A Plan Without a Map

New York Times ^ | 6/25/02 | NY Times Editors

[walden]

President Bush has offered a far-reaching, moral vision for the future of the Middle East. The question is how to get there from here.

As laid out in two speeches, one in April and the second yesterday, Mr. Bush wants to see two thriving democratic states, one Jewish, the other Palestinian, sharing the strip of land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. The 1993 Oslo peace framework may have collapsed under the strain of Palestinian terror and Israeli military retaliation, the president is saying, but its opponents will not be permitted to declare victory. The Oslo goal of coexistence between two states remains the only legitimate one.

But to accomplish this, the two sides, so angry and suspicious of one another, need specific direction. The Israelis and Palestinians need a road map in which a concession by one will be followed by a concession from the other. On this point, yesterday's speech left much to be desired. Mr. Bush does not seem to expect anything immediately from the Israelis, and he appeared to rule out much improvement in the lives of Palestinians until Yasir Arafat is ousted. He told the Palestinian people they needed to elect new leaders, build new institutions and create new security arrangements before he could support declaration of even a provisional state. Meanwhile, he simply stated as a fact that Israel "will continue to defend herself."

We are no fans of Mr. Arafat either, and we accept Mr. Bush's conclusion that Israel and the Palestinians will have little hope of achieving real peace as long as he is in charge. But making Mr. Arafat's fate the be-all and end-all of the Mideast peace process makes him look far too significant, and makes it all the harder for the Palestinians themselves to show him the door. Mr. Bush had a better approach when he was ignoring Mr. Arafat and placing emphasis on democratic reforms that would help bring others into positions of authority. Moreover, Mr. Bush seemed to be telling Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that he is free to reoccupy the entire West Bank until a new, democratic Palestine emerges. How the Palestinians can be expected to carry out elections or reform themselves while in a total lockdown by the Israeli military remains something of a mystery.

In broad terms, Mr. Bush told Israel the right things. It must help the Palestinians achieve democracy by releasing its frozen revenues, end settlement building in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and negotiate all the difficult remaining issues, like Jerusalem and refugees. But the president set no timetable. This means that settler leaders and military hard-liners, including those in the government, may take this waiting period to grab all they can and establish "facts on the ground."

Mr. Bush may have a vision of a Palestinian state being declared in three years, but a great deal of harm can occur while everyone is waiting for Yasir Arafat to leave and political reform to take place. Israeli officials and many Americans worry about "sending a message" that terror works if Israeli concessions are made now. But without steps by both sides, a different message could be received by the Palestinians

[walden]

The New York Times editors are so funny-- even when they AGREE with Bush, they've got to find a way to disagree. I read them for entertainment value, and to know what the other side is thinking.

[ClearCase_guy]

help the Palestinians achieve democracy by releasing its frozen revenues, end settlement building in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and negotiate all the difficult remaining issues, like Jerusalem and refugees.

Translation: we must give the Palestinians anything they ask for. We must do this as a first step -- before they demonstrate any willingness to change their ways. We must strongarm Israel and reward the Palestinians for their terrorist attacks.

NYT never fails.

[goldstategop]

Still a plan to nowhere. The President gets credit if it works and escapes the blame for its failure if its rejected.