Should be a real short blog tonight. Gonna say a few things about Bush's speech. Opinions are all over the map. Chris Johnson, over at MJC thinks it's full of empty platitudes and cliches. While den Beste thinks it is a policy statement. P. J. O'Rourke, in one of his books (and I'm sorry, I cannot remember which one except it is the only one I don't have), called the Middle East God's monkey house. His solution was to build a big ol' fence around the region and let 'em slug it out. That's pretty close to what Bush is saying.
My interpretation:
It looks like Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld won the battle with Powell and the State Department. Now, we get to see If Powell will get on board or decide to resign at a later date.
What does the New York Times have to say about it?
Today, however, after a week of renewed Palestinian suicide bombings, Mr. Bush declared the price of statehood for 4.5 million Palestinians, and it will be high: the removal of Yasir Arafat as the Palestinian leader.
And an end to terrorism. We will not stop the Israelis from defending themselves.
The policy is still short on the details of how a cease-fire could be put in place — how the Israeli Army might be coaxed out of the West Bank or how Palestinian security institutions might be rebuilt to prevent suicide bombings. Those are important factors in creating conditions for a political process that could move forward.
Sounds pretty straight forward to me. Dump Arafat and stop terrorism. Unfortunately, a generation that has been brainwashed into glorifying death and instilled with overwheming hatred can't be fixed in three years. How about ten years? How about twenty years? That's the problem. And it is the Palestinians' problem, not ours. They can embrace civilized behavior or they can continue living in desolation and squalor. Their choice. Do you think Israel wants to maintain a military presence in the West Bank?
For all the risks in a policy that sends a sharp message to Mr. Arafat that he is irrelevant, the recent track record of splitting differences in the Middle East has been a dismal failure. "Everything is shoved down the road so, and it was so conditional," said Richard W. Murphy, a onetime assistant secretary or state for the Middle East who served Democratic and Republican administrations. He added that Mr. Bush could face a "dilemma" if — in defiance of American pressure to remove the icon of their national movement — Palestinians re-elect Mr. Arafat at the first opportunity, which is expected to be next spring.
No problem. Arafat stays. No state. See how easy that was?
"Arafat never struck me as the kind who would want to step down in the name of national interest, because he thinks he knows it better than anyone else," Mr. Murphy said.
No problem. Arafat stays. No state. See how easy that was?
A significant risk is that while Mr. Bush waits for Palestinians to live up to the benchmarks he set forth from the Rose Garden of the White House, the violence will simply continue, or even intensify.
Then that puts the ball in the Israelis' court. Sharon, or if he is not successful, Netanyahu crushes the Palestinians, or initiates ethnic cleansing by removing them to Gaza or Lebanon.
It was also unclear how changing the Palestinian leadership would actually proceed after the United States and European countries helped Palestinians carry out local and national elections over the next year, or how those elections would be carried out at all if violence and Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories continued.
Stop the violence. Act civilized. Grow up. Sounds pretty straight forward to me. Once again, it is the Palestinian's choice.
Mr. Indyk added that he was concerned that Mr. Bush offered too little clarity to Palestinians. "He needed to give definition to what the Palestinian state would look like and that would give the Palestinians a greater sense of what they would get in return for ditching their leadership." he said.
The state would look like whatever they wanted it to look like as long as it was willing to coexist peacefully with Israel. Once again, pretty clear to me.
...Arab adviser said he did not think most Arab leaders were alarmed that Mr. Bush had taken a muscular stand on the need to create a democratic and transparent state for Palestinians.
They should be.
"The democratization of the Palestinian leadership is a point well taken, and obviously it was targeted against Arafat, but there will be elections there and we will see," the adviser said.
Dump Arafat. Or, no state. Bush didn't stutter.
Putting the best face on the speech in Washington was Hassan Abdulrahman, Mr. Arafat's official representative here. The president, he said, "spoke of many things that we wanted to hear, an end to the Israeli occupation, and he challenged Israelis to freeze the settlements, withdraw their troops and respect Palestinian rights."
And one thing he didn't want to hear: dump Arafat.
Asked whether he understood the speech to be a direct challenge to Mr. Arafat's rule, Mr. Abdulrahman was evasive. He pointed out that Mr. Bush never used Mr. Arafat's name in the speech when he called for new leadership.
He didn't have to. What did you want to hear? Mr. Arafat meet the dustbin of history. Dustbin meet Arafat. Ciao, baby.
For now, Mr. Abdulrahman said he preferred not to focus on the "ambiguity" of Mr. Bush's remarks, and added: "He asked us for elections that may produce a new leadership. We are committed to elections and Yasir Arafat is committed to elections."
Ambiguity? Ambiguity? And Arafat is committed to elections? As long as he can get Jimmy Carter to oversee them? Have you been listening? Arafat is history. We're tired of dealing with him. Na na na na. Na na na na. Hey hey hey. Goo-od By-ey
Still, a number of experts expressed concerns that Mr. Bush has set out a task that Palestinians will be hard put to perform.
I agree with this. But, if they want a state, they gotta quit killing Jews and accept the fact of Israel's existence. Once again, it's up to them.
Stephen P. Cohen of the Israel Policy Forum said that while Mr. Bush today charted a vision of a solution that marks "an advance over where the United States has been in the past," the prescription the president laid out "still has the basic framework which is that the Palestinians have to act first."
That's probably why it will fail. The Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
But, Mr. Indyk added, if Mr. Bush is trying satisfy the calls from Arab leaders to act on the Palestinian problem before moving "on to Baghdad" to topple Saddam Hussein, then the policy "is not going to work."
Uh, Mr. Indyk, what Mr. Bush is saying is that solving the Palestinian problem is not connected to moving "on to Baghdad". And he's telling Arab leaders exactly that. He's taken the leash off of Ariel Sharon. And he's telling the Arab states to acknowledge Israel's right to exist and quit funding terror. Saddam Hussein is soon gonna be history and if the rest of the Arab states are not careful, their regimes will be next.
At least, I'm hoping that is what he is saying. Only time will tell.
Posted by denny at June 25, 2002 02:33 PM