Will Powell’s speech yield any progress?

WASHINGTON -- It was billed as a "vision" speech, but Monday's long-awaited address by Secretary of State Colin Powell on U.S. Mideast policy -- long dreaded by some Jewish leaders who expected it to signal a new U.S. squeeze on Israel -- was less about vision than short-term crisis management.

Despite criticism from some Jewish officials and discomfort about Powell's repeated references to Israel's "occupation" of Palestinian territory, Powell's shift to a more practical, incremental approach was welcomed by many.

Powell got the highest marks for demanding Yasser Arafat "make a 100 percent effort to end violence and to end terror. There must be real results, not just words and declarations."

He made clear in his speech at the University of Louisville, Ky., that after 14 months of violence, U.S. sights have been lowered, and diplomats simply hope to reduce current tensions instead of working toward lasting peace.

Powell, for the most part, even-handedly mollified and challenged both the Palestinian Authority and Israel.

The speech was "an effort at reassurance, while shifting the U.S. to a much more limited set of goals," said David Makovsky, a senior analyst for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a pro-Israel think tank.

"The administration has realized it is a false choice to say 'a grand deal or nothing,'" said Makovsky, a former editor of the Jerusalem Post. "The situation has deteriorated further, and they cannot just blame the Clinton administration."

In the address, Powell announced that former Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni, a retired Gulf War general with extensive Mideast experience but none in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, will travel to the region as a special adviser, and stay as long as it takes to win a cease-fire.

But even that, analysts said, pointed to a new, scaled-back set of U.S. goals. Zinni, who will be accompanied by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State William Burns, will focus primarily on ending the current violence, not returning to long-stalled peace talks.

"It's a limited goal but by no means a modest objective," Makovsky said. "In the big picture, it demonstrates the end of the idea that you can just pick up where you left off in Taba, that you can go straight to the end game."

Not surprisingly, Jewish leaders were divided on the speech, which outlined U.S. concerns about the growing violence in the region and called on both sides to act decisively to end it, but offered few details about how Powell plans to translate vision into reality.

The speech, originally scheduled to be delivered before the Sept. 11 terror attacks, was the subject of intensive debate within the administration. Washington sources indicated that Powell originally planned to be tougher on Israel but the White House, and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice in particular, pressed him not to ruffle feathers in Jerusalem.

Many Jewish leaders seemed relieved Powell did not offer specifics on the most controversial issues, including Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees, and that he did not call on Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to abandon his demand for seven violence-free days before resuming cease-fire negotiations.

"Given the fears of many in the pro-Israel community, and given the extraordinary pressures the administration was under, it would be wrong to look at the speech as antithetical in any way to Israel's interests," said David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee.

Even the stern talk about Israeli settlement activity -- which Powell claimed "pre-empts and prejudges the outcome of negotiations and, in doing so, cripples chances for real peace and security" -- did not represent a break with past U.S. policy, Harris said.

"Some friends of Israel don't like to hear the message," Harris said. "But it has been a consistent one from one administration to the next."

More important, he said, were the newly realistic goals of the administration.

"Powell made it clear he does not plan to try to leapfrog the essential confidence-building steps to get to final-status negotiations," Harris added. "That was the key to the speech."

Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, called the speech "fair and balanced," and praised Powell for beginning his discussion of the Middle East by promising an "enduring...ironclad commitment to Israel's security."

Foxman also welcomed Powell's tough demand that Arafat end the violence.

Powell said that the conflict can be resolved, but that it will only happen "if all of us, especially Israelis and Palestinians, face up to some fundamental truths. To begin with, Palestinians must accept that if there is to be real peace, Israelis must be able to live their lives free from terror as well as war."

That, Foxman said, "clearly puts the onus on the Palestinians. There were specifics in terms of the need to arrest and punish terrorists. It was there in chapter and verse, not in generic language. He hit very hard on incitement and hate."

Judith Kipper, head of the Mideast program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington and a strong peace process supporter, said that the speech cut some new ground with Powell's "statement that the Israeli occupation has to come to an end through negotiations. To say 'occupation' over and over again was refreshing; it's time people started telling each other the truth."

But the strongest message in the speech, she said, is that "the Arab states have some real homework to do" in terms of ending violence.

Not all Jewish leaders could identify the positive aspects of the speech.

Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, expressed outrage that "instead of fighting to end terror, Powell is endorsing the establishment of yet another terrorist state -- under Arafat."

He termed the speech "appeasement," and said that "the message should have been there will be no more negotiations, no more concessions, no more talk of a state until Arafat ends the violence."

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was hardly any happier with Powell.

Cantor said creation of a Palestinian state with Arafat at the helm would be a big mistake.

"Chairman Arafat has demonstrated his inability to divorce himself from terrorist tactics," Cantor said. "Therefore, to voice a commitment to a Palestinian state under his leadership would reward Mr. Arafat's record of terror."

Phil Baum, executive director of the American Jewish Congress, said that the speech "didn't take into account the president's positions since Sept. 11, when he said that you're either for us or against us in the fight against terrorism. It should have been made clear to Arafat that he cannot continue to harbor terrorists; I don't think that was in the speech."

Baum also criticized Powell's repeated reference to Israeli occupation.

"He made it sound like Israel is a Nazi-like occupier on lands that doesn't belong to it," he said.

The speech was more "disconcerting than reassuring," Baum said.

Some seasoned observers dismissed the entire speech as nothing more than an attempt to assuage Arab leaders, especially allies in the new anti-terror coalition, without upsetting Israel or an overwhelmingly pro-Israel Congress.

"This speech was carefully crafted to get the administration through a difficult diplomatic time," said Daniel Pipes, president of the Middle East Forum and a strong peace process critic. "It was eyewash for the Arabs; everybody knows that we have other concerns now. The goal was to give some strong words to Israel, some strong words to the Palestinians and then not really do anything, because the administration's attention is elsewhere."