PLAN for PEACE in the MIDDLE EAST: Commentary on President Bush’s June 24th Speech

On June 24, 2002, President Bush presented his long-awaited plan for a comprehensive Middle East peace plan. The Bush legacy will inevitably be tied to this intractable problem, so this was an opportunity for him to strike out on a bold new course.

Unfortunately, he failed to take the next bold step — to call for an international peace conference to try to secure a cease-fire so that meaningful peace talks can finally be renewed. As things stand now, the cycle of terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens, followed by Israeli retaliations in the occupied territories, have demoralized both Palestinians and Israelis and have paralyzed their leaders into implacable positions.

At Camp David in 2000, then-president Clinton held Arafat’s and Barak’s feet to the fire and came tantalizingly close to brokering a peace plan that both sides could work with. When Arafat suddenly walked away from those talks without offering counter proposals, the September Intifada followed, and the Middle East has been inflamed ever since.

Ironically, Arafat recently said he would now be willing to negotiate within the framework of the Clinton Peace Plan, which is, of course, now off the table.

Clinton’s noble failure should not be used as an excuse for half-hearted initiatives and vague declarations. As the reigning democracy on the world stage, we have a moral obligation to use our strength and influence to bring warring parties together at the peace table.
Bush is correct when he says that ultimately the Israelis and Palestinians must resolve their differences on their own. But his notion of a provisional Palestinian state is an ill-conceived, confusing addition to the puzzle. The Palestinian people don’t need interim steppingstones. They need to clearly understand what needs to be done before their statehood can become a reality.

In his address, the president called for the complete overhaul of the Palestinian Authority and for new leadership through new elections — though he curiously failed to single out Arafat by name. Both George Mitchell and Kofi Annan responded to his address by warning against such a demand. They argue correctly that a moderate alternative to Arafat does not necessarily exist -– and if elections were held, and Arafat was again elected, what would the administration do then?

This plan is unfortunately vague on the most critical Palestinian issue: Jewish settlements deep within the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the future real estate of a Palestinian state. We appreciate that Israel is our singular democratic ally in the entire region, but the expansion of these heavily fortified settlements is an act of political belligerence that betrays any hope for reconciliation. The Bush plan must confront this issue head-on, or why bother?

We at Goals for Americans Foundation applaud the president’s efforts while at the same time implore him to do more. We encourage President Bush to move forward in convening an international peace conference, with the initial purpose of securing a comprehensive cease-fire in the region. Once accomplished — the realization of a Palestinian state will be in sight.