The Bush Initiative - Empty dreams?

National Review Online ^ | 6/25/02 | William F. Buckley, Jr.

[wcdukenfield]

The dreams of George W. for the Mideast are gratifying, but has he done anything to advance them?

Some weeks ago in this space, after the Passover massacre, we suggested that the Israelis reach into the compound, extract Arafat and his closest advisers, and shoot them. Guilty by Association with Terror.

Mr. Bush is asking for something much more difficult, which is to replace Arafat as if he were merely this season's ambassador from Palestine, declared, after much deliberation, persona non grata.

The leverage we have on internal political arrangements in Palestine is very slight. When President Mubarak of Egypt was here, what he said was what the Saudis had been saying, namely: Give the Palestinians statehood and reforms might then be expected. We haven't done that, except prospectively. "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 — " The 1967-border state? No, a state " — whose borders and certain aspects of its sovereignty will be provisional until resolved as part of a final settlement in the Middle East."

The immediate objective, since the flowering of terrorist practices, has been to extirpate terrorism. General Sharon has thought to do this by reaching into the West Bank's "infrastructure," as he so often calls it, and rooting terrorism out with mailed fists. That hasn't succeeded, though it's not to be ruled out that it can be done. The Germans taught us at Lidice one approach to terrorism, they just killed everybody in town.

Another approach has been to try to neutralize the incendiary call to terrorism by giving the enemy that which we thought it reasonably entitled to, namely its own state. We have to assume that terrorism is not absolutely foreordained given that until 21 months ago, the division between the two entities was fought out without terrorism, sometimes in full-scale wars, mostly in diplomatic wrestling matches. If terrorism of the kind we now see began less than two years ago, why can't we get on without it?

We have advised the people of the West Bank to depose the leader they have got on with for 30 years. Do we expect that the Palestinians will take the Ceasescu road to this end? Just shoot Arafat?

Then we ask them to eliminate corruption. If they can manage to do this, and to bottle the formula, they can get in exchange for it from the Russians, Lenin's tomb, and from the Chinese, the Forbidden City. Meanwhile, the Palestinians are to get new leaders, new institutions, and new security arrangements with their neighbors. (Are they to have new security arrangements with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria?)

All this, it is hoped, can be accomplished in three years; whereupon the Palestine State will be born. By recent historical standards, that is a moderately fast schedule. We occupied Japan and Germany not for three years, but for ten, generating and refurbishing democratic institutions. And we had overlords in place, superintending the process, men of the character of Douglas McArthur and John McCloy. Do we propose to send someone to Ramallah to take the place of Arafat? Who? George Tenet?

What is it expected that the United States will do if Arafat is deposed tomorrow, and terrorism nevertheless goes on?

The spiritual leader of the Hamas movement has been confined to his quarters by the government of Arafat, suggesting that Arafat is genuinely opposed to continuing suicide raids. But can he end them?

For all that it is our objective, strategic and emotional, to deny the stated objectives of the terrorists, it is precisely they who have moved us to new and strenuous diplomacy and to the language of ultimatums. Mr. Bush managed to say to the Palestinians on Monday that the thing they most specifically desire, which is statehood, they will specifically not achieve: until there is a cultural revolution in the land.

What will come of President Bush's initiative?

Probably more terrorism.

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

Terrorism against Israel or anywhere on the globe will never be ended until the nations that have the power to stop it have the WILL to stop it.

The WILL is not there yet.

When it is, blood will flow furiously but briefly!!

[Deb]

Incredibly, Buckley missed the point of the speech entirely.

[moodyskeptic]

Geeeez, for a deep thinker, WFB sure sounds like a shallow interpreter of that recent speech. I'm only a lowly US citizen, but even I can see that our president set the bar impossibly high for the terrorist Palistinians, the ones currently in charge, in order to finally rid the world of them. This gives decent people in the Arab Street, assuming they exist, a chance to establish statehood under civil conditions. If the Arab Street reads Bush's words... well then their future is clearly in their own hands. And the US has plausable deniabilty.

[wcdukenfield]

I am continually amazed that the Bush do or die people on here have to find the brillance in statements like the President's speech on Monday between the lines and in hidden meaning. People like Buckley, Levin, et al. are willing to take the President's words at face value, and courageous enough to tell the truth about what they see.

[ex-snook]

"Some weeks ago in this space, after the Passover massacre, we suggested that the Israelis reach into the compound, extract Arafat and his closest advisers, and shoot them. Guilty by Association with Terror. "

Nah, the Israelis want to take over the whole West Bank. Now that would be more difficult if Arafat is dead, hence, Arafat lives.

If Bush is giving straight Texas talk about attainable goals for the Palestinians, long term peace has a chance. If he in talking in political slick and keeps the goal line moving, then expect a suicide bomber in a mall near you. The ball is in Arafat's court, it will soon be in Bush's.

[jwfiv]

Well, I heard the President say to the Palestinians "Civilize yourselves and you'll get the respect you say you wish for. Choose otherwise and, well, friends and neighbors, don't say we didn't warn you."

I'm paraphrasing, not reading between the lines.

Be sure the Arabs heard him well. The Persians, too.

I believe that Dubya knows his plan is a loser. Still, offering one's hand in peace before clenching it into a fist is the right thing to do. And when "pre-emption" becomes more than a concept, it'll be a whole new and different game.

[harrowup]

Incredibly, Buckley missed the point of the speech entirely.

And so did Levin. Buckley has sounded senile lately...almost as bad as Safire.

[EternalHope]

Incredibly, Buckley missed the point of the speech entirely.

Yep.

[Deb]

I guess Buckley (and Safire) is proof it's possible to be too intellectual.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

I have to believe that some of these intellectuals wrote their responses, before the speech was actually delivered,based on erroneous leaks. Were Mark and Sean at the same soiree in NYC, hosted by WFB, that Rush attended a a few months ago? After which, Rush predicted an imminent Iraqi invasion. The nexus seems pretty obvious.