|
|
June 28, 2002/Tamuz 18 5762, Vol. 54, No. 41
Bush speech leaves questions unanswered
LESLIE SUSSER
Jewish Telegraphic Agency
President Bush's Middle East speech was arguably the most unabashedly pro-Israel statement ever by an American president - yet it is getting mixed reviews in Israel.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is delighted by the fact that Bush did not lay down a firm deadline for Palestinian statehood, and that he made very clear what the Palestinians will have to do to before they can get their own state.
But Foreign Minister Shimon Peres fears that in demanding that the Palestinians oust Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat - and replace him with leaders "not compromised by terror" - the president may have pushed too far.
Instead of a new leadership and an end to terror, the Palestinian response might be one of defiant solidarity around Arafat, resulting in even worse terror, Peres and others on the Israeli left fear.
Several key questions remain after the speech: How will the Palestinians respond? What kind of road map will be presented to translate Bush's vision into reality? And what kind of practical changes will take place now on the ground?
Bush's speech "leaves many open questions and uncertainty regarding the next step to be taken," Knesset Speaker Avraham Burg said. "The president leaves the State of Israel alone facing the violence and the loss of life caused by the terrorist attacks without any clear commitment, without a sponsor for peace and without a roadway leading to his vision."
The differing assessments between left and right are not surprising, since Bush put the onus for change almost entirely on the Palestinians: They must elect new leaders, reform their political, economic, security and judicial institutions, and stop terror, Bush demanded.
Bush did make certain demands of Israel - to withdraw the army to positions held before the intifada began in September 2000, for example, and to end settlement building - but Bush clearly made such steps contingent on Palestinian performance.
The key issue therefore, is how the Palestinians respond. On the one hand, they might see the American demands as both arrogant and impossible, and increase their violence until Washington "gets serious."
On the other hand, they could conclude that America will back them all the way to statehood, and pour in enough funds to ensure that the state is viable, if they stop using terrorism and supporting a terrorist regime. The Palestinians could take Bush at his word, break sincerely with terrorism and wait to see whether Bush delivers on his promises.
After initial praise from Arafat on June 24, Palestinian reaction turned increasingly defensive, arguing that they would choose their own leaders and that the speech did not offer them enough hope.
A lot will depend on how the U.S. administration follows up on the speech and how other key players, especially the Europeans, respond.
If Secretary of State Colin Powell comes to the region soon with a more detailed road map for political movement, and if the Europeans also make political and economic support contingent on an end to terror, there could be positive movement.
But as former Prime Minister Ehud Barak noted in an interview with CNN immediately after the June 24 speech, Arafat likely will try to exploit even the smallest gap between the European and American positions to save his political skin.
European leaders and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan rejected Bush's call to replace Arafat, stressing that Arafat had been elected and that the Palestinians could choose their own leaders.
Moreover, the speech left several key questions unanswered. For example, Bush did not mention the international Middle East peace conference that had been discussed for later this summer.
Does that mean the conference is contingent on changes in the Palestinian leadership and institutions? Or will it be used to jump-start movement in that direction by offering clear political rewards, like provisional Palestinian statehood?
Furthermore, will Sharon take Bush's unmistakable call to replace Arafat as license to expel him? For weeks now, Sharon has been pushing for Arafat's expulsion, only to be blocked by Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer and warnings from military intelligence and the Mossad.
On the Israeli right, however, the voices in favor of deporting Arafat are growing more insistent. Cabinet Minister Dan Naveh, one of the leading advocates of expulsion, argues that as long as Arafat is around, no alternative Palestinian leadership can emerge.
"The voices of reason will be afraid to speak out," he argues.
Sharon has made it clear that Israel's current invasion of Palestinian cities in the West Bank is part of a new security doctrine in which Israel "expects nothing of Arafat.''
If the Oslo process meant handing over partial responsibility for Israel's security to the Palestinians, Israel is now reclaiming that responsibility in full. The new doctrine provides for a security fence between Israel and the West Bank to stop terrorists; periodic occupation of Palestinian cities to root out terrorist bases; and short, sharp operations based on pinpoint intelligence.
There clearly is no intention of formally reoccupying the West Bank. Both Sharon and Ben-Eliezer have come out strongly against formal reoccupation, which would leave Israel responsible for providing Palestinians with basic services such as education and garbage collection.
If it continues, the status quo could prove inimical to Israel's long-term interests. According to recent demographic projections, Palestinians will be a majority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea by 2010. If they are still occupied by Israel, they might demand a single, binational state, rather than a two-state solution, thus forcing Israelis to choose between a Jewish state and a democratic one.
|
