There must be more to it
Michael Anbar Ph.D.
I have been reading quite a few op-eds and listening to friends criticize the shortsightedness of President Bush and his advisors who seemingly accept the validity of the circuitous Palestinian response to the “Roadmap to Peace.” The critics have a very good point: While President Bush’s June 24, 2002, laid out an explicit set of conditions for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel, the Palestinians have done practically nothing to meet those conditions.
In his June 24 speech, President Bush demanded a “regime change,” i.e., a new government elected by free general elections by all citizens: “I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror.” “I call upon them to build a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty.” The President asked the Palestinian people to have a constitution that separated the executive from the legislature, and establish an independent judiciary. A Palestinian state can function only with a new constitution which separates the powers of government: “The Palestinian parliament should have the full authority of a legislative body. Local officials and government ministers need authority of their own and the independence to govern effectively.” This implies a non-corrupt system that punishes and expels corrupt officials: “And reform must be more than cosmetic change, or 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”. This also means a security force under absolute control of the government. Then President Bush said: “Every leader actually committed to peace will end incitement to violence in official media...”
This speech was not an off the cuff statement given casually at a press conference. It was a major political declaration that included serious political commitments of the United States and took weeks to prepare and polish. It should have been given serious consideration by the two parties in conflict.
But almost a year after that speech the PA has done practically nothing to meet President Bush’s expectations. Even stopping the incitement by the PA controlled media, which could be done overnight, did not take place, not to speak of the terror attacks against the Israelis that continued or even intensified. The Palestinian leadership seems to have ignored President’s Bush’s conditional offer. After a long true or theatrical wrangling, Arafat appointed his second-in-command, Mahmoud Abbas, as prime minister who reports to him and requires his approval for any major decision. No new Palestinian legislature was elected in free elections. The Palestinian cabinet, including the new Prime Minister, has hardly a member that is not tainted with terrorism. Yassir Arafat is still the decision maker for the Palestinian people in spite of his well-known corruption and his well documented involvement in terrorism; according to Forbes Magazine Arafat, the head of one of the smallest and poorest political entities on Earth, is the seventh richest man on this planet – by far richer than any other head of state, including the American president.
What is amazing is that President Bush has welcomed Mahmoud Abbas as the representative of the Palestinian people although he does not meet any of the conditions presented in Bush’s declaration: Abbas was not elected democratically but was appointed by Arafat, who was disqualified by his ties to terrorism and by his corruption. Abbas was cofounder of the Fatah terrorist organization in 1958 and remained second in command to Arafat ever since, yet he has a very limited authority. Abbas’ past is also tainted open anti-Semitism; President and Mrs. Bush’s visit to Auschwitz contradicts Abbas’ assertion, still broadcast by PA’s media, that the Holocaust is sheer “Zionist propaganda”. Moreover, since his appointment and endorsement by the old “Palestinian legislature” a month ago, Mahmoud Abbas has done virtually nothing to meet the expectations explicitly spelled out by President Bush.
Nevertheless, the president is planning to meet Abbas in Akaba, Jordan, as head of an incipient state equivalent to Ariel Sharon the democratically elected Prime Minister of the State of Israel. Seemingly at the request of the US State Department also Prime Minister Sharon has met with Abbas twice since his appointment, treating him as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people and not as a surrogate for Arafat.
Something is very strange here. Is the US caving in to the steadfastness of Arafat, whose despotism paralyses the Palestinian Arabs, preventing them from taking a new course? But this contradicts American policy toward Mullah Omar in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, who were just as steadfast. It also contradicts President Bush’s declaration on September 20th 2001, after 9/11 that “Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” Why does this criterion not apply to the PA? On November 10, 2001 President Bush declared in his speech to the UN “Yet, there is no such thing as a good terrorist. No national aspiration, no remembered wrong can ever justify the deliberate murder of the innocent. Any government that rejects this principle, trying to pick and choose its terrorist friends, will know the consequences.” On April 4, 2002, President Bush declared: “Terror must be stopped. No nation can negotiate with terrorists.” Why is the PA, controlled by the same terrorist leadership, exempt from these criteria?
The Arab-Israeli conflict is unlikely to be resolved by following the “Roadmap to Peace,” because of the dysfunctional leadership of the Palestinians, which is unlikely to curb its terrorist activities, bring terrorists to justice and dismantle the infrastructure of its numerous terrorist organizations. All these requirements were explicitly mentioned in Bush’s 4/4/2002 speech “All who care about the Palestinian people should join in condemning and acting against groups like Al-Aqsa, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and all groups which opposed the peace process and seek the destruction of Israel.” The whole idea of establishing a Palestinian state without taking into account the behavior of the PA during the year following the June 24th speech, seems to reward rather than penalize terrorism. Why then is President Bush compromising his own convictions, putting American and his own prestige on the line?
Not everyone is crazy. There must be more to it than meets the eye. What is it?