Pro-Israel Voices of 2 Parties Praise Bush Mideast Speech

New York Times ^ | Wednesday, June 26, 2002 | By ALISON MITCHELL

[JohnHuang2]

June 26, 2002

Pro-Israel Voices of 2 Parties Praise Bush Mideast Speech

By ALISON MITCHELL

ASHINGTON, June 25 — Pat Robertson, the founder of the Christian Coalition, called President Bush's Middle East policy "brilliant." Representative Robert Wexler, a Democrat from a heavily Jewish district in Florida, termed it "very bold."

Similar sentiments expressed across the political spectrum underscored that whatever the difficult and uncertain diplomacy ahead in the Middle East, Mr. Bush's call to replace Yasir Arafat has the practical effect of appealing widely to pro-Israel constituencies on the right and the left that had been shaken by the devastating wave of suicide bombings.

"This is one of those rare moments where the politics and substance converged for him," Senator Charles E. Schumer, a staunchly pro-Israel Democrat from New York, said of the president. "Clearly, on the politics, this is going to please supporters of Israel as well the Christian Coalition types."

The Middle East has long been a political wildcard, defying easy solutions even as it riled important domestic constituencies. But Israel now has fervent supporters in both political parties who cannot be ignored, including evangelical Christians who are part of the Republican core and Jews who overwhelmingly vote Democratic.

Polls have shown that while a majority of Americans support Mr. Bush's handling of the conflict, that backing is nowhere near the stratospheric levels of support he has received for his handling of his job as president or the campaign against terrorism.

But by explicitly endorsing a Palestinian state while rejecting a role for Mr. Arafat, Mr. Bush staked out ground that could appeal to both the political center and the Christian conservative core of his party, Republican strategists said.

"He essentially threaded the needle," said Marshall Wittmann, an analyst with the conservative Hudson Institute. "He appeased the conservative base of the party while not alienating the center."

Although few political strategists believe the stand will much affect the 2002 elections, Republicans and Democrats are starting to watch whether some portion of the Jewish vote will migrate to Mr. Bush in 2004.

"If he can reach the levels achieved by Ronald Reagan in 1980," Mr. Wittmann said, "that would be a significant boost to his re-election. Mr. Bush drew just 19 percent of the Jewish vote in 2000, while Mr. Reagan won 39 percent in 1980.

Asked if the White House was now explicitly wooing Jewish voters, Roger Stone, a Republican strategist, said, "If they aren't, they certainly should be." And some Democrats are worried. "The larger questions of Jews becoming Republican — this is a problem for the Democratic Party," said Ira N. Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council. "That's the bad news."

"The good news," Mr. Forman added, is that Democratic leaders "are all cognizant of and very sympathetic to the fears of the Jewish community."

Other Democrats said they saw no sign that Jewish voters would leave their party as long as they too stood strongly with Israel. They called it folly to make judgments now about the political effects of a plan that Mr. Bush has yet to carry out.

Indeed, potential Democratic presidential candidates were setting the stage today for a longer-term debate.

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts called the president's plan "only a partial step — inadequate to the challenge." Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut said he was "surprised and a little disappointed" that the President had not immediately sent Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to the region.

And Representative Richard A. Gephardt, the House minority leader, said, "Leadership requires more than just words." He urged the administration to "intensify its level of engagement."

In fact, the intractable violence of the Middle East has been a challenge for an administration that has long disdained nation building. Earlier this year Mr. Bush faced loud criticism from party conservatives who saw his attempts at peacemaking with the Palestinians as undercutting his antiterrorist doctrine.

In recent days, with suicide bombings on the rise again in Israel, it was the Democrats who were criticizing him, accusing him of having no long-term strategy.

And even today, in a measure of the issue's volatility, some of the conservatives who make up Mr. Bush's base were expressing a wait-and-see attitude about his initiative.

"Being a Reaganite, I'm all for democracy," said Gary Bauer, a Christian conservative. "But it's not at all clear to me that when the Palestinian people vote, you'll get a leader you can make peace with."

[JohnHuang2]

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