Bush's stark Mideast markers: Arabs see no practical path to Bush vision

JERUSALEM - For the most part, the Israelis are delighted, the Arabs are aghast, and the Palestinians are trying to look on the bright side.

In a speech on Monday that reaffirmed US support for the policies and practices of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, President Bush also outlined his vision for a peaceful Middle East. Once the Palestinians institute a full-fledged democracy and elect "new leaders ... not compromised by terror," Mr. Bush promised, the US would help create a provisional Palestinian state.

In short, the president's message seemed to be: Goodbye Yasser Arafat, hello Palestine – in that order.

But if Palestinians do put in place the sort of democracy that Bush calls for, complete with a new constitution, separation of powers, and a streamlined, accountable security apparatus, their government will stand alone in the Arab world.

None of the Arab regimes, including US friends such as Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, fulfills such democratic ideals.

Israel has been railing against the Palestinian leadership for many months, so Bush's formulation pleased many on the Israeli side of the conflict. "The speech was a vindication of Israel's approach that an absolute end to violence and terror" should precede any negotiations toward Palestinian statehood, says Zalman Shoval, an adviser to Mr. Sharon.

While those in government were pleased, critics worried that a wholehearted US endorsement of Sharon's view will not necessarily bring peace."[O]ne can be optimistic or, more to the point, naive, and believe that in the wake of Bush's speech the Palestinians will see the light, understand that they chose the wrong course, decry terrorism, and vomit it from their midst," wrote columnist Hemi Shalev in yesterday's Ma'ariv, a mass-circulation Israeli daily. "Nevertheless, it is more likely that this overtly unbalanced speech will only further complicate the situation.... [it] might have been a giant step for Ariel Sharon, but it was probably a very small step for the chances of peace."

"The White House does not want to become involved in negotiations: It wants an alibi that will justify its decision not to get the president involved in our affairs," wrote Nahum Barnea, the leading Israeli columnist for the Yedioth Ahronoth. "The president isn't built for Middle Eastern despair."

Most Arab commentators were dismayed at the deal Bush appeared to offer. "It's a fundamentally absurd proposal," said Lebanese political analyst Michael Young. "You cannot expect Arafat to reform the system when he's going to be a victim of that reform."

Reform-minded Palestinians, such as former Cabinet minister Nabeel Amro, who resigned his office last month to protest Arafat's unwillingness to promote change, appreciated Bush's emphasis on democracy. The problem is that Bush said nothing about the nuts and bolts of reform or the logistics of holding elections in a territory whose cities and major towns are under Israeli military occupation. "We need an atmosphere in which to go about reform – we need a mechanism," says Mr. Amro. "We need strong pressure from the Bush administration on the Israelis to create this atmosphere."

For a people who can't leave the house to buy milk, much less campaign for office, the absence of any presidential call for an immediate Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territories was seen as a sign of disingenuousness.

"He was indifferent to what is going on on the ground," says Abdul Jawad Saleh, a member of the Palestinian parliament. "We are under reoccupation; we can't move from one city to another."

Ghassan Khatib, whom Arafat appointed to a reshuffled cabinet this month, says that "as a Palestinian, I felt the guy was hostile to us from the first word to the last word."

Bush's tone, and the suggestion that the American president should tell Palestinians when to change leaders, will backfire, Mr. Khatib argues. "At the end of the day, Palestinians are still supporting Yasser Arafat," he says. "This is not going to change."

Mr. Saleh isn't so sure. A longtime critic of the Palestinian leader, he argues that an opposition candidate, if he or she were allowed to campaign openly and candidly, could defeat Arafat. But such an upset will not occur, he cautions, if elections are held in the shadow of Israeli tanks – conditions that will only aid a man considered the father of the Palestinian movement.

Gerald Butt, Gulf editor of the Middle East Economic Survey, adds: "The Arab view will be that it's quite unacceptable for Washington to say who should lead the Palestinians, or anyone else for that matter. The Arab view is that the Israelis are causing the problem, and if you are going to change anybody, they'd want to change Sharon. Arafat is deemed as ineffective, but he's the elected leader, and they're not in the mood to be told by Amer-ica, which espouses democracy, to get rid of an elected leader."

Arab analysts noted that Bush did not mention the Middle East peace conference the US said it would organize or the Saudi peace initiative adopted by the Arab League in March. The Saudi initiative called on Israel to withdraw from territory occupied since 1967 in exchange for full normalization with the Arab world. The proposal, the most far-reaching concession from the Arabs in decades, was seen as a platform on which to negotiate a comprehensive peace settlement.

"Who remembers the Saudi initiative now?" asked Sateh Noureddine, a columnist for Beirut's As- Safir daily newspaper. "It's dead and buried."

• Nicholas Blanford in Beirut and Michael Theodoulou in Nicosia, Cyprus, contributed to this report.

Ultimatum from the Rose Garden
by JohnHuang2
June 25, 2002

This wasn't a Presidential statement on Mideast policy as much as a bill of indictment of Arafat and co.

