Bush's new, improved, but still problematic plan

A few short weeks ago, President Bush was preparing a speech announcing his plan to establish an interim Palestinian State. Then, something changed. A homicidal Palestinian boarded a bus in Jerusalem and detonated a bomb, massacring 19 innocent people and injuring more than 50 others. The White House announced that it would delay the president's speech.

Most assumed that Bush would still call for the immediate creation of a Palestinian state, after once again condemning the latest act of genocide. But he surprised us this time and finally changed course.

Bush said that there were at least two conditions precedent to peace in the region and the creation of a Palestinian state: The Palestinians would have to pick a new leader "not compromised by terror" and develop a democratic regime undergirded by the rule of law and a market economy.

The question is whether this new course is more likely than his previous one to lead to peace in the Middle East. Actually, that's not the only question. There are other relevant ones as well, such as whether this new approach is more compatible with the Bush Doctrine and whether it will free the United States to prosecute its own war on terror.

Obviously, there are no easy, much less certain answers. I agree that the president's policy is a dramatic improvement over his previous pronouncements, and I applaud him for it, but I'm not sure it represents a turning point of the magnitude many are predicting. Let's look more closely at what he said.

Initially, I suspected a contradiction between Bush's call for Arafat's ouster and Palestinian self-rule. If we are telling them whom to elect, how can they be governing themselves? The answer is that Bush laid out an order for the satisfaction of his conditions, which makes them reconcilable.

He said the Palestinians must first discard their terrorist leader, then elect new leaders "not compromised by terror, then "build a practicing democracy." This change must not just be nominal, as in substituting one thuggish leader for another. It must be from the bottom up, with the Palestinian people being fully invested in it.

So what if the Palestinians hold elections, and then democratically choose Arafat or another terrorist? Unacceptable. If they choose a terrorist -- even democratically, they will be signaling their unwillingness to reject terror as a way of life.

Honestly, I don't know why this recent bombing and the revelation that Arafat had paid its perpetrators $20,000 was the last straw for President Bush. We've repeatedly caught Arafat dead to rights funding terrorists. But I won't quibble with the details. I'm just gratified that President Bush now regards Arafat as an incorrigible terrorist.

It seems to me that the problem with the Bush plan is its underlying assumption that the Palestinian people -- as opposed to their corrupt leaders -- are willing to peacefully coexist with Israel. After decades of indoctrination and being trained to hate, a majority of Palestinians apparently approve of terror and the extermination of Israel. If this is truly their mindset, then democracy is simply another avenue to a terrorist regime. And the terrorists will be able to do far more damage if they are operating under the authority of a sovereign Palestinian state.

The plan also assumes that self-rule -- as distinguished from a theocracy -- is compatible with Islam. We've seen little evidence of that in history, or in the present. If the president sticks to his guns and refuses to sanction a Palestinian state until the Palestinians reject Arafat and other terrorist leaders, and if he conceptually severs the Middle East quagmire from our own war on terror, we will have made some progress. But those are tall orders.

If the Palestinians do renounce terror and establish a democracy, that's wonderful. But it will require an enormous amount of hands-on attention from us -- which could greatly distract us from our own war. If the Palestinians don't satisfy our conditions and we continue to deny them their state, there will be more terror and then some.

President Bush deserves much credit for finally bringing the Middle East issue into his house of moral clarity -- no longer paying lip service to a moral equivalency between the misdeeds of the Palestinians and Israel's actions in defending herself -- and for outlining a plausible, if unlikely, blueprint for peace.

But I fear that this Middle East problem is bigger than all of us mortals, including the world's sole superpower. If the Palestinian people can bring themselves to countenance an adjacent Israeli state, peace can be achieved. But that's a monumental "if."

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

Saturday, June 29, 2002

Quote of the Day by for-q-clinton

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.