Dr. Frank's What's-it

Notwithstanding a great deal of

Notwithstanding a great deal of blogospheric wishful thinking to the contrary, I think Daniel Pipes is correct about Bush's "provisional state" speech:

George W. Bush has been adamant since Sept. 11 about stopping terrorism, but he took a firm step in the opposite direction in his speech yesterday.

He should have told the Palestinians clearly and unequivocally that their 21-month campaign of violence against Israel is unacceptable and must conclude before any discussion of rewards can be started. Instead, the President outlined his vision for a "provisional" Palestinian state and demanded an end to what he called "Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories." Both of these constitute very major benefits to the Palestinians; as such, they represent rewards for suicide bombings, sniper attacks, and the other forms of terrorism.

This not only does grave damage to the President's proclaimed war on terrorism but it sends a signal to the Palestinians to expect further rewards for yet more violence. True, there was much in his presentation about the virtues of local elections, independent auditing and market economics, but the only message that will stick is a cruder one: Terrorism pays.

Pipes also lists several indications of Bush's "misunderstanding of the Palestinian-Israeli war." The most glaring is a willful misreading (I'm assuming it's willful, anyway) of Palestinian public sentiment about anti-Israeli violence:

Bush declares that only a small minority of Palestinians subscribe to the means or views of the terrorists. "The hatred of a few holds the hopes of many hostage." But this is false; nearly every opinion survey, political speech, mosque sermon and other indication suggests that a substantial majority of Palestinians enthusiastically support the campaign of violence against Israel. This has the ominous implication that practising democracy, as the President calls for, would lead -- ironically -- to a more aggressive policy toward Israel.

Here's the one that really gets to the heart of the matter, which is that the central aim of the Palestinian cause, with or without Arafat, is the destruction of Israel:

Overemphasizing terrorism: "There is simply no way to achieve [Palestinian-Israeli] peace until all parties fight terror." Palestinian terrorism has caused terribly tragedies but it is not the heart of the problem. Terrorism, after all, is but a tactic in the service of a war aim. That war aim -- the destruction of Israel -- is the heart of the problem. For example, it is perfectly possible to imagine a future Palestinian state that does renounce terrorism and instead builds up a conventional force of planes, tanks and ships with which to attack and destroy Israel. Along these lines, it is noteworthy that Bush did not call on the PA to reduce the size of its armed forces.

"A political program," Pipes concludes, "cannot work if it is premised on errors."

This speech is the only statement from Bush on the subject that I can remember that does not use the phrase "Israel's right to exist." Of course, this right is the unquestioned and unquestionable assumption underlying the entire speech. But we already know that the US supports Israel's continued existence. (Also conspicuously, though more characteristically, absent is any mention of Saudi Arabia in the round-up of terror-compromised Middle-Eastern states who must "act to be on the side of peace.")

The clear language regarding the culpability of the current Palestinian leadership, and the clear implication that Arafat must go, are welcome. (Though I doubt anyone will be surprised if the relatively forthright rhetoric is undercut in the coming days and weeks-- like this.) Still, the failure to mention the central issue (i.e. that the main line of Palestinian nationalism as currently constituted has as its primary goal the annihilation of Israel) is not encouraging. It appears to be part of a more general attempt to cultivate ambiguity, most prominently embodied in the all-but-meaningless phrase "provisional state." How does this proposed "provisional state" differ from the current "provisional statelessness"? In order to be granted the new "provisional" status, the Palestinians must clean up their act. Or else what? Who knows? Even the long-overdue acknowledgement that Arafat is not a "man of peace" was framed obliquely, without mentioning him by name. Does this speech really represent a fundamental sea-change in US Middle East policy, as Steven den Beste believes? It's far from clear to me. den Beste has outlined, with characteristic depth and seriousness, what he hopes the speech means. I hope so, too. But den Beste often makes more sense than the administration.

Posted by Dr. Frank at June 25, 2002 07:28 PM | TrackBack