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 |