervention reflects the president's belated acknowledgement that tensions in the Middle East cannot be responsibly ignored by Washington.

Powell's mission also has helped to clarify Bush administration policy in the broader war against terrorism. Immediately following the Sept. 11 attacks, the president drew a clear line: We would go anywhere on the globe, and use any means necessary, to combat terrorism, and every other government had to decide whether it was with us or with the terrorists. Those stark words served a positive purpose at the time, uniting a wounded nation and exhorting other governments to support our cause.

However, the longstanding conflict in the Middle East doesn't lend itself to such simple formulations. Sharon isn't the only bellicose world leader who has attempted to use President Bush's words as a pretext for brutal military action against his enemies. In fact, there are many parallels between the suicide attacks against America on Sept. 11 and the series of suicide attacks against civilians inside Israel. More than any other people, Americans understand the imperative of Israel's military response to a terror campaign that threatens Israel's very existence.

Yet Powell has helped to illustrate the moral and practical differences between U.S. tactics in Afghanistan and Israeli tactics in the West Bank. U.S. military action was welcomed by most Afghans, and our forces have made great efforts to prevent civilian casualties. We also are supporting the creation of a new political and social structure that is representative of the Afghan people. Israel's military mission has gone well beyond an effort to neutralize terrorists. Scenes from Jenin and other ravaged Palestinian communities show that Israeli forces have purposely destroyed civil society and done little to prevent civilian casualties. As a practical matter, the indiscriminate Israeli response to murderous provocation has radicalized many Palestinians and other Arabs who previously supported peaceful coexistence.

Powell's evenhanded candor, so unusual for a Washington official, frustrates Sharon's and Arafat's efforts to evade responsibility for their actions. It also demands responsibility from the Arab governments that have used the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to divert attention from their own failings. Powell returned to Washington empty-handed, but the honesty he injected into the Middle East dialogue is a prerequisite for any progress to come.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page