Bush's Speech - A Palestinian State?

Great Debates
1

I just read the transcript of Bush’s speech, and I personally thought it was excellent. He struck just the right tone. He also laid the blame partially at the feet of other Arab nations like Syria.

The highlight is that the U.S. will fully support the creation of a Palestinian state - provided they get rid of Arafat and the rest of the current leadership, renounce terror, and have elections. But no one who has supported terrorism or is part of the current administration will be allowed to run.

Here’s the text of the speech: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020624-3.html

Thoughts?

2

I regret that Bush made a speech at all. I agree with Sam Stone that it was a very good speech, given that he felt obliged to make one.

The good part of the speech is that he explicily laid down some very reasonable requirements on various nations. It took some courage to explicitly demand Arafat’s replacement, start of real democracy, etc.

The bad part is that these conditions will not be met, in my opinion. Fox News channel mentioned that the speech hadn’t been bradcast to the Palestinian people.

I fear that the net result of the speech may be to push forward the Palestinian state, but without the conditions demanded by Bush. I don’t believe subtlety can be meaningful in this sort of conflict.

The worst paragraph in the speech was:

This is self-contradictory. If a real peace must be negotiated between the warring parties, then why did Bush make this speech telling them how to make peace?

Overall, the speech looks to have been written by a committee. I do nhjot believe it will do any good, diplomatically (although it may win votes for Republican.) My hope is that it will lead to nothing. will be quickly forgotten, and will do only minimal harm.

3

Oh yeah, telling the Palestinians that Arafat cannot be chosen by them is sure to be helpful. Telling anyone who they can and cannot choose to represent them is going to have a desirable effect.

Demanding reforms, elections, sure, but demanding that those reforms produce leaders to the United States’ liking before the US could support a Palestinian state is only going make such an outcome less likely. You want him gone, this aint the way to accomplish it.

4

No, just leaders that don’t kill people.

There’s also a good reason to demand ‘new’ leadership. Because if Arafat runs, Arafat wins. He’s in control of a totalitarian state, and has an apparatus willing to kill dissenters.

Arafat has proven himself to be a murderer and a terrorist. Note that the Palestinians are welcome to keep him as their leader, but as long as he is, there will be no statehood. Sounds reasonable to me.

5

All in all, I thought it was pretty good - very important for Bush to demand not only an end to terrorism but also a democratic capitalist system. I agree with just about everything Sam Stone said. However, there were a couple issues:

  1. Bush made no mention of reform of the Palestinian educational system. It is not enough for the PLO charter to recognize Israel; Palestinian textbooks have to contain maps with Israel in them. Kids cannot be fed a constant stream of incitement and praise of suicide bombers as “martyrs”. In fact, parents who encourage their kids to engage in terrorism should be considered guilty of child abuse (though I realize that would be a fairly specific point to mention in a general visionary speech). Long term, reeducation of the Palestinian youth is the only thing that will lead to a general acceptance of Israel’s right to exist.

  2. He should not have called for an immediate withdrawal of all Israeli forces. Israel has a right to defend itself, and its pullout should be proportional to a Palestinian show of good faith in stopping terrorism.

  3. Chances are, most Palestinians have not seen and will not see this speech. While it was clearly directed largely at the Palestinian people, Arafat and his thug companions choose what goes on Palestinian TV. He’s already clearly missed the point.

6

I, for one, thought it was the tiniest baby step in the right direction and while I realise it could prove to be nothing more than rhetoric, overall I think it can be built on and fleshed out in time.

The region desperately needs statesmen on both sides - would that both Sharon and Arafat would step aside for the benefit of their respective nations and the opportunity for a lasting peace between them.

7

Israel and Palestine certain can’t continue the way they are now, and nothing Arafat has done in his tenure has brought Palestine closer to a state than they are right now. He had his chance with Barak at Camp David but blew it, so it’s gotta be bye-bye, Yassir.

No loss, really.

8

I kind of agree with William Saletan of Slate:
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2067339

Bush basically gave the Palestinians nothing to hope for: a “provisional” state, without really defining what provisional means. Indeterminate borders, indeterminate long-term agreement, etc. etc. There is no roadmap, no deadlines, no maps, no endpoint, no startpoint.

