Soccer Dad

Stir It Up

In "Middel East Stirrings" the washington Post ticks off various positive developments in the Middle East.

THE MONTH since Yasser Arafat's death has seen an encouraging flurry of movement on all sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Palestinians have scheduled elections for president next month, and polls show a surge of support for the moderate leadership that succeeded Mr. Arafat.

How moderate we have to wait and see. Despite some good words, Mahmoud Abbas has engaged in the same sort of double game that Yasser Arafat used to. As has been noted, he actively courted Hamas and Syria. He even pledged to coordinate his "peace" moves with Syria, effectively giving the boy dictator veto power over concilliation.
Of course there will still be the apologists claiming that if Abbas were even more concilliatory towards Israel he would lose his credibility or face too much opposition.

Violence has tapered off, though not ceased, and there are reports that Egyptian efforts to broker a formal cease-fire by Palestinian militants may at last succeed. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and other Arab leaders have signaled an intent to promote a settlement more actively than before. Remarkably, Mr. Mubarak launched a frontal attack on the Arab world's conventional wisdom by publicly endorsing Mr. Sharon's "ability to move along the peace process."

Let's see more than words from Mubarak too. Will Egypt's military that has allowed a lot of the tunnel building start to take action against the terrorists? Will Egypt return its ambassador to Israel?

But the administration's engagement remains modest, compared with both the size and the perishability of the opportunity. In his public statements, President Bush has stressed the development of a genuine Palestinian democracy as a precondition to progress toward the two-state settlement he has endorsed. That focus on shaping the course of Palestinian politics after Arafat is sensible -- but it should not serve as an excuse for Israel and the United States to postpone steps of their own.

This is putting the cart before the horse. Would even these modest steps have taken place if the U.S. was inclined to pressure Israel to withdraw from territory or stop protecting its citizens as a token of "good faith?" The lack of movement on the part of the Americans probably has convinced some in the Arab world that it can't be counted on to pressure Israel despite Palestinian bad faith as was the case during the Clinton administration.
In the name of facilitating the Palestinian elections Israel has agreed to remove checkpoints. That is a significant concession that puts Israeli lives at risk. Yet the Post ignores its significance.

But Mr. Sharon's long-term aim remains a unilateral redrawing of Israel's border through the construction of a security fence, the expansion and de facto annexation of many West Bank settlements, and the indefinite postponement of a final peace.

And what's wrong with that. The past eleven bloody years have been the fruit of declaring peace when there is none and forgiving constant Palestinian violations.
Eleven years ago Yasser Arafat wrote:

The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.

This of course meant nothing. Anytime Arafat didn't get what he wanted he threatened and instigated violence.

Mr. Bush must contend with unrealistic expectations by some European leaders, who imagine that Mr. Arafat's passing makes possible a quick leap to a Middle East settlement. In fact, even if the moderate Mahmoud Abbas wins the Palestinian election for president, he will need time to consolidate his position, rebuild the Palestinian Authority and lay the political groundwork for making the concessions needed for a final accord. Mr. Sharon will be busy with Gaza at least until next summer. But if the foundation is to be laid for peace, concerted American action should begin now. Palestinian political, economic and security reforms cannot be delegated to Egypt and the World Bank, Arab governments must be cajoled at a high level, and Mr. Sharon should not be left free to pursue his own agenda. The United States must return to leading the Middle East peace process. So far, it has not.

Of course those same leaders, and the editors of the Washington Post didn't believe that Arafat was in impediment to peace until about four years ago. Already the Palestinians are the recipients of a disproportionate amount of aid. According to Rachel Ehrehfeld:

the U.N. keeps Palestinian refugees from settling in the Middle East, by keeping them in camps. A third of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees budget for 2004 — about $400 million — is dedicated to just 4 million Palestinians, while only $770 million remains for the world's remaining 16 million refugees.

Perhaps we need to see the responsible use of its current aid before advocating more aid for the PA. But the point that editorial misses is that the major changes needed for there to peace in the Middle East are in the Arab world, specifically among the Palesitinians. There may be support for the "moderate" Holocaust denier Mahmoud Abbas, but there's still support for anti-Israel terror. The Post misses this point.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Posted by SoccerDad at December 15, 2004 06:14 AM | TrackBack