Why Not Be Bold? Bush Has Reasons
On the foreign policy issues it regards as central — from Afghanistan to Iraq, from the steel tariffs it imposed to the international treaties it abandoned — the Bush administration has not shrunk from acting or taking strong stands, decisively and often alone.

But on the Middle East, the administration avoided involvement for as long as it could and then waded in only tentatively. Even now, as Mr. Bush prepares an announcement of a new push for peace, officials have taken pains to say he wants the effort to be gradual and international, not immediate or American.

There are good reasons to try multilateralism in the Middle East. The conflict has daunted American presidents for decades, and there is an unusual degree of international consensus on the broad outlines of a solution: a new Palestinian state with a negotiated settlement on borders, shared control of Jerusalem and some provision for the return of Palestinian refugees.

But critics inside and outside the administration say its reluctance to pursue a bold agenda of its own goes well beyond adherence to the practical realities of international diplomacy and consensus-building. It also, they say, reflects continuing divisions among senior American officials about how much it is possible or desirable for Mr. Bush to immerse himself in the problem, given the practical and political risks abroad and at home.

The House Democratic leader, Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, told reporters today that the administration should "take a much more hands-on approach on a day-to-day basis in the region" before it would be realistic to imagine moving to a "two-state solution." He said such an approach should include more support for security and police training that could even include American and international peacekeepers.

The ideas that have seeped out so far have not produced much enthusiasm in Israel, the Arab world or Europe, and it is far from clear that Mr. Bush's highly conditioned proposals for creating a Palestinian state would win the warm endorsement of important allies.

"We are fully aware of what all the elements are, and they know our views," a senior Western diplomat said about the Bush administration, with a shrug of skepticism that such views would be heeded.

Since Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel rebuffed Mr. Bush's blunt demand last spring that Israel withdraw promptly from Palestinian areas, the administration has not shown any further signs of willingness to press Israel for concessions.

As Mr. Bush's advisers debate the merits and legalities of creating an interim Palestinian state, it is good to note that there already is a kind of one, the Palestinian Authority, created by the Oslo accords.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/21/international/middleeast/21ASSE.html