A very funny reaction to Bush's speech is by Laurence Simon. The most thoughtful and analytical commentary I found in the Blogosphere is from Steven "USS not so clueless" Den Beste, who also links to other commentary.
My serious reaction is this: Nice speech, makes me feel good. We know where W's heart is, and it's in the right place. BUT, it also fixates on some unrealistic conditions for the Palestinians to meet. The question is, why?
The plan hinges on the assumption that a "new leadership" and "democracy" in Palestine will transform the conflict. But the fundamental problem with Palestine is not the leadership, but the society itself. As corrupt and inept of an administrator that he is, Arafat has stayed in power precisely because of his popularity. The most recent opinion polls show that a majority of Palestinians support suicide bombings and a majority feels that the goal of the Intifada should be not merely to end the occupation but to eliminate Israel. Why should anybody expect that a democratically elected government would support anything different?
And that even ignores the laughable assumption that a functioning democracy will spontaneously take root in an Moslem Arab society in which western concepts of democracy are not organic, and for which no example has ever existed. It's equally laughable that Bush is appealing to the various Arab dictators to help reform the Palestinian Authority and turn it into a democracy based on the rule of law. As if they've all had such success imposing democracy at home, that they know how to help others foster it, and that they won't feel threatened, Allah forbid, if democracy actually does take off over in Palestine.
So, either one of two things is going on. (a) Bush's plan is naively unrealistic (b) it is cynically unrealistic. the conditions it sets for a Palestinian state are exactly what any western country would demand of a hostile neighbor that's about to start their own country. But who has confidence that the Palestinians will be able to adhere to these conditions any time soon? They can make my day and prove me wrong, but Bush's plan is essentially a license for Israel to do the overwhelming cleanup operation that it needs to do anyway.
I would like to think that the answer is (b). But the outcome is likely to be the same in either case.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 25, 2002 07:00 AMIn my forum, user "Cali Dan" provided this very nice capsule summary of the actual effect of the speech:
----------------
I have no idea if Bush knows what he's doing or not, but I do know that the ideas he presented in his speech are the correct ones. For months, people have been saying "What's America going to do about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?" and "America will need to deal with the Palestinian situation before Iraq can be dealt with".
Bush's response -- and therefore, in theory, the United States' response, since the President sets foreign policy -- is "we're not doing a damned thing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict until the Palestinians get their shit together... and if you think this will stop us from going after Iraq you're nuts. Oh, and you other quasi-fascist Arab nations better watch your ass, too." Which, from a US point of view, is the perfect response.
In the meantime yes, Israelis will be getting killed by Palestinian terrorists. But frankly, that's Israel's problem; we just gave them the thumbs-up to deal with it.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste on June 25, 2002 05:06 AMI'll take your "Why?" question a step further. I think the "why?" is tied to consequences. Why are are we left with only a pronouncement of conditions without a corresponding announcement of consequences for palestinain inaction? I think it's because the staff work isn't yet complete. The speech was a short term defeat for the State Department, it'll be interesting to see hwo ti plays out from here. Those entrenched bureaucrats at Foggy Bottom won't concede because of a Presidential statement.
Posted by: Jim Burton on June 25, 2002 07:54 AM