I believe that Bush created a strawman of conditions that he and his administration know can never be met and will never be accepted by the Palestinian people. In that way he has an “out” and can lower expectations on his administration to add anything constructive to the dialogue. Israel will continue to destroy the Palestinian infrastructure and cripple the Palestinian economy. Palestinians will continue to take lives through suicide bombings (they’ve been backed into a corner where desparate measures -even futile, desparate measures) are their only way to effect policy.
Why don’t we just cut to the chase: Even if Bush did have some sort of say in what might comprise an ‘acceptable’ Palestinian Administration, is he likely to agree without Israeli approval ? Hardly – it seems pretty clear now who wears the trousers in the Bush-Sharon relationship.
So why don’t we just let the Israeli electorate chose the next Palestinian leader and save everyone a lot of bother ?
Way to go George.
Mojo,
Offering the Palestinians a state without any mention of its boundaries is a meaningless gesture since Sharon has already come out in support of a Palestinian state. So in effect the speech says “We won’t give you anything new but you are going to have to kick out Arafat” It’s just impractical nonsense. If they were serious about it they would have at least given some kind of serious incentive to get Arafat out. That, to me, indicates that they don’t take their own plan seriously .
“What have they provided to the peace process so far?”
Well the PA has condemned suicide bombings openly, more or less endorsed the Clinton plan and has ,at least, halfheartedly and intermittently taken on Hamas and IJ. That’s more than anything we have seen from Sharon who even refuses to freeze settlements which don’t contribute anything to Israeli security and whose idea of a final settlement appears to be a Palestinian “state” which is a Bantustan on a few patches of land ,15-20 years from now ,while Israel merrily continues building settlements.
People who think that getting Arafat out is the biggest priority might perhaps provide a list of leaders who
1)are more moderate than he is
2)have a ghost of a chance of getting elected.
That is not to say that getting Arafat out wouldn’t be a good thing at some point; it’s just daft to make it a pre-condition for US involvement.
And I would say that:
-
They were only paying lip service. They only recently started condemning the bombing in Arabic, previous condemnations were in english only to give the appearance that they supported the halt of suicide bombings. The large shipment of arms discovered aboard the ship and the PA receipts for the arms bears this out.
-
They have not endorsed the Clinton plan. They have said that they are “willing to consider it again”, whatever that means- basically they’re still not willing to give up “right of return” even though their actions since the beginning of the Intifada have pretty much made RoR impossible to achieve.
-
Once agai, I say that their “taking on” of Hamas and IJ has been only lip service- they’ve done the absolute bare minimum to give the appearance of taking on radical groups in the Palestinian territories.
Once again, why should the US support statehood for a territory that cannot rennouce terrorism or take meaningful steps to do so? We should support Arafat only because the other options are worse?
"basically they’re still not willing to give up “right of return” "
I disagree here. The Saudi peace plan, the New York times op-ed by Arafat and the recent statements about the Clinton plan pretty much signal that the Palestinians realize that they won’t get ROR.
Obviously they aren’t going to come out and unilaterally announce they are giving up on that without some corresponding Israeli move but it’s pretty clear that they see ROR as a bargaining chip only.
If clear unequivocal statements against suicide bombing aren’t a good sign I am not sure what is. Why make a such big fuss about “incitement” if you don’t give the PA credit when they do speak out against terrorism.
As for fighting terror the PA is not going take big risks in doing this without some assurances of what’s going to come at the end. When they declared a cease-fire last December and got attacks reduced to virtually nothing for three weeks, Sharon didn’t reciprocate and continued the assasinations.
Anyway what exactly has Sharon done for the peace process?
Way to go Bush! Congratulations on doing the political thing, which is dispensing a bunch of words and saying nothing. A true gem, even by Clintonian measures.
Being fair though, what choice does he have here? He can choose to support the bad (Palestine) or the worse (which is the Israeli’s) in the current situation.
For years we have sat back and watched this situation happen, and done nothing to actively stop it. Even when the UN passed resolutions demanding Israel return land illegally seized, which was totally ignored by Israel, we did nothing. Now however the U.S. needs a victory to maintain good will with the Arab nations, and in truth deflate some of the Anti-Western sentiment that allows terrorism to exist in the first place. So he proposes a plan that is so vague the Israeli’s will say sure thing George, while the Palestinians have no choice but to refuse.
