Bush plan gives Arabs more in return for less

While Israel is Asked to Do More than Oslo Bush Plan Requires Less Of Palestinian Arabs Than The Oslo Accords, Yet Offers Them More -- A State

NEW YORK - President Bush's Middle East plan requires the Palestinian Arabs to do even less against terrorism than do the Oslo accords, yet offers them even more rewards than Oslo, by calling for the creation of a Palestinian Arab state within three years.

Morton A. Klein, National President of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) said:

"We recognize that President Bush has good intentions in calling for new Palestinian Arab leadership that will combat terrorism and head the first Arab regime to embrace democracy. Unfortunately, his plan requires Israel to make extremely risky concessions on the ground, yet it does not require the Palestinian Arabs to surrender their tens of thousands of weapons, extradite terrorists, outlaw Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Fatah, and change their educational system which promotes hatred and violence.

"This plan repeats the mistake of the failed Oslo accords, because once again the State Department will be the one determining whether or not the Palestinian Arabs are combating the terrorist infrastructure--and the State Department has been whitewashing the Palestinian Arabs' pro-terror actions--including in the two reports that the State Department issued just last month.

"President Bush is requiring Israel to do even more than the Oslo accords required--he demands that Israel halt all construction in the territories (while Arab construction there continues) and agree to establishing a Palestinian Arab state--which Oslo did not require. Yet he did not demand any Palestinian Arab concessions on Jerusalem or the refugee issue. In fact, President Bush is requiring the Palestinians Arabs to do even less than the Oslo accords required--he asks only that they fight 'the terrorist infrastructure' in general, with no specific, verifiable requirements to surrender weapons, extradite terrorists, or outlaw terror groups, as opposed to the Oslo and Wye agreements, which require surrendering weapons, extraditing terrorists, and outlawing terrorist groups. And in exchange, they will receive a sovereign state within three years, enabling them to station troops and heavy weapons adjacent to Israel's major cities."

IT'S NOT JUST "THE HATRED OF A FEW": President Bush said that the problem of terrorism is caused by "the hatred of a few." In fact, polls show that over 80% of Palestinian Arabs support suicide bombings against Israel. The problem of hatred must be addressed through a lengthy, comprehensive process of re-education in which Palestinian Arab schools are compelled to use curricula that accept peace and coexistence with Israel as a Jewish state. The hate-filled summer camps and religious sermons by PA clergy must be changed. A new constitution or a reorganized PA security system, as President Bush proposes, is not the solution. (In fact, the CIA and U.S. police have already trained the PA security forces, yet those forces continued to engage in terrorism.) President Bush's plan wrongly ignores the Palestinian Arab school systems, which are the incubators of hatred and terrorism.

"NEW" PALESTINIAN ARAB LEADERSHIP?: Although President Bush urged the Palestinian Arabs to "elect new leaders," all of the most likely successors to Yasir Arafat have openly supported terrorism against Israel, and one of them has written a book saying the Nazis did not kill six million Jews.

MORAL EQUIVALENCY: President Bush was wrong to suggest moral equivalency between the two sides, saying "it is untenable for Israelis to live in terror and it is untenable for Palestinians to be living in squalor and occupation." The fact is that Arabs' squalor is not Israel's fault; and the "occupation" ended in 1997 when Israel completed its withdrawal from the areas where 98.5% of Palestinian Arabs reside.

A PALESTINIAN STATE WILL ENDANGER ISRAEL: Whether it is called "provisional" or not, a Palestinian Arab state will endanger Israel. It will be able to import Iraqi and Iranian troops and missiles. And it will be even more difficult for Israel to pursue terrorists in the territory of a sovereign state.

JUDEA & SAMARIA BELONG TO THE JEWISH PEOPLE: The Jews, not the Arabs, have the superior legal, historical, and moral claim to Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. Those areas have been the heartland of the Land of Israel since biblical times.

DOUBLE STANDARD ON "SETTLEMENTS": President Bush demanded that Israel "stop all settlement activity in the territories" --even though Israeli construction there is permitted by the Oslo accords and international law. President Bush did not say a word about Palestinian Arab construction in the territories, which is proceeding at ten times the rate of Israeli construction, and which is also illegal and violates the Oslo accords.

