President Bush gave his long-awaited Middle East speech yesterday, the basis of which was two conditions long espoused by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon: Dump Yasser Arafat and end Palestinian terrorism.
Two central points can be made about Bush's speech:
It is a sign his administration, belatedly, is getting involved. For far too long it sat on the sidelines, allowing the situation on the ground to go from bad to worse.
It is a vision for peace without a road map of how to get there. Few will disagree with Bush's idea of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace and prosperity. The question has always been – how to achieve it?
If this plan is to work, it must be just the first step. If Bush intends to make a difference, his administration must now give the situation top priority, must be as fully engaged in the Mideast peace process as it is in the war on terrorism, for the two are linked.
Bush says the Palestinians should dump Arafat, stop all terrorism, and elect democratic institutions. That accomplished, he says, Israel will withdraw from the West Bank, and the international community will rush in with money to rebuild Palestine from the rubble into a viable state.
It is an intriguing vision bedeviled by several problems:
Arafat is democratically elected, and being opposed by Bush is not likely to hurt his chances for re-election.
Bush insists that Palestinian terrorism stop while Israel continues its West Bank occupation, which is, unfortunately, not likely under current leadership.
Demanding that terrorism halt before negotiations begin gives groups that do not want negotiations – such as Hamas – a terrorist veto over peace. It also gives Sharon an excuse for never beginning negotiations.
Bush's peace plan is likely to be warmly welcomed in Israel and treated skeptically by Arab states, which would not be a good sign. For the Mideast quarrel to be fairly resolved, both sides must compromise, and Bush has asked for no compromises from Israel.
There was no reference, for example, to picking up negotiations where they left off 17 months ago; to building on compromises envisaged at Taba, Egypt, on all the major sticking points, including refugees, Jerusalem, borders and Jewish settlements.
All of Bush's immediate demands fall on the Palestinians, though many Israelis themselves believe the best way to restart the peace process would be through a unilateral Israeli gesture or a quid pro quo.
In the current edition of Foreign Affairs, for example, Gal Luft, a military writer and retired Israeli colonel, says Israel should unilaterally remove some settlements in exchange for a cease-fire. "Such an approach would indicate to the Palestinian population that Israel is serious about peace and ready to pay the necessary price for it, not only in words but in deeds."
The administration can use the speech as a starting point, but if either Americans or Israelis believe Palestinians will respond to it positively without some gestures of hope from Israel, they seem likely to be disappointed.
Bush has offered the Palestinians incentives, but an all-out presidential effort will be necessary to get back to the path of peace.
