The President says “A Palestinian state will never be created by terror.”  President Bush gave his major policy speech on the Middle East on June 24, after it had been delayed several times due to Palestinian suicide bombings.  It has been widely reported that the President rejected Yasser Arafat as a peace partner, although Arafat was not mentioned by name.

The President would support the creation of a provisional Palestinian state only when the Palestinians create a practicing democracy, elect new leaders who are not “compromised by terror” and dismantle their terrorist infrastructure.  No timetable was set for statehood, but the President said it could happen in as little as three years.  Click here to read the speech itself.

The speech did not address the areas of disagreement except to say that they had to be negotiated by the Israelis and the Palestinians.  The major issues include:  the West Bank settlements, the borders of any Palestinian state, the status of Jerusalem, the Palestinian refugees, and peace with Lebanon and Syria.  However, Israel is not expected to start negotiations until the Palestinians demonstrate “real performance on security and reform.”  The President did not announce his requirements on what the final outcome should be on any of these issues.

The President did not adopt the Saudi proposal that Israel should withdraw to the 1967 boundaries.  Rather, he referred to U.N. Resolution 242, which calls for an Israeli withdrawal to “secure and recognized borders.”  Despite media claims, U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338 do not require Israel to withdraw to the 1967 borders.

The President said that “consistent with the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee, Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must stop.”  This is not a new requirement.  The Mitchell Plan specifically requires first an unconditional cease-fire, followed by a “meaningful cooling-off period on both sides” before any freeze on settlement activity.  Click here for the Mitchell Plan.

The President recognizes the culture of hatred in the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other Arab countries:  “Every leader actually committed to peace will end incitement to violence in official media, and publicly denounce homicide bombings.  Every nation actually committed to peace will stop the flow of money, equipment and recruits to terrorist groups seeking the destruction of Israel."

Jonathan Tobin believes that “Bush’s peace plan is by far the most pro-Israel statement ever made by an American president.”  Click here and scroll down to the archives for his 7/01/02 article.  “The President’s speech implicitly recognized that peace is not around the corner and that Israel must be allowed to defend itself until the Palestinians give up their drive for its destruction.  This bothers leftists who don’t want to admit peace is not in the offing and right-wingers who don’t want to hear about Israeli concessions, under even the most theoretical of circumstances.  But these are not good reasons to oppose the president….  Whatever its shortcomings, Bush’s stand deserves our support.”

JINSA concludes:  “The days of ‘risks for peace’ appear to be over.”

Pro-Israel groups should support the President as he implements his new Middle East policy.  The State Department, the Europeans and the Saudis will seek to weaken or reinterpret  it.  Palestinian reforms must be real.

Commentators had a range of reactions to the President’s speech:

A Palestinian state is not inevitable, says Zalman Shoval, senior advisor to Ariel Sharon.  “Palestinian society, especially its leadership, has never been able to constitute well-functioning institutions of any sort — not under the British mandate and not after ‘Oslo.’"

The Zionist Organization of America is monitoring Palestinian compliance with the President’s requirements.  Click here for their March 3, 2003 status report.

David Brooks feels that the President was simply telling the truth:  “Peace will only come if Palestine becomes a normal place.”

Dov Fischer agrees:  “no American Mideast plan will succeed until Washington finally starts following up on its demands for an absolute end to the teaching and transmitting of hate to the people living under the Palestinian Authority’s control.”

Stratfor’s realpolitik analysis sees the speech as a break with Saudi Arabia.  The President knows that there is no credible non-terrorist Palestinian leader to replace Arafat.  That allows the U.S. to withdraw from trying to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict and focus on Al Queda and its Saudi sponsors.

Daniel Pipes criticizes the President for ignoring the widespread support for terrorism among the Palestinians.  Thus, a democratically elected Palestinian government could be just as antagonistic to Israel.  David Limbaugh agrees:  “After decades of indoctrination and being trained to hate, a majority of Palestinians apparently approve of terror and the extermination of Israel.”  Click here and scroll down to the archives for his 7/01/02 article. 

Mark Levin points out that the Oslo Accords called for a Palestinian democracy back in 1993. 

Others are critical of even the idea of a Palestinian state:

Charles Krauthammer observes that any Palestinian entity must be demilitarized to ensure peace, but how can you limit any weapons buildup once there is a state?  This is also a major concern of FLAME and JINSA.

 

Click here to return to our home page.