By Chris Verkaik

`Embracing ambiguity'

In his address to a joint session of Congress after Sept. 11, President Bush laid out what has become the cornerstone of his administration's foreign policy, ``Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.''

It certainly sounds nice - powerful, direct and applicable to any situation with minimal effort. This simple dichotomy can be used universally: us versus them, good versus evil, the forces of freedom versus the forces of terror and oppression. Such a policy, has no tolerance for neutrality and refuses to recognize complications.

And it even worked for a while. This doctrine facilitated the creation of an international coalition in support of military action in Afghanistan, and it may even have made it possible for the U.S. to take further action against Iraq - but now we'll never know. It's too bad for the Bush administration that things got so complicated in the Middle East.

A with-us-or-against-us foreign policy necessarily glosses over all the ambiguities that inevitably exist in such contentious areas. The Middle East is one big ambiguity. Who exactly are the forces of terror and oppression here? The Palestinians certainly seem to be fond of terrorist tactics. And Arafat, if he's not overtly encouraging these actions, doesn't do much, or else is powerless, to stop them. The Israelis have a right to keep their country safe from suicide bombers.

On the other hand, the Palestinians have legitimate grievances. The Israeli occupation of their homeland is a perfect example of political oppression. And Israeli settlements keep going up, crushing Palestinian's hopes of returning. Considering the military disparity between the two sides, it's no wonder they resort to the most effective devices they have available to them.

It would take someone much smarter than myself to begin to suggest a solution, but I do know that Bush's us-and-them policy simply won't work here. I'm sure that's the reason for the White House's silence as things began to collapse over the last weeks.

But last week, as he announced Colin Powell's trip to the region, the president took a step in the right direction. He acknowledged that both sides have committed transgressions and will have to take definite action if they truly want peace. These statements couldn't have come from Bush's old, black-and-white world; they are signs he is finally starting to let in a little gray.

The crisis in the Middle East demands that the Bush administration move beyond its previous dialecticism, and I applaud him for doing so. Embrace the ambiguity, Mr. President; it's the only way for things get better.