Posted on 06/25/2002 10:10:46 AM PDT by white trash redneck
U.S. President George W. Bush has been adamant since Sept. 11 about stopping terrorism, but he took a firm step in the opposite direction in his speech yesterday.
He should have told the Palestinians clearly and unequivocally that their 21-month campaign of violence against Israel is unacceptable and must conclude before any discussion of rewards can be started. Instead, the President outlined his vision for a "provisional" Palestinian state and demanded an end to what he called "Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories." Both of these constitute very major benefits to the Palestinians; as such, they represent rewards for suicide bombings, sniper attacks, and the other forms of terrorism.
This not only does grave damage to the President's proclaimed war on terrorism but it sends a signal to the Palestinians to expect further rewards for yet more violence. True, there was much in his presentation about the virtues of local elections, independent auditing and market economics, but the only message that will stick is a cruder one: Terrorism pays.
Bush's outline for action then went on to make a large number of mistakes about the specifics of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Here are some:
- Misreading Palestinian opinion: Bush declares that only a small minority of Palestinians subscribe to the means or views of the terrorists. "The hatred of a few holds the hopes of many hostage." But this is false; nearly every opinion survey, political speech, mosque sermon and other indication suggests that a substantial majority of Palestinians enthusiastically support the campaign of violence against Israel. This has the ominous implication that practising democracy, as the President calls for, would lead -- ironically -- to a more aggressive policy toward Israel.
- Moral equivalence: Bush implies a basic commonality between the plight of Israelis who suffer terrorism and the Palestinians who inflict it. "It is untenable for Israeli citizens to live in terror. It is untenable for Palestinians to live in squalor and occupation." To see the error of this statement, change it to "It is untenable for American citizens to live in terror. It is untenable for Afghans to live in squalor and occupation."
- Victimology: Palestinians have "been treated as pawns" says the U.S. President. Not so: Since 1967, the Palestinians have had an increasingly autonomous and powerful voice in running their own affairs. Especially since the creation of the Palestinian Authority in 1994, they have been in control of their own destiny. To portray them as victims suggests they would behave differently once they have a formal state. In fact, every sign points to a continuation of the present policies.
- Good governance the key: "True reform will require entirely new political and economic institutions based on democracy, market economics and action against terrorism." This is a touching but naive belief in the wonders of decent ruling institution. To be sure, autonomous local leaders, multi-party elections and honest politicians are all to the good, but how might they lead to a reduction of hostilities? This view has things precisely turned around: Democracy, market economics and anti-terrorism will only follow on a far more fundamental change, namely a Palestinian willingness to accept the existence of Israel. A Palestinian state that continues to seek the destruction of the Jewish state by nature cannot be democratic.
- Overemphasizing terrorism: "There is simply no way to achieve [Palestinian-Israeli] peace until all parties fight terror." Palestinian terrorism has caused terribly tragedies but it is not the heart of the problem. Terrorism, after all, is but a tactic in the service of a war aim. That war aim -- the destruction of Israel -- is the heart of the problem. For example, it is perfectly possible to imagine a future Palestinian state that does renounce terrorism and instead builds up a conventional force of planes, tanks and ships with which to attack and destroy Israel. Along these lines, it is noteworthy that Bush did not call on the PA to reduce the size of its armed forces.
A house cannot be built from a blueprint that gets wrong the terrain, the size and shape of the plot, and the building materials. Likewise, a political program cannot work if it is premised on errors.
By rewarding terrorism, the Bush speech sets back the current war effort; by misunderstanding the Palestinian-Israeli war, it is rendered unworkable as a serious effort at conflict resolution. In all, it represents a disappointment and a missed opportunity.
And he named names:
Every nation actually committed to peace will stop the flow of money, equipment and recruits to terrorist groups seeking the destruction of Israel -- including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah. Every nation actually committed to peace must block the shipment of Iranian supplies to these groups, and oppose regimes that promote terror, like Iraq. And Syria must choose the right side in the war on terror by closing terrorist camps and expelling terrorist organizations.
I thought his speech sounded like an ultimatum rather than a reward for terrorism. Ordinarly, I like Daniel Pipes. But he often seems too willing to carpet bomb Muslims before letting the situation play itself out.
President Bush's speech was just a small brush stroke on a very large canvas.
Those that can only see the brush stokes will never comprehend the murual until events force them back to view the mural as a whole.
I will with hold judgement until the painting is complete.
That is EXACTLY what he did. In addition, he went further. He said Arafat must go, and his replacement must not have been tainted by terrorism.