So on to the real problem, and why peace will never work in that region.
It can be argued, that the state of Israel does not even want peace at all. Every time a single deranged individual, who I in no way support or condone, straps on a bomb and blows himself up the Israeli’s respond with what has to be considered Human Right’s attrocities. (Anyone trying to deny this can explain to me how a UN Envoy ordered to investigate activities was told to basically stay home by Israel with no Sanctions or penalties being imposed.)
In the face of these bombing there response has consistently been: Step 1) Send in the army and round up the terrorists. Step 2.) Remove basic freedoms and create a state of Martial Law in a foreign Country. (Nice Goodwill gesture) Step 3.) Send in some Bull Dozers and destroy housing for tactical purposes.
Now people lets look closely at Step 3 for a minute can we? Israel is becoming tremendously overcrowded, as we all know, and has to come up with a way of addressing that. So from their point of view the situation as it is today is perfect!! Every time one idiot does something wrong they go in, arrest a few people and then they build Condo’s!
Israel can not give up that land, and the U.S. either can not or will not make them do it. So we are back where we started. Great speech, commited us to nothing, promised nothing and can not be construed by any UN Action as a firm position.
Continuing to create a recognized state out of sponsors of terrorism that routinely kill dozens of innocent civilians every week or two is madness.
So is any proposal to grant that group statehood that does not require cessation of such homicide bombings, and a government that does not include endorsers of the homicide bombings.
That some of you refuse to recognize something so fundamental is baffling.
It’s also somewhat amusing that when the Bush administration, early on, seemed to say in effect, “They’re big boys. Let them work out their problems. Why should we be intricately involved?” (which I too think was unrealistic; but I understand where they were trying to come from) anti-Bushers freaked, criticized, castigated.
An agreement on Palestinian statehood can’t even say something as basic as, “continued suicide bombings against Israeli citizens will make this proposal null and void.” That’s an invitation for anyone - on either side - opposed to the idea to thwart it. Which is not much different than the situation as it exists now.
As always, it’s a morass over there. The U.S. administration’s plan doesn’t change that. And I’m not sure I know what will.
If this were the case what would you do BTW? Let things get worse so as to get rid of him and who would be the moderate replacement BTW. Also they might be able to combat the internal threat more effectively if their security infrastructure hadn’t been seriously damaged by Israeli attacks.
How about letting the people decide who they want to be their leader. Some of us don’t think the US pres. is any good whatsoever for the world(and that’s a understatement in my case) but guess what we don’t have a say in the matter and quite rightly so.
Actions?
Chrisg1016 said:
Why do they have “no choice but to refuse”? Because they can’t elect someone who will renounce terrorism? Why should the US hold any truck with that?
Circular argument. I’d say that their infrastructure wouldn’t have been damaged if they didn’t let it get co-opted by terrorists and corruption- and the US and Israel aren’t the only ones with these complaints.
Palestinians still have the right to choose their leader. The US also has the right not to deal with that leader. If anything, the US (not Arafat) has been pushing for free elections. It seems that you’re arguing that not only should the Palestinians have the right to make poor choices but the US should lend the same level of support to good decisions as to bad ones.
“Actions?”
Public statements condemning terrorism are a prelude to action in the right circumstances. They are important in themselves because they shape public opinion. If they weren’t why bother with public statements at all? Why criticize the Palestinians for their failure to make these statements in the past? And what exactly has Bush done other than make public statements anyway?
Anyway in answer to your question about what the US should have done , they should have said something along the lines of: If the Palestinians can control terrorist acts and reform their political institutions(with or without Arafat) we will push for a peace deal along the lines of the Saudi Plan.
As it is the US is making big demands on the Palestinians while offering crumbs. It’s a non-starter.
The New York Times appears to think not. Their lead editorial today says, “But making Mr. Arafat’s fate the be-all and end-all of the Mideast peace process makes him look far too significant, and makes it all the harder for the Palestinians themselves to show him the door.” The editorial focused on Arafat’s ouster, but ignored Bush’s demand that the Palestinians from a democracy – perhaps because they assumed democracy wouldn’t happen.
