In his innovative and brave speech last month,
President Bush laid out a diagram for genuine peace
between Palestinians and Israelis. In essence, the
United States has declared that there can be no peace
with Arafat or with the Palestinian Authority, but
that she would fully support a democratic Palestinian
nation that eliminated terror and negotiated a fair
settlement with Israel. Never has the Palestinian
dream of a state, or a free and prosperous Arab
nation, been closer to realization.
In spite of its good intentions, the plan hasn?t got a
chance.
?Peace requires a new and different Palestinian
leadership, so that a Palestinian state can be born,?
said Bush. ?I call on the Palestinian people to elect
new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror. I call
upon them to build a practicing democracy based on
tolerance and liberty." Bush's conditions for a
Palestinian state are minimal: a regime change,
democracy and a governmental apparatus that at the
very least doesn?t sustain terrorists. The first
stipulation has seldom been pulled off in an Arab
state without sadistic violence (I only use the word
?seldom? in the slim chance I might have missed a
peaceful Arab regime change somewhere in the history
books. I doubt it.) The second, an Arab democracy,
exists only as some futuristic, utopian fantasy in
Colin Powell?s imagination.
Recently, just in case there was still anyone in the
administration that believed in the PA?s quest for
peace, Bush received an intelligence report that
Arafat had approved a $20,000 payment to members of
the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades terror group, an action
that may or may not have convinced the President that
the godfather of modern terror had to go. (Apparently,
that and the Karine A shipment from Iran in January
was not enough to convince the European Union, which
released over 18 million Euros to the P.A. this week.
Israel can now understandably hold the EU partially
responsible for the death of her civilians.) Bush also
told his key allies that the United States would cut
off aid to the Palestinians if they failed to embrace
the changes he suggested.
Shimon Peres, who now embarrasses the Israeli
government and Jews worldwide every time he speaks,
said that Bush?s speech was a "fatal mistake" and that
a bloodbath would follow. Peres, like his allies in
Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Nations, would like
to see Palestinian statehood established with reforms
implemented afterward. If a few hundred Israeli
children are killed while the PA mobster state
expands, well, legacy building has a price. Peres?
friend, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who you?d
mistakenly believe would be particularly supportive of
free and open elections, also echoed warnings from top
Palestinians, cautioning against free elections that
could put extremists in power legally, producing a
more radical leadership.
Unfortunately, Annan may have a point.
Bush?s assertion that Palestinians should elect
someone not "compromised" by terror is regretfully
unrealistic. After decades of anti-Semitic propaganda
and jihadist brainwashing, polls substantiate the
uncivilized tenor of the general population in
'Palestinian territory', which widely supports terror.
In a recent poll, a majority of Palestinians said
their goal was the elimination Israel, while only 43
percent support a Palestinian state on the West Bank
and Gaza. The same polls showed that between 60
percent and more than 70 percent of Palestinians
support suicide bombings. Wednesday's Los Angeles
Times also reported in a poll conducted this month by
the Jerusalem Media & Communications Center, that 25
percent of Palestinians chose Arafat as the person
they "trust the most." Arafat?s closest rival? Sheik
Ahmed Yassin, spiritual leader of the terror group
Hamas, who picked up 9 percent. Hamas does not
recognize the PA and did not run candidates 1996
election, and may not participate in any election in
the near future.
Israeli Housing Minister Natan Sharansky, for one,
believes that of all the Arabs Palestinians are the
closest to a democracy. Sharansky, a gulag survivor,
blames the West for propping up a dictator like
Arafat. And when reminded that the polls show the
Palestinians still support Arafat in big numbers,
Sharansky asked, "What does it mean that the
Palestinians love only Arafat, the Russians when asked
loved only Stalin. Did they have a choice? Has anybody
made sure that the Palestinians have a choice?"
Which adversary of Israel will guarantee that
Palestinians actually have a ?choice? this time? The
EU? Jimmy Carter? Powell? Arafat? And what does a
democracy guarantee anyway? The elected Iranian
parliament makes the autocratic King of Jordan seem
like Thomas Jefferson. Democracy on its own means
nothing. But perhaps the Palestinians will surprise
the world. Perhaps they will transform the Middle East
forever. More likely, overwhelming and foolish hatred
will trump the promise of freedom and prosperity.
--------------------------------------
David Harsanyi is an NYC-based writer. Email him at
david_harsanyi@yahoo.com.