IGNORES WHAT CAUSED 1967 WAR: President Bush said that "the Israeli occupation began in 1967"--without any reference to the fact that Israel took over Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and the Golan Heights in self-defense after Egypt, Syria, and Jordan launched a war with the declared aim of annihilating Israel.

REWARD FOR TERROR: President Bush's offer to facilitate and finance the creation of a Palestinian Arab state, after 22 months of terrorism in which nearly 600 Israeli Jews have been murdered, sends a message to the terrorists that their violence pays dividends. All the terrorists have to do is temporarily scale back their attacks, and they will be given their own sovereign state. Then they can resume their violence under the protective cover of sovereign "Palestine."

News Release The Zionist Organization of America Jacob & Libby Goodman ZOA House 4 East 34th St. New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-481-1500 Fax: 212-481-1515 e-mail: email@zoa.org Web Site: www.zoa.org

The Zionist Organization of America, founded in 1897, is the oldest pro-Israel organization in the United States. The ZOA works to strengthen U.S.-Israel relations, educates the American public and Congress about the dangers that Israel faces, and combats anti-Israel bias in the media and on college campuses. Its past presidents have included Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis and Rabbi Dr. Abba Hillel Silver.

I think these criticism also echoed earlier by Daniel Pipes look even stronger after 24 hours. The State Department has just let all the air out of the President's plan. And in its place a very different plan has emerged that has all the disadvantages of Oslo and with no redeeming features whatsoever. The plan now does three things: it bestows democratic legitimacy on the PLO terrorist leadership, it erroneously holds the violence to be the work of a few when in fact the vast majority of Palestinians support mass murder and atrocities against Jews, and if they pledge to eliminate terrorism but not their central goal of destroying Israel they will get rewarded with a state that would mean the sure end of Israel. And its all premised on the moral equivalence that Jewish and Palestinian suffering are identical - as Pipes wrote here earlier, substitute the words "American" and "Afghan" in the sentence to see why it does not work and it fails to mention the fact Israel's being in the territories was the direct result of Arab aggression against her in 1967. What is obvious is that once the State Department was put in charge of making the Bush plan work, what constructive merits it had have already disappeared. Bowell's message to the Palestinians is clear: commit massive terrorism against Israel and you get rewarded for it. So much for the hopes Oslo was dead and buried. It turns out that after barely 24 hours Oslo national suicide has been resurrected in a form even deadlier for Israel.

It's clearly an Oslo replay the way it's constructed, but we won't know until its execution. Though GWB verbally lays the onus on the Palestinians, whats missing are the ramifications if they don't go along.

Peace negotiations require two governments striving for peace. I see nothing to convince me that one will be elected this fall.

What happens? Kofi and Powell are already essentially complaining the GWB plan could leave them nobody to negotiate with. That's true. If that comes to pass, I think a reoccupation is essential (actually, I think it is now). Will GWB let that happen, I think he might.

If the Palis were smart, Hamas and Fatah would get together, find a candidate, make Yasser chairman of the board, and lay low for a few years. They could get very close to establishing the "land based carrier" for Islamic terror they've been after for so low.

Exactly. The big point even the revamped State Department and especially the revamped State Department plan misses is that Palestinian terrorism against Israel is merely a tactic in the service of the Palestinian war against Israel. Its possible to imagine a perfectly democratic Palestine in the future employing a large conventional army and air force to bring about the end of the Jewish state. What the plan missed is the big picture besides all the details of constructing a state: that barring a change of Arab heart in regards to the destruction of Israel, even a democratic Palestinian will never coexist with Israel. And unless that is addressed a Palestinian state will be sure to bring about an end to Israel's existence from the very moment its established. One can even say it would serve as a beach head for World War III.

Wrong. Last month just became ancient history.

President Bush changed the rules of the game. Not just no more Arafat. The replacement leadership cannot be tainted by terrorism. Plus, no more terrorist activity may sourced on Palestinian soil. Plus, Israel has a right to defend itself until these conditions have been met. Plus, Syria must put a stop to terrorism on ITS soil. Plus, Saudi Arabia must put a stop to the insane rhetoric in its "press". The incredible list goes on.

Too many people are assuming words of appeasement were in a speech that simply did not have them.