Look at the embrace of the Saudi peace plan. It is sheer simplicity: Israel pulls back to the 1967 borders (with some compromises on refugees and Jerusalem), and the Arab world will sign a peace treaty with Israel. It works with tools already in place, and seeks to change the very minimum in order for there to be lasting peace.

The Bush plan is far, far more complex, and far, far less enticing for the Palestinians. If you elect a new leader in fair and free elections, if you embrace peace, if you lay down your arms, well then maybe we’ll start calling Palestine a country. If you continue to behave like good little children for an indeterminate time afterwards, then maybe we’ll give you a border.

How is the US going to oversee a free and fair election in a region that save Israel has never had a free and fair election? How are they going to find a legitimate Palestinian leader who can sell peace to his very polarized people? How are they going to build a nation in Palestine when Arafat has been working hard for the past 10 years to systematically rid himself of all legitimate opposition? Are Hosni Mubarak and King Abdallah really going to help administer a fair election when they deny that to their own people? Will Dahlan, Rajoub, or Abu Ala really be any better than Arafat? Will they really be able to reign in militants, especially with foreign fuel poured on the fire?

Is Bush really willing to commit this kind of energy to creation of a provisional state? Who will do it if the US doesn’t? Call me cynical, but I see the whole thing as another PR ploy, another “look at me, I’m doing something!” by President Bush.

It will change nothing. The Palestinians aren’t gonna elect someone over Arafat anytime soon. Arafat will continue to look after his own head by walking a fine line between peace negotiations and intifada. All solutions to this problem will be unilateral Israeli actions – reoccupation (let’s hope not) or separation. To pretend that a Mandela will emerge from the slums of Gaza to lead his people to a noble, negotiated peace is as lucid as a drunk smoking crack while tripping on acid.

9

It scares me.

It’s the old carrot and the stick. Get rid of Arafat, and we’ll support your state.

But, Arafat ha a firm grip in the seat of power. He’s not going to relinquish that, and we know it.

I’m afraid because when you make demands and offer things that you know aren’t going to happen, you usually only do it for one reason: So that after you take drastic action, you can point back at it and say “hey look we offered them a state. We tried to be reasonable.”

10

http://64.247.33.250/
A reader on another web site said the BBC dropped their coverage of the speech suddenly half way through.
– Can anyone confirm that?
– Any ideas why? Was it the content?
– If the BBC didn’t like the speech, what did they dislike about it?

11

So who died and made Bush King, er dictator, er whatever?

Was the speech just mere words or does Bush propose to offer the plan to the UN to debate and agree?

12

Wait a second…Bush has to be “king, er dicatator” to state the position of the United States on an important foreign policy issue? All he said was “The only way our government will recognize yours is if you have a capitalist democracy free of terrorism.” In other words, you do whatever the hell you want, but there will be consequences, and we certainly don’t have to support you. I don’t see what’s dictatorial at all about that.

Well, it was a speech, and speeches usually are words, but let’s not play semantics. What does it mean to “offer” a plan to the UN? And why does the UN all of a sudden get the final decision on world issues? The mere fact that a majority of dictatorships decide something does not make that something right.:rolleyes:

13

Coming from just one of those UN countries that aren’t dictatorships, maybe the reverse is equally valid? Just because the US decides something, is that always right? As distinct from being deemed to be in the US’s best interests? Or maybe you don’t consider that there’s a difference?

14

Does the BBC get “miffed”?

Anyway, it’s analysis… http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_2064000/2064256.stm
includes this interesting point…

As critics here have pointed out the Bush administration will be relying heavily on its undemocratic and authoritarian Arab allies in the region to sell Western-style liberal democracy to the Palestinians.

And pigs will fly. This virtually rules out a Palestinian state. With the debatable exception of Lebanon at some stage, there has never been a democratic Arab country. AFAIK.

15

The speech was basically a joke IMO.

It sets wildly unrealistic conditions for the Palestinians ie. remove Arafat without giving them anything in return. And it makes even the most basic step like freezing settlements conditional on such a removal.

