Posted on 06/22/2002 5:17:19 AM PDT by Pokey78
Why is the president endorsing a provisional Palestinian state?
IT'S THE BIG ISSUES that matter in President Bush's brand of conservatism. So he's strong and principled on taxes, cloning, the Kyoto treaty, the war on terrorism, Iraq, missile defense, and federal judges. It's a different story with the smaller issues. Bush strays on them--education, trade, farm subsidies, ethnic profiling, campaign finance reform--for shamelessly pragmatic purposes. More often than not, his aim is to prove his conservatism really is compassionate or to broaden his political base. This arrangement satisfies most conservatives and a lot of moderates and independents. The problem comes when the president retreats on a big issue, as he's about to do by proposing a "provisional" Palestinian state.
Though Bush's embrace of an interim state is highly conditional, his plan will be harmful to him nonetheless--morally, strategically, and politically. The moral angle is quite simple: He's rewarding Palestinian terrorism. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat has failed to deliver a promised speech denouncing suicide bombings, and he hasn't arrested any Palestinian terrorists either. Yet his regime would suddenly be moved a large step closer to full statehood. And Bush would also weaken his brave and lonely support of Israel as it suffers relentless terrorist attacks. That has moral undertones as well.
The strategic problem involves the president's alliance with Saudi Arabia, home of 15 of the 19 September 11th hijackers. The Saudis have never played a helpful role in promoting a peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians, and they're the prime exporter of radical, anti-American Islam around the world. In 2000, when Arafat was offered generous terms for a Palestinian state encompassing nearly all of the West Bank and all of Gaza, the Saudis did nothing to pressure him to accept, and Arafat rejected the deal. (Last week, with the deal off the table, Arafat said he'd accept it.) Administration officials say the Saudis are being unbelievably helpful now. "They're the new kid on the block and they're sending all the right signals," a Bush aide says. This time, the aide says, they're pressuring Arafat to do the right thing, such as crack down on terrorists. But if the Saudis truly want to promote peace in the Middle East, they'll allow American planes to use their bases when and if military action is taken against Iraq. Don't bet on it.
The political problem for Bush is his own administration and party are deeply divided. Many believe peace overtures to the Palestinians are wrong morally and politically. After Bush first declared himself in favor of Palestinian statehood in a speech to the United Nations last November, a doubtful White House official said privately: "We should be in the business of destroying terrorist states, not creating them." And a terrorist state is exactly what some officials fear Bush will be hastening with his new proposal. Their expectation is the Palestinians won't meet the conditions, but they'll get provisional statehood anyway, if only because Arab states, the European Union, the United Nations, Russia, and nearly every other country in the world will insist on it. The result: a provisional terrorist state. Bush doesn't seem worried about this possibility. An aide says the president is convinced the Palestinian people need "a reason for hope." Bush told a Republican fund-raiser last week, "I love peace."
Bush isn't guilty of flip-flopping on a Palestinian state. In truth, he's been on a slippery slope since his United Nations address last fall. Then, he made only a fleeting reference to "two states, Israel and Palestine." And he said "incitement, violence, and terror" must stop. They didn't stop, particularly terrorism against Israelis. But in April, prodded by the Saudis, Bush elaborated on the statehood theme. "The United States is on record supporting the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for a Palestinian state," he said. Bush also had harsh words for Arafat, saying he has declined to confront or control terrorists. More than two months have passed and Arafat still hasn't clamped down on Palestinian terrorists. Sure, he's issued statements condemning terrorism, but those fault terrorism for causing bad PR for Palestinians. Despite Arafat's failures, Bush has decided to make still another concession--unless he unexpectedly cancels his speech announcing the statehood plan.
Administration officials say interim statehood isn't really a concession to Arafat. For one thing, tough conditions will be required before statehood occurs, one of which is a total halt in terrorism against Israel. Moreover, the plan would promote new institutions of government among the Palestinians, institutions that would circumvent Arafat and marginalize him. In effect, the run-up to provisional statehood (so named because the borders would be provisional) would mark either the decline and fall of Arafat or his elevation to figurehead status, Bush aides say. Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser, told the San Jose Mercury News that Arafat's Palestinian Authority will "not be the basis for a Palestinian state moving forward." Oh, yeah? Arafat has warded off bigger threats than a new institutional scheme. Will the Saudis insist on pushing Arafat to the periphery, siding with Bush against Arafat and his thugocracy? If so, the Saudis really have changed.
Since September 11, political professionals have been amazed at Bush's persistently high poll numbers. One reason they haven't tumbled is Bush's moral approach to international affairs. He's spoken with moral clarity, producing a Bush doctrine that says both terrorists and those who harbor them are the enemies of the civilized world. In the Pakistan-India standoff, Bush wasn't outspoken, but he exerted most of his pressure on the perpetrator of terrorism, Pakistan, and not on India, the victim. In the Middle East, however, he's lost his moral bearings. Arafat and other Palestinian leaders are every bit as implicated in terrorism as the Pakistanis. Yet they're to be rewarded. A big issue is involved here, but on this one, Bush has been neither strong nor principled.
Please post my editorial under your byline. I'm catching too much heat right now.
Thanks,
Bill
So whatta ya gonna do...a true conservative can't get elected.
Saudi Arabia has no fear of Bush. That is a shame because they will keep on funding the parents of the bombers and we will pretend that we are not negotiating with the terrorists.
What is, is not.....and what is not, ......is!! I HATE POLITICS. Dealing with the devil is a very dangerous thing.
I was so proud when bush said that any state that harbors terrorits will be treat as a terrorists...........and we have 'honored' arafat.....one of the most disgusting, sick humans on the face of the earth.
On A big issue?????? You mean, like, ONE big issue???
You are not permitted to have this opinion. Get back into the ranks.
Member since June 6, 1999... over 3 years on FR while hating politics. You're a glutton for punishment. =^)
"I will when I'm ready." --GW, in answer to a reporter asking when he would make a statement on his proposal.
Smaller issues? GWB said that CFR might violate the First Amendment, yet signed it anyway, breaking his oath. Directly violating the Constitution is a "small issue"? The "Patriot" Act has similar Constitutional problems... "small issue"? Ethnic profiling of Middle Eastern men from 18-40 would go a long way towards defending the country from terrorists... "small issue"? Education, farm subsidies, trade, African aid give-aways, minority giveaways, etc... billions of dollars in helping build a Socialist America is a "small issue"? (I guess it's 'only money'... taken from those who earned it, like good little wage slaves)
Why on earth does an American President spend any time or energy on those "small issues" (other than entertaining foreign diplomats) that aren't delegated to the federal government in the Constitution (education, etc)? Oh, that's right, he's the head nanny in the new nanny-state we're building.
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.