IF the words are not lived up to, then pile on. Until then, folks should admit the truth: It was a great speech.

Articles like this one start with the assumption that President Bush did not really mean what he said. They decide he really meant something else, and then blast the artificial meaning they themselves created.

Like it or not, this is a replay of Oslo, though the terms for Israel are worse.

Whats missing is any downside for the Palestinians if they don’t cooperate. Colin Powell and many world leaders are already concerned about the “no Arafat” terms. If the Palestinians have to truly renounce terror, Israel may have no legitimate leader to negotiate with.

I’m not accusing GWB of appeasement, though it is a terrorist victory. Their terms are better today than under Oslo, that’s a win. You’ll note I acknowledged that GWB might let Israel retaliate. I like your concept of IF the words are not lived up to, then pile on. I’d like to think that’s what’s is GWBs mind. But it’s pure speculation at this point that Israel will be allowed or able to do that.

This is still a work in progress, we’ll have a much better idea of what’s in Bush’s mind six months from now.

Whats missing is any downside for the Palestinians if they don’t cooperate.

The downside is huge. Israel has a free hand to do what they must. Plus, we no longer consider Arafat and his buddies to be legitimate representatives of the future Palestine, so Arafat's personal future is ambigous at best. That makes the downside a personal life and death issue to Arafat. (Personally, I hope he puts his money where his mouth is and goes to meet his virgins and young boys.)

Colin Powell and many world leaders are already concerned about the “no Arafat” terms.

Have you seen any indication that Powell is not fully on board FROM POWELL? State department leaks from unknown staffers is mere idle speculation in the press. It does not count.

The "no Arafat" terms are exactly what so many people are having trouble understanding. It caught everybody by surprise, but it fundamentally changed the rules of the game. We KNOW he will not go willingly. At the same time we said Arafat had to go, we gave Israel carte blanche to do what they need to do the next time a terrorist attack occurs.

If the Palestinians have to truly renounce terror, Israel may have no legitimate leader to negotiate with.

Yep. If President Bush really meant what he said, then a lot will have to change before his three year clock even starts to tick. Most likely, that will include some heavy fighting.

The beauty of it all is that now the weak kneed liberals in the U.S. and Europe will have a much harder time blaming us when the "fit hits the shan". (They will still try, though.)

The downside is huge. Israel has a free hand to do what they must... At the same time we said Arafat had to go, we gave Israel carte blanche to do what they need to do the next time a terrorist attack occurs.

That’s a fine sentiment. I agree with it. It’s the “incentive” that is missing. But it’s not in the speech.

Israel’s commitment to withdraw is contingent only on the Palestinian’s making progress toward security, not establishing it. That’s not a free hand. The Palestinians can continue slogging along from one broken promise to the next, all they have to do is keep violence at an acceptable level.

BTW, there are no potential successors to Arafat I’m aware of with any support who could step forward. Hamas and Fatah split the loyalty of over 90% of the population. Proponents of peace will not be elected by the end of this year.

Simply read the Hamas Charter. There will be no peace, for it states to kill the infidels...no bargains, no surrender. If anyone thinks this whole thing is about land they are fooling themselves. There will only be more suicide attacks, and if they get anything at all from it, the world will just look on and see that terrorism pays off. If the Palestinians really want to just get land, or revenge, why do the suicide bombers NOT go to Jordan. Jordan killed more of them, and took more land in the process. I can see this, why doesn't the press and average American see this also?

...It’s the “incentive” that is missing. But it’s not in the speech.

Ah, but it is! (I hope...)

Israel's clear right to defend itself was emphasized, and at the same time Arafat was deligitimized. Arafat no longer has quasi head-of-state status for protection, nor can he claim he is essential to the final solution. Just the opposite, in fact.

Under these rules, any terrorist attack clearly tied to Arafat could be his last. So sad!;)

You are certainly right about the lack of any Palestinian leader not tied to terrorism. Bush had to know this when he made the speech. Guess that means a WHOLE lotta change has gotta happen before the three year clock starts to tick.

Personally, I do not think there is even the slightest chance that the Palis will take Bush up on his offer. (But if they do, everyone will benefit.) Instead, I think he just laid a brilliant moral foundation for the next stage in the war.

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.