The Aqaba Implosion
Michael Anbar Ph.D.
Following the political fallout of the Aqaba meeting, I am deeply troubled by the potential damage to the US and to Israel as a result of the appeasement policy of the State Department. President Bush and his advisors seem to validate the circuitous Palestinian response to the “Roadmap to Peace,” in direct contradiction to the President’s personal convictions. 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. Moreover, following the platitude of Mahmoud Abbas’ speech in Aqaba, the PA seems to continue with “business as usual.” The terror attacks continue, now defiantly, by a flagrant consortium of terrorist organizations that abuse Israel’s willingness to provide work for Palestinians. The incitement against Israel and the Jewish people is as vile as ever, while Collin Powell appeals again to the arch-terrorist Arafat to curb the violence. All this, which could have been expected before the Bush sponsored meeting in Aqaba, could be construed as a slap in the face of the United States and upset the prestige it gained in Iraq. This loss of prestige might have dire consequences here and abroad.
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. “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...”
The June 24 speech was a major political declaration that included serious commitments by the United States. It took weeks to prepare and polish. And it should have been given serious consideration by the two parties in conflict. However, almost a year later the PA has done practically nothing to meet President Bush’s expectations. Even the incitement by the PA controlled media , which could be done overnight, was not stopped, not to speak of the terror attacks against the Israelis that 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.
Amazingly, President Bush has welcomed Mahmoud Abbas as the representative of the Palestinian people although he does not meet any of the preconditions presented in the June 24, 2002 declaration: Abbas was not elected democratically; he was appointed by Arafat who was disqualified by his ties to terrorism and by his corruption. Abbas was cofounder of the Fatah terrorist organization and remained second in command to Arafat ever since, yet he has a very limited authority: Abbas openly stated that his Aqaba speech was cleared by Arafat, and he refuses to use force, when necessary, against Palestinian terrorists. Abbas’ past is also tainted with open anti-Semitism; President and Mrs. Bush’s recent visit to Auschwitz contradicts Abbas’ assertion, still broadcast by PA’s media, that the Holocaust is sheer “Zionist propaganda”. Furthermore, since his appointment and endorsement by Arafat’s “Palestinian legislature” a month ago, Mahmoud Abbas has done practically nothing to meet the expectations spelled out by President Bush.
And yet the president has met Abbas in Aqaba as head of an incipient state and equivalent to Ariel Sharon, the Prime Minister of the State of Israel. Apparently 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 rather than as a surrogate for Arafat.
Is the US caving in to the steadfastness of Arafat, whose despotism has paralyzed the Palestinian Arabs, preventing them from taking a new course? 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 then is the PA, which is 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. This corrupt leadership is unlikely to curb its terrorist activities, bring terrorists to justice and dismantle the infrastructure of its 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, seems to reward rather than penalize terrorism. Why is President Bush compromising his own convictions, putting American and his own prestige on the line?
Muslims all over the world, including Osama Bin laden, are keenly observing US policy in the Middle East. They are not interested in improving the living conditions or political status of Palestinian Arabs. They are watching to see how seriously President Bush’s declarations that America is not going to cave in to terrorism and that it will fight and defeat terrorist organizations wherever found, are to be taken. The Palestinian policy of the State Department, apparently endorsed by George Bush, contradicts Many of the the President’s declarations. In this case America is negotiating with terrorists, rewards them politically and materially, and is ready to tolerate their defiance of explicit US requirements. This will make Yassir Arafat a national hero in the Arab world, assuming the leadership of open defiance of the West, where Mullah Omar and Saddam Hussein have failed. This will bolster the self-confidence of radical political leaders who support terrorism, such as Bashir Assad or the Iranian Mullahs; they will continue to encourage Arafat to pursue his political goals, defying America and exterminating the State of Israel, as he meets their objective of weakening the West. Any damage to American prestige only serves their purpose. The State Department’s policy in the Middle East that yields to and rewards Arab terrorism against Israel and retreats under the threats of Arab terrorism against America and its worldwide assets, impairs American credibility. Negotiation with terrorists can only enhance terrorism, giving it legitimacy as an effective political tool. American claim that the War in Iraq was a war against international terrorism can then be questioned. An apparent lack of US resolve to eliminate Palestinian terrorism gives credence to the suggestion that the war in Iraq was a neocolonial war for oil.
The President’s assurances that America will guarantee the integrity of the Jewish state will also lose credibility, in view of his apparent retreat from his own statements and demands. The Arabs, who will compare President Bush’s rhetoric with American foreign policy, may conclude that that their dream of eliminating the Jewish state is within their reach. This can only harden their political stance.
Yielding to defiance and blackmail will encourage Syria and Iran, as well as North Korea, to defy the US, resulting in a major defeat of US foreign policy. Moreover, the apparent pro-Arab stance of the State Department might result also in a domestic political disaster for the Republican Party. A prospective loss of the Holy Land to the Muslims, who deny Jewish and Christian history, will undoubtedly hurt the image of the GOP. The Evangelical Christians, who have been loyal supporters of the Republican ticket, will face a dilemma. If candidates of the Democratic Party will openly oppose the pro-Arab American policy regarding the State of Israel, which is quite likely, these “right wing” Christians will have to choose between the loss of the Holy Land to the Muslims and the acceptance of Gay rights. Undoubtedly, the former has much greater theological significance. Many of these “right wing” voters may then choose to stay home on election-day.