No wonder the Arabs are furious and the Israelis are happy.
This is HUGE. What astonishes me is the inability of some conservatives to see what has just happened. I have to wonder if they already had their minds made up, and have simply not had time to adjust to such a major change.
One I disagree with. I think Bush put the onus on the PA and its citizens,as well as the Arab states. I know the Islamists and their apologists will never agree to Israel being a state without the right of Palestinian refugees to return.Which in addition they want Jerusalem as their capital which,of course is unacceptable. The notion of the Holy city of Jerusalem controlled by Islam is an affront to God and all that is decent.The Arabs are savages,for want of a better word and their very presence in that city is profane in my opinion.Bush probaly knows they(the Islamists) cant see his "vision",so in the end it will turn out to carte blance for the Israelis against the Islamists. Again Just my opinion.
I think it's basically a knee-jerk reaction, little more.
Parroting the bumper-sticker mantra of 'Bush is rewarding terrorism' is hard for some folks to stop, even after Bush's speech. No fun to suddenly have to agree with a man you've always disagreed with and enjoyed castigating in the past, hence the complaints and negative responses.
Daniel Pipes is way off on this analysis as it makes false assumptions and projects attitudes onto the Bush administration that simply do not exist, as many have lately.
Bush isn't rewarding terrorism, he's demanding that it cease before any hope of a Palestinian state can be considered. Bush says that Arafat must go (without naming him, of course). He has a timetable. He offers much help - after the terrorism and killing has ended and the terrorists are effectively gone from the scene - not before. Yes, he naturally has some expectations of the Israelis, too, but nothing they are not already willing to do. The positive response from Israel is proof of that, as is the negative response from the Arab world and the Palestinians, specifically. No peace, no Palestinian state. Simple.
This puts the Palestinians on the spot to make that life or death choice Bush referred to at the end of his speech. They probably will not, which effectively unleashes the Israelis to attack the terrorist bases in the occupied areas and leaves the U.S. as the good guys seeking peace and democracy in the Israel-Palestinian dispute and leaving Arafat and his terrorists to choose death and destruction and so, reap the consequences.
This position neatly turns the policy of Land for Peace back on the Palestinians and compels them, for a change, to make the 'peace' in order to get the land. Brilliant move on Bush's part, in my opinion.
I think Daniel Pipes and I must have been listening to two different speeches. Isn't that exactly what he did tell them.
From the President's speech.
I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror. I call upon them to build a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty. If the Palestinian people actively pursue these goals, America and the world will actively support their efforts.
If the Palestinian people meet these goals, they will be able to reach agreement with Israel and Egypt and Jordan on security and other arrangements for independence.
And when the Palestinian people have new leaders, new institutions and new security arrangements with their neighbors, the United States of America will support the creation of a Palestinian state whose borders and certain aspects of its sovereignty will be provisional until resolved as part of a final settlement in the Middle East.
I would compare Bush's speech to Reagan's "tear down this wall" speech. Bush is saying real peace will not come to the Middle East until democracy is installed in Palestine, the corruption is ended and the terrorists are defeated. This is a sea change from the last 30 years where the diplomats thought all that had to be done was find the right "formula" for a deal. Bush's plan reflects American values and recognizes the fact that democracies rarely start wars but dictatorships frequently do.
Bush knows as well as Reagan did that it will take time for friends and enemies to adjust to the new debate and that real change will take even longer.
Pipe's carping about Pali attitudes similarly misses the mark. Bush is talking about fundamental human asperations, not opinion polls. Reagan understood that too. In the long term, people yearn for freedom over dictatorship, peace over war and prosperity over corruption. The Palis eventually will come around, but probably not until their leadership is changed.
I don't see any reward for terrorism here. I see this speech as a repudiation of Powell's "I'm ok you're ok" approach. It sounds like an apology to Israel and an admission that we were wrong to pressure them to pull out during their last intervention, and a signal that we will support future (current?) actions they feel are necessary for self-defense.
Furthermore, this is the first statement ever by the U.S. that Arafat must go. There is no equivocation and no loophole through which he can slip.
What I see happening is Arafat taking any measures to hold onto power, then finally being forced out by Israel. What the Palestinian opinion polls say when they no longer have a gun to their heads might be very different from what these polls indicate now.
Huh? This sounds like a review of Billy Kristol's predictions. It can't possibly be a review of the president's actual speech.
It's Daniel Pipes! What did you expect?
Agreed.
Looks like quite a few folks were all ready for a different speech.
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.