Posted on 04/13/2004 4:44:35 PM PDT by yonif
The problem with being bold is that, if you don't keep it up, you begin to pale by the standards you have created. US President George W. Bush's problem is not overreach. It is under follow-through.
Bush's guest today, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, can tell him a thing or two about what to do when you get in trouble. Say what you will about Sharon's disengagement plan, but it has certainly captured the agenda. The US is not thrilled about being forced to adapt to a new plan, but this is precisely what the US did to Israel with the road map, and turnabout is fair play.
As the White House decides how to calibrate its reaction, the question is being framed as, "what will Bush give Sharon." If this is the question, the answer is found by weighing the standard counter-pressures from Europe, the UN, and the Arab world against Sharon's need to pass a referendum among Likud members a few weeks from now.
The more salient question, however, is not what Bush will do for Sharon, but how he will resuscitate his own doctrine, and with it, his own fortunes.
When America was attacked on September 11, 2001, Bush did not think about what would fly with either the American public or the world, but about what must be done. His bold conclusion: governments must no longer be allowed to support terrorism with impunity. This basic idea, as obvious as it seems, is still not fully supported by most Western governments, much international opinion, or by Bush's political opponents. In two cases, Bush's doctrine was applied both in name and on the ground: Afghanistan and Iraq. But well before it was implemented in Iraq, Bush applied it to Palestine.
Bush's radical idea was to be the first administration to openly endorse a Palestinian state, but to hinge that endorsement on Palestinian regime change. In his June 2002 speech calling for a "new and different Palestinian leadership... not compromised by terrorism," Bush prefigured his push for transformation of the entire Middle East through the promotion of freedom and representative government.
The road map that Bush now clings to, we should not forget, is a bastardization of his original idea. Sure, the road map pointed to a Palestinian state, but it became a cover for regime without change.
With Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak this week, Bush gave a brief preview of his response to Sharon, "[Israel's plan] doesn't replace the road map, it is a part of the road map, so that we can continue progress toward the two-state solution."
We understand that it is convenient to call almost anything part of the road map, but let's be clear about the stakes here. The choice is not between the road map and Sharon's plan, but between disengagement and Bush's original plan: Palestinian regime change.
Disengagement, though regarded by Washington as if foisted upon it out of the blue, was a response to being squeezed between a rock and a hard place.
It was as if Washington was saying to us, "we realize the Palestinians aren't lifting a finger to fight terror, but you must treat Arafatland as a regime change-free zone." Yasser Arafat held an umbrella over an empire of terrorism, and the US held an umbrella – most explicitly after the targeted killing of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin – over Arafat.
Sharon's plan does not challenge Arafat's immunity, and therefore postpones the day of reckoning with the de facto Palestinian terror state. This is hardly how the road map was supposed to proceed, let alone Bush's original vision. But all Sharon is really doing is showing Bush a mirror of how the Palestinians have been allowed to distort his vision.
The question then, is not what to "give" Sharon, but when will Bush return to his bold vision of refusing to give in to Arab radicalism. Such a return to boldness would begin by ruling out the any Palestinian "return" to Israel as a matter of principle, not just through a supposed Israeli veto over the number of Palestinian immigrants. It is a sad commentary on the state of the West that, to begin to fight terrorism in earnest, Bush had to defy almost all of enlightened world opinion.
We hope that Bush rediscovers in himself such reservoirs of defiance, which are perhaps most necessary when it comes to the destroy-Israel corner of the global war. If he does, we are confident that he will not only make more decisive progress on the ground, but remind Americans why they had such confidence in his leadership.
Despite Oslo, Wye and Road Map, the Pallie terror state continues training terrorists to destroy Israel.
There is nothing--nothing--the U.S. can offer Israel as guidance.
Clinton refused to deal with OBL and we now are content to arrest al-Sadr.
Niceties such as accords and indictments can only follow successful military campaigns which devastate the enemy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.