The speech Secretary of State Colin Powell delivered Monday on Mideast peace was more important for what it didn’t say than what it did.
Many American and Israeli Jews feared the speech would be much more critical of Israel. They worried that Powell might predetermine what the result of negotiations might be. But he made no mention of issues such as the future status of Jerusalem or the right of return of Palestinian refugees.
They also worried needlessly that Powell would push for negotiations immediately, ignoring Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s insistence that no talks be held until there are seven days without violent incidents.
What pleased many Jews, however, was that Powell said he was placing the burden on the Palestinian Authority to end violence and incitement.
At the same time, some Jewish observers voiced displeasure, saying Powell didn’t go far enough. And they also were displeased he referred to Israel as an occupier.
Powell’s call to “end Israeli occupation” was a rhetorical first for the U.S. administration, they noted. The speech followed on the heels of President Bush’s unprecedented use of the word “Palestine” in his address to the U.N. General Assembly earlier this month
Another criticism of Powell’s words were that he seemed to retreat from the U.S. fight against terrorism by not demanding Yasser Arafat arrest leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah whom he harbors in the West Bank and Gaza.
Added to those concerns was the appointment of retired Marine Corps. Gen. Anthony Zinni to mediate security cooperation and a cease-fire. Zinni, a close friend of Powell’s, was the head of Central Command from 1997 until his retirement last year.
The fact that he dealt with only Arab countries during that period and befriended many leaders in the Arab world raises questions on how he will view Israel’s security needs.
We can only hope Powell and his envoys can succeed where others have failed and find the path to Mideast peace.