President Bush laid out a diagram for genuine peace
between Palestinians and Israelis. In essence, the
United States has declared that there can be no peace
with Arafat or with the Palestinian Authority, but
that she would fully support a democratic Palestinian
nation that eliminated terror and negotiated a fair
settlement with Israel. Never has the Palestinian
dream of a state, or a free and prosperous Arab
nation, been closer to realization.
In spite of its good intentions, the plan hasn?t got a
chance.
?Peace requires a new and different Palestinian
leadership, so that a Palestinian state can be born,?
said Bush. ?I call on the Palestinian people to elect
new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror. I call
upon them to build a practicing democracy based on
tolerance and liberty." Bush's conditions for a
Palestinian state are minimal: a regime change,
democracy and a governmental apparatus that at the
very least doesn?t sustain terrorists. The first
stipulation has seldom been pulled off in an Arab
state without sadistic violence (I only use the word
?seldom? in the slim chance I might have missed a
peaceful Arab regime change somewhere in the history
books. I doubt it.) The second, an Arab democracy,
exists only as some futuristic, utopian fantasy in
Colin Powell?s imagination.
Recently, just in case there was still anyone in the
administration that believed in the PA?s quest for
peace, Bush received an intelligence report that
Arafat had approved a $20,000 payment to members of
the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades terror group, an action
that may or may not have convinced the President that
the godfather of modern terror had to go. (Apparently,
that and the Karine A shipment from Iran in January
was not enough to convince the European Union, which
released over 18 million Euros to the P.A. this week.
Israel can now understandably hold the EU partially
responsible for the death of her civilians.) Bush also
told his key allies that the United States would cut
off aid to the Palestinians if they failed to embrace
the changes he suggested.
Shimon Peres, who now embarrasses the Israeli
government and Jews worldwide every time he speaks,
said that Bush?s speech was a "fatal mistake" and that
a bloodbath would follow. Peres, like his allies in
Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Nations, would like
to see Palestinian statehood established with reforms
implemented afterward. If a few hundred Israeli
children are killed while the PA mobster state
expands, well, legacy building has a price. Peres?
friend, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who you?d
mistakenly believe would be particularly supportive of
free and open elections, also echoed warnings from top
Palestinians, cautioning against free elections that
could put extremists in power legally, producing a
more radical leadership.
Unfortunately, Annan may have a point.
Bush?s assertion that Palestinians should elect
someone not "compromised" by terror is regretfully
unrealistic. After decades of anti-Semitic propaganda
and jihadist brainwashing, polls substantiate the
uncivilized tenor of the general population in
'Palestinian territory', which widely supports terror.
In a recent poll, a majority of Palestinians said
their goal was the elimination Israel, while only 43
percent support a Palestinian state on the West Bank
and Gaza. The same polls showed that between 60
percent and more than 70 percent of Palestinians
support suicide bombings. Wednesday's Los Angeles
Times also reported in a poll conducted this month by
the Jerusalem Media & Communications Center, that 25
percent of Palestinians chose Arafat as the person
they "trust the most." Arafat?s closest rival? Sheik
Ahmed Yassin, spiritual leader of the terror group
Hamas, who picked up 9 percent. Hamas does not
recognize the PA and did not run candidates 1996
election, and may not participate in any election in
the near future.
Israeli Housing Minister Natan Sharansky, for one,
believes that of all the Arabs Palestinians are the
closest to a democracy. Sharansky, a gulag survivor,
blames the West for propping up a dictator like
Arafat. And when reminded that the polls show the
Palestinians still support Arafat in big numbers,
Sharansky asked, "What does it mean that the
Palestinians love only Arafat, the Russians when asked
loved only Stalin. Did they have a choice? Has anybody
made sure that the Palestinians have a choice?"
Which adversary of Israel will guarantee that
Palestinians actually have a ?choice? this time? The
EU? Jimmy Carter? Powell? Arafat? And what does a
democracy guarantee anyway? The elected Iranian
parliament makes the autocratic King of Jordan seem
like Thomas Jefferson. Democracy on its own means
nothing. But perhaps the Palestinians will surprise
the world. Perhaps they will transform the Middle East
forever. More likely, overwhelming and foolish hatred
will trump the promise of freedom and prosperity.
--------------------------------------
David Harsanyi is an NYC-based writer. Email him at
david_harsanyi@yahoo.com.