The fact that is that if the Palestinians reject Arafat it will probably be in favor of someone more hard-line and more involved in terrorism than he. And of course the worst way of sidelining Arafat ( not necessarily a bad goal in itself) is to publicly call for his removal.

Merely saying that Bush supports the creation of a Palestinian state is absolutely nothing new and doesn’t represent any kind of reward for removing Arafat. After all even Sharon supports a Palestinian state. If Bush had said that he would push for a settlement based on the Saudi plan if Arafat goes and suitable reforms are made then it would have been interesting.

The Israelis seem to like the plan , a sure sign that it won’t go far, but I think the people who will really love it are Hamas and co. because it seems to signal that the US is thinking of breaking off ties with the only section of the Palestinian leadership which is even remotely pragmatic.

And yeah the Saletan article is good. As he says the Bush speech doesn’t even give the Palestinians a bone just a picture of a bone.

16

Count me among the pessimists – the speech was good PR for Dubya and Israel, but realistically it has as much chance of being accepted as Saddam Hussein suddenly deciding to quit being a statesman and be a late-night talk-show host instead. Between the thinly-veiled insults against the Palestinians (“You must have a democratically-elected leader, just not the one you want”) and the lack of substantive rewards for their cooperation, it’s no surprise they knocked it down already.

17

Eh. There’ve been enough speeches on the issue. While I’m sure the administration will follow through on their declared stance, they have to realize that, after all this time, Palestine won’t listen to us. They just won’t. Israel will.

I am glad that Bush has stressed that Israel needs to pull back. He’s placing the pressure on both sides (at least I hope he does, and the parts in his speech addressed to Israel wasn’t just talk) which is what the situation needs.

18

Palestinians blast Bush speech

What happens if Arafat is voted in? Which IMO is very likely now thanks to this speech.

Also there’s not a lot to work for. A provisional State with no as yet agreed borders, capital etc. no definite State promised. All that they were basically told was to get rid of your leaders, totally reform you battered society and we’ll have a look at whether we think you can have a state. Even if this is the sensible way to go from the outside I highly doubt a lot of Palestinians will agree.

19

The goals he set were reasonable. However, they’re also unrealistic. And for those of you claiming that Palestinians are getting “nothing in return”- what are they offering? What have they provided to the peace process so far? They now have a straightforward blueprint on steps to take if they want their own state with the two caveats being a) stop the attacks and b) elect someone who isn’t a corrupt thug. If they can’t do that, why should we support their statehood?

20

Actually, I would have thought that the demand that Arafat and his colleagues should go as a precondition to a Palestinian state must have been included knowing that it would mean that Bush’s proposal would go nowhere.

The whole point about an independent Palestinian state is that it chooses it’s own government – that’s what “independent” means. It is contradictory to say that we favour an independent Palestinian state, and at the same time to say that Arafat must not be at the head.

Sure, we can say that having Arafat at the head of the Palestinian movement is an obstacle to progress. But when we go further and say that he must go as a precondition to Palestinian statement, we are really saying that we do not favour an independent Palestinian state.

Consider Iraq. Iraq is headed by a homicidal maniac. The US would like him to be removed. Significant elements within the US argue that the US should actually try to remove him. But nobody argues that Iraq has no right to exist as a state because of who heads it. Similarly, if Palestinians have a right to statehood they cannot lose that right because of who leads the Palestinian authority, or who might lead the Palestinian state.

A more effective approach might be to persuade Arafat (or other influential Palestinians) privately that Arafat’s continuation as head of the Palestinian movement was an obstacle to the acheivement of Palestinian independence, so that he would either step down or be removed (more or less violently). But making this a public precondition of progress to statehood in fact make it very difficult for Arafat to resign, or for other Palestinians to seek his removal.

Bottom line: I don’t think this is aimed at the Palestinians at all. It is aimed at the Israelis, and it is intended as a very clear and public warning that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the present situation in Israel and the West Bank, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the US to maintain its support of Israel, and it is considering the adoption of policies which Israel will find unacceptable.