TruthNews Commentary, June 24, 2002

In the days before President Bush made his speech about Middle East peace, condemnation was pouring in from conservatives who thought he was being too soft on Palestinian terrorism. Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer called Bush's proposal of a "provisional" Palestinian state a "rewarding of terrorism" (this was before the details of Bush's proposal were known). Now that Bush has finally given the speech, there's sure to be a lot more condemnation because of the way the speech is being misreported. On the whole, though, the speech was a pleasant surprise for those of us who suspected that Colin Powell's influence might prevail. Let's take a look at what Bush said, and didn't say.

First, Bush reiterated his "vision of two states, living side by side in peace and security." But even the dreaded "provisional" state of Palestine is contingent on the Palestinian people getting rid of Yasser Arafat and electing "new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror." According to Bush's proposal, "when the Palestinian people have new leaders, new institutions and new security arrangements with their neighbors, the United States of America will support the creation of a Palestinian state whose borders and certain aspects of its sovereignty will be provisional until resolved as part of a final settlement in the Middle East."

This will be a very tough thing for the Palestinians to pull off, seeing that a majority supports suicide bombings.

As reported by CNN, "In the meantime, Bush called on Israel to pull its forces from Palestinian-controlled areas, stop building any new settlements in the West Bank or Gaza, restore freedom of movement for Palestinians and allow their economy to develop." If you read this, and didn't hear Bush's speech, you might think that Bush called on Israel to pull its forces from Palestinian-controlled areas, stop building any new settlements in the West Bank or Gaza, restore freedom of movement for Palestinians and allow their economy to develop.

But this isn't exactly what Bush said. What Bush said is "As we make progress towards security, Israel forces need to withdraw fully to positions they held prior to September 28, 2000. And consistent with the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee, Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must stop... As violence subsides, freedom of movement should be restored, permitting innocent Palestinians to resume work and normal life. Palestinian legislators and officials, humanitarian and international workers, must be allowed to go about the business of building a better future. And Israel should release frozen Palestinian revenues into honest, accountable hands. "

So Bush did not call on Israel to pull its forces out of Palestinian areas. This pullout is conditional on making "progress towards security." No progress, no pullout. Restoring freedom of movement is conditional on "violence subsid[ing]." Release of frozen Palestinian funds is contingent upon there being "honest, accountable [Palestinian] hands" which do not exist today.

Even the requirement to stop settlement building is qualified by the statement "consistent with the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee." The Mitchell Committee, in April of last year, recommended a three-step peace process consisting of (1) Ending the violence, (2) Rebuilding confidence, and (3) Resuming negotiations. It's significant that the freeze on settlements is part step 2, rebuilding confidence, which is to be undertaken after an end to the violence. If there's no end to the violence, step 2 will not be implemented, and Israel is not required to stop settlement building.

All the Palestinians have to do is to get rid of Arafat and his gang of thugs, end the violence, and build new democratic institutions. Then a "provisional" state will be established to negotiate final borders. If the Palestinians return to violence, the "provisional" part will ensure that their state no longer exists.

The borders, by the way, will not necessarily be the 1967 borders, contrary to what some news sources are reporting. According to Bush, "the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 will be ended through a settlement negotiated between the parties, based on U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338, with Israeli withdrawal to secure and recognize borders." When the UN Security Council passed UN Resolution 242 in 1968, everyone recognized that the 1967 borders what not secure, and that's why the Six Day war occurred. Then-President Lyndon Johnson, in explaining Resolution 242, said, "We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders. Some such lines must be agreed to by the neighbors involved."

For those who dream of a "Greater Israel" encompassing Samaria and Judea, Bush's speech will be a disappointment. However, even Israel's "hardline" Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has rejected the annexation of the disputed territories. Besides, the Palestinians are unlikely to fulfill Bush's conditions for statehood. After 9 years of PLO propaganda and two years of intifada, many Palestinians have become hardened killers. As Amnon Dankar pointed out in an editorial in the Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv last week, "How is it possible that an entire society of millions of people cannot muster, even if it is tormented by conditions of occupation, deprivation, and struggle, half a million, a hundred thousand, fifty thousand men and women to march, demonstrate, make speeches, write, be interviewed, and say, 'We are not a party to this moral outrage'?" The depressing reality is that the Palestinians may well continue to blow themselves up as they seek to exterminate the Jewish state.

If the Palestinians are so unlikely to meet Bush's conditions, why is he pursuing such a pipe dream? The answer is that by making this speech, he's placing the choice of war or peace clearly before the Palestinians. Bush is holding out a very real hope for Palestinian statehood that will, unlike Oslo, also ensure Israeli security. In the very likely event that the Palestinians reject peace and continue to make war against Israel, Bush has bought cover for the Israelis to do what needs to destroy the Palestinian Authority and send Arafat packing.

Charles Krauthammer made an interesting point in an interview with the Jerusalem Post last week. Regarding Bush's demand that Israel withdraw from Palestinian controlled areas following the Passover massacre, Krauthammer said, "I still think the President made a mistake with his April 4 speech, but I have a pretty good idea of how that happened. You've got everybody in a loud war cry over Israeli actions. You've got reports coming to the President that there are demonstrations in Amman [Jordan], the government's stability is in question. You've got the Europeans in full throat. On April 4, six days into the operation, the administration had said nothing, obviously giving a very bright green light to Israel. And they felt that diplomatically it was costing the US."

But Krauthammer also points out that Bush provided time for the Israelis to finish the operation without European or UN interference. "In the end," said Krauthammer, "if you look at the totality of the whole policy, basically the United States gave Israel cover for three weeks, which is longer than I would have thought. I thought they'd have three days to do it. So, from the perspective of the US, which is involved in a war on terrorism, something that requires some assistance -- at least intelligence assistance -- around the world, they felt they were going to pay a huge price if they didn't appear to do anything. I think that most of what we've seen is appearance. And I hope I'm correct in thinking that they are basically putting on a show."

Krauthammer concluded, "Now that is not to say that there aren't people in the State Department who want what they see as real movement, meaning pressure on Israel. But I don't believe that's the President's perspective. I think right now they do pretty much what you or I would probably do if we wanted to give Israel some leeway but didn't want it to look too obvious. Will a peace plan imposed on Israel emerge out of the blue? I can't tell you. I know that from here it looks like the administration is losing focus, they're getting obsessed, heading down the road to accommodation, I don't think that's what's going on. But the President's response to Mubarak was pretty curt. This policy hinges largely on the President's will, which has held fairly steady."

In the final analysis, Bush has placed a stringent requirement on the Palestinians for statehood. If the Palestinians don't respond, then the Israelis have a green light to wipe out this nest of vipers.