US President George W. Bush's long-awaited speech on the Middle East combined hope for both sides with extremely tough language. The hope was clear -- Israelis deserve security and a life without fear of suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism; Palestinians deserve dignity, an end to the Israeli occupation, sovereignty and statehood.
But the toughness was reserved solely for the Palestinian leadership -- without mentioning Yasser Arafat by name, Bush clearly called for a new Palestinian leadership, one "not compromised by terrorism."
The current leadership, he maintained, has not fought terrorism, but has instead encouraged and even "trafficked" in it. He condemned the Palestinian Authority's rejection of Israeli peace offers and promised US support for statehood if the Palestinians change their leadership, reiterating that "a Palestinian state will not be achieved by terrorism."
One cannot imagine a harsher condemnation of Arafat and the entire Palestinian leadership. Bush is now clearly suggesting that Arafat is not a partner for peace, that the Oslo agreements are, in effect, dead, and thus that the Palestinian Authority as constituted by them does not exist anymore. By adopting this policy, Bush is walking a fine line between Arab pressure to support the emergence of a Palestinian state and his own commitment to fight terrorism and not reward suicide bombers.
The speech was a masterful blend of the carrot and the stick. But Bush now faces two challenges -- one major, the other minor -- in pushing his policy forward.
The major challenge is how the demand for a change in the Palestinian leadership will be met. A crucial hallmark of Palestinian society is the weakness of its institutions -- civic organizations are woefully under-developed and responsive party structures that can effectively representing social interests do not exist -- except those of the armed militias, like Fatah or Hamas. As a result, elections in Palestine currently mean about as much as they did in the old Soviet Union.
How will democratic change come about in such a society? Will it follow the path of chaotic, violent regime collapse by which Nicolae Ceausescu lost power in Romania? Or will the Palestinians change their autocratic leadership peacefully, as in Serbia when Slobodan Milosevic was ousted? Both options cannot be ruled out.
Bush also mentioned Arab help in bringing about a change of Palestinian leadership. Does he have in mind something like a Saudi protectorate over the Palestinians, sanctioned by the Arab League? It may not be a bad idea. But until now, at least, the Palestinians have not been good at building institutions that are not contaminated by terrorism. How to build them remains the central question, and Bush has yet to offer a clear answer.
The minor challenge is to get the Europeans to support Bush's policy. Some Europeans may see Bush's approach as another example of American unilateralism -- and in a way they are right. But so what? The problem with the Europeans is that all they have are declarations and speeches -- a policy toward the region that is rich in lofty rhetoric, but poor if not starved in the capacity to implement anything concrete.
Of course, this has characterized EU positions in the past as well -- most glaringly in Bosnia and Kosovo. The EU does not have a comprehensive foreign policy and has no power to pursue one. It needed the US -- ie, NATO -- to save Bosnian Muslims and then Kosovar Albanians from near-genocidal Serb policies in the 1990s.
The same will probably happen regarding the current crisis in the Middle East. The Europeans will grumble about Bush's policy, and they may even send Arafat a generous package of compassionate rhetoric. But the bottom line is that they have no alternative policy that can be effective.
Bush has just relegated Arafat and his colleagues -- Saeb Erekat, Hanan Ashrawi, Nabil Sha'at and Abu Mazen -- to the dustbin of history. They deserve it. Beginning with Oslo, these leaders had a chance to establish a Palestinian state. But they squandered the opportunity in 2000 at Camp David, when former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak proposed what no other Israeli leader was ever ready to offer -- a two-state solution with shared sovereignty over Jerusalem. These leaders preferred terrorism, because they were not ready for a historic compromise with the Jewish state.
The Palestinian leadership made a tragic mistake, one similar to that of the Mufti of Jerusalem, who in l947 rejected the UN partition plan in the hope that the state of Israel could be strangled in its cradle.
The current Palestinian leaders, like the Mufti, have become the worst enemies not only of peace and reconciliation with Israel, but of their own people. Now they have to go. When they do, the Palestinian people may once again have a chance for statehood, dignity and sovereignty.
Let us hope that this time, they find the courage to choose and act wisely.
Shlomo Avineri is a former director-general of Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and currently fellow at Collegium Budapest.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The EU’s biggest banks have spent years quietly creating a new way to pay that could finally allow customers to ditch their Visa Inc and Mastercard Inc cards — the latest sign that the region is looking to dislodge two of the most valuable financial firms on the planet. Wero, as the project is known, is now rolling out across much of western Europe. Backed by 16 major banks and payment processors including BNP Paribas SA, Deutsche Bank AG and Worldline SA, the platform would eventually allow a German customer to instantly settle up with, say, a hotel in France
On August 6, Ukraine crossed its northeastern border and invaded the Russian region of Kursk. After spending more than two years seeking to oust Russian forces from its own territory, Kiev turned the tables on Moscow. Vladimir Putin seemed thrown off guard. In a televised meeting about the incursion, Putin came across as patently not in control of events. The reasons for the Ukrainian offensive remain unclear. It could be an attempt to wear away at the morale of both Russia’s military and its populace, and to boost morale in Ukraine; to undermine popular and elite confidence in Putin’s rule; to
A traffic accident in Taichung — a city bus on Sept. 22 hit two Tunghai University students on a pedestrian crossing, killing one and injuring the other — has once again brought up the issue of Taiwan being a “living hell for pedestrians” and large vehicle safety to public attention. A deadly traffic accident in Taichung on Dec. 27, 2022, when a city bus hit a foreign national, his Taiwanese wife and their one-year-old son in a stroller on a pedestrian crossing, killing the wife and son, had shocked the public, leading to discussions and traffic law amendments. However, just after the
The international community was shocked when Israel was accused of launching an attack on Lebanon by rigging pagers to explode. Most media reports in Taiwan focused on whether the pagers were produced locally, arousing public concern. However, Taiwanese should also look at the matter from a security and national defense perspective. Lebanon has eschewed technology, partly because of concerns that countries would penetrate its telecommunications networks to steal confidential information or launch cyberattacks. It has largely abandoned smartphones and modern telecommunications systems, replacing them with older and relatively basic communications equipment. However, the incident shows that using older technology alone cannot
RSS