This harks back to my earlier thread about the bigotry of low expectations.
BTW, ChrisG1016, although most people live in the cities, Israel has a lot of empty land. Just drive through the country and you’ll see.
There’s a big difference between the PA and Bush. The PA has the authority to make arrests and take steps to actually halt the bombings. What specific steps should Bush take to prevent further suicide bombings and the following incursions? Heck, he can’t even make a speech like this without several people saying that he’s exceeding his authority and usurping the UN’s job.
BTW, ChrisG1016, although most people live in the cities, Israel has a lot of empty land. Just drive through the country and you’ll see. **
[/QUOTE]
I was hoping someone would say this. As a non-religious person I spent 2 tours over there. I do not question the empty land theory, but where is it you think they are building these days? I assume you speak from a position of haveing lived and served there so I look forward to this well thought out response.
And Mojo they have no choice for three reasons. Number one they will never see this speech, number two it is not a democracy, and number three these people do not believe that the United States would lift a finger to defend them. Israel has forever used American Support, as an FYI I was not stationed there with Palestinian interests in mind, to run wild and this token speech does not give them a single thing to point to and say right there is where they are failing to meet the agreement.
Trust that clarifies Mojo.
Chris 1016
Can there be a state without the US and Israel backing/allowing it to be formed? No, would be my answer. So it seems to me that the US is saying “You can have free elections as long as you don’t vote for the Arafat”. That’s not a free election.
BTW don’t get me wrong here. The Palestinian side of this if FUBAR. Arafat is a leader who leaves a lot to be desired. However there needs a solution that the majority of the population can accept. If the people get behind a process it will work eventually. I’m not saying I have a idea about what that solution is but I don’t see this speech helping at all.
The speech was very good in that it framed the debate. The apologists for the Palestinians always say that the terrorism is caused by hopelessness and poverty. Now Bush has offered them hope and prosperity. When the PLO rejects this plan it will show the truth, that the violence against the Jews is not a means to an end but an end unto itself. Once this happens it should clear the way for an imposed situation, either a wall or a reoccupation. After the PLO has rejected two plans for a state in favor of violence it will be harder for them to fool people as to what their true motives are.
Let me just point out something here:
edwino said:
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.
from the text of the speach:
As new Palestinian institutions and new leaders emerge, demonstrating real performance on security and reform, I expect Israel to respond and work toward a final status agreement. With intensive effort by all, this agreement could be reached within three years from now. And I and my country will actively lead toward that goal.
More to follow.
"The PA has the authority to make arrests and take steps to actually halt the bombings. "
The PA has the legal authority maybe but politically it is constrained by the general situation. A crackdown on terrorists is a big risk for the PA and there is simply no reason to do it from their pov for the crumbs that Bush is offering.
I have already explained what Bush could do ;he could announce that the end-game , assuming the Palestinians get their act together, is along the lines of the Saudi peace plan. He could back that up with diplomatic and economic pressure on both sides. Unfortunately he is basically unwilling to take on Sharon.
Therefore his plan is a joke.
So the PA has verbally condemned the bombings, but the occurence of attempts at suicide bombings/attacks has increased. To me this means that either:
-The PA is impotent and does not truly represent the will of the people.
or
–They’re publicly condemning the bombings while privately supporting them.
And what you refer to as “crumbs” is known as “the obvious first step in the peace process” to a lot of people.
and yojimbo said:
It is still a free election. They are free to elect who they want, and we are free to negotiate with that person. Or not. We should forgo our freedom because of their poor choices?
Mojo,
There is a third possibility: that the PA can get a grip on terror but only if there is a tangible reward to show the Palestinian people at the end as opposed to vague assurances of a state.
You have completely ignored Sharons’ role in this. What is his contribution to the peace process? He isn’t even remotely interested in making a deal along the lines of the Clinton plan (whereas Arafat probably is). He is continuing to build setttlements which clearly is beyond the scope of “fighting terror”
How come Bush is not criticising him? How come you aren’t?
It’s rather absurd to reduce the whole conflict to one word: terror and blame it on one person: Arafat as if there is no political or historical context to the present situation.