Like a prosecutor, the President methodically laid out the case against Arafat in his long-awaited address from the Rose Garden yesterday.

He charged the Palestinian Authority (which Arafat directs) with aiding and abetting terrorism, pilfering the treasury, corruption, despotism, graft, misgovernment and other systematic, egregious abuses. While not mentioning Arafat by name -- he didn't need to -- the President denounced the P.A. as exploiters and manipulators -- for using the "Palestinian" people as pawns in a game of subterfuge, of endless deception.

"Today, Palestinian authorities are encouraging, not opposing terrorism," charged the President.

That being the case, nothing in the President's blueprint remotely envisions a role for Arafat nor the current Palestinian Authority in this 'provisional', "Palestinian" entity.

Indeed, the President explicitly called on 'Palestinians' to give Arafat & accomplices the boot -- at the ballot box.

"Peace requires a new and different Palestinian leadership," he observed, "so that a Palestinian state can be born. I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror."

The President wasn't calling for elections merely as a goal in itself, but elections as part of new arrangement, borne of reform encompassing the spectrum of civic and political institutions. And if Arafat is "elected," what then? All bets would be off. The call is for new leadership, regime change.

"A Palestinian state will never be created by terror. It will be built through reform. And reform must be more than cosmetic change or a veiled attempt to preserve the status quo. True reform will require entirely new political and economic institutions based on democracy, market economics and action against terrorism."

In essence, the President threw the ball back in the 'Palestinians'' court. He turned the tables, reframing the issue entirely.

You want a state? Behave like civilized folks, then. States aren't created by presidential fiat, nor executive orders from Washington. Nor are they given away on demand: Don't expect a handout. Grow up.

Physician, reform thyself.

Those hoping for a Bush sell-out of Israel were bitterly disappointed. The media and the Democrats were champing at the bit, savoring the chance to pounce on the President as a milksop, a coward, a liar -- a double-crossing, double-dealing weakling pantywaist shivering before Arafat, Big Oil, and the "Arab world."

Imagine the torrent of Democrat fundraising letters to Jewish Americans: 'Dumbya sold Israel down the river, just like his daddy! This Smirking Chimp must be stopped! But who's going to stop him? We, the Democrats, that's who! So empty your wallet and send us money, now! Oh -- and vote Democrat in November, too!'

After yesterday's speech, no-one will buy it.

Instead, the President was firm, determined, resolute -- and unflinching. No attempt to draw moral equivalence, either. To Bush, there isn't any. Israel is locked in a struggle for its very survival; no-one knows this better than President Bush.

Even as IDF tanks surrounded Arafat's headquarters in Ramallah, Bush reiterated steadfast support for Israeli self-defense.

"I can understand the deep anger and anguish of the Israeli people. You've lived too long with fear and funerals...The Palestinian Authority has rejected your offered hand and trafficked with terrorists. You have a right to a normal life. You have a right to security. And I deeply believe that you need a reformed, responsible Palestinian partner to achieve that security."

On Israel, Bush has never wavered, never faltered, never failed. His support is staunch, tenacious, uncompromising.

Yes, he called on Israel to halt new settlements, but not their elimination -- a key 'Palestinian' demand.

Yes, he asked that Israel "release frozen Palestinian revenues," but only into "honest, accountable hands" -- i.e., after financial reforms are in place, under close international supervision.

Yes, he asked that "freedom of movement" for 'Palestinians' "be restored," but only if and when "violence subsides."

And, yes, the President did ask for Israeli withdrawal, but not -- Repeat: Not -- to pre-'67 borders -- another key Arab demand. A retreat to Israeli positions "held prior to Sept. 28, 2000" would be suffice.

To Arafat et al, that's a slap in the face.

Moreover, Bush challenged the "Arab world" to get off their duffs, to get with the program.

"Every leader actually committed to peace will end incitement to violence in official media and publicly denounce homicide bombings. 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."

So, let's recap:

1) The President expressed support for a provisional, "Palestinian" state, but support was very conditional: "Palestinians" would need to surmount gazillions of hurdles to achieve it.
2) And only after rigorous 'final status,' negotiations by immediate parties, to boot.
3) All "demands" on Israel were merely reciprocal -- corresponding to progress/reform on the "Palestinian" side.

So what's the point of this exercise? Why would the President waste time with something this unachievable?

In a word, Iraq. Toppling Saddam and preventing a nuclear 9/11 -- that's what the President's attention is focused on. Arafat is a terrorist, no question about it, but Saddam Hussein poses a far greater threat to U.S. security. To Bush, there are bigger fish to fry than Arafat.

And fry he will.

Bush's Rose Garden statement allows him to 'back-burner' the Mideast -- get it 'off the table', as he shines the spotlight back on Iraq.

Bottom line: El hombre de Tejas has out-flanked his enemies, yet again.

Anyway, that's...

My two cents...
"JohnHuang2"
Copyright Enrique N. ©2001

Wednesday, June 26, 2002

Quote of the Day by RooRoobird14

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.