Hope Vs. Reality
Sharon is delighted by Bush speech, but leftists warn its shortsighted.
wait," Ofer Shelah wrote in the Yediot Aharonot
newspaper, "bleeding all the while."
Chemi Shalev commented in the Ma'ariv newspa-
per: "Bush's speech was perhaps a big step forward
for Ariel Sharon, but it seems a very small step for
the prospects of peace."
Views From Detroit
LESLIE SUSSER
Jewish Telegraphic Agency
Jerusalem
p
resident George W. Bush's Middle East
speech arguably was the most unabashed-
ly pro-Israel statement ever by an
American president — yet it is
getting mixed reviews in Israel.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is delighted
by the fact that Bush did not lay down a
firm deadline for Palestinian statehood and
that he made very clear what the Palestinians will
have to do to before they can get their own state.
But Foreign Minister Shimon Peres fears that in
demanding that the Palestinians oust Palestinian
Authority President Yasser Arafat — and replace him
with leaders "not compromised by terror" — the
president may have pushed too far.
Peres and others on the Israeli left fear that
instead of a new leadership and an end to terror,
the Palestinian response might be one of defiant
solidarity around Arafat, resulting in even worse
terror.
Several key questions remain after the speech:
How will the Palestinians respond? What kind
of road map will be presented to translate Bush's
vision into reality? And what kind of practical
changes will take place now on the ground?
Bush's speech "leaves many open questions
and uncertainty regarding the next step to be
taken," Knesset Speaker Avraham Burg said.
"The president leaves the State of Israel alone
facing the violence and the loss of life caused by
the terrorist attacks without any clear commit-
ment, without a sponsor for peace and without
a roadway leading to his vision."
The differing assessments between left and
right are not surprising, since Bush put the onus
for change almost entirely on the Palestinians:
They must elect new leaders, reform their politi-
cal, economic, security and judicial institutions,
and stop terror, Bush demanded.
The president did make certain demands of
Israel — to withdraw the army to positions held
before the intifada (uprising) began in September
2000, for example, and to end settlement building
— but Bush clearly made such steps contingent on
Palestinian performance.
The key issue, therefore, is how the Palestinians
respond. On•the one hand, they might see the
American demands as both arrogant and impossible
and increase their violence until Washington "gets
serious."
On the other hand, they could conclude that
ANA LYSIS
.
Leslie Susser is the diplomatic correspondent for
the Jerusalem Report. JN Special Writer Don Cohen
contributed to this report.
6/28
2002
18
America will back them all the way to statehood and
pour in enough funds to ensure that the state is
viable, if they stop using terrorism and supporting a-
terrorist regime. The Palestinians could take Bush at
his word, break sincerely with terrorism and wait to
see whether Bush delivers on his promises.
After initial praise from Arafat on Monday,
Palestinian reaction turned increasingly
defensive, arguing that they would choose
their own leaders and that the speech did
not offer them enough hope.
A lot will depend on how the U.S.
administration follows up on the speech and how
other key players, especially the Europeans, respond.
If Secretary of State Colin Powell comes to the
region soon with a more detailed road map for polit-
ical movement, and if the Europeans also make
Some politically active Jewish leaders in Detroit
commented following the president's June 24
speech.
"My first impression is that it was very fair
because it outlined Israel's problems," said Jerome S.
Kaufman, national secretary and Detroit executive
committee chair of the Zionist Organization of
America. On second consideration, however,
Kaufman concluded that "it was just a continuation
of the fallacy that peace could be made with these
people and that a Palestinian state would be in
Israel's interest.
"There is no way such a small piece of territory
can accommodate two states, especially when one is
dedicated to the annihilation of the other," he said.
Jeremy Salinger, president of the Detroit chapter
of the Labor Zionist Alliance, called the policy out-
Israeli soldiers
atop armored
personnel carriers,
together with
tanks, move into
the outskirts of
Bethlehem on
June 24.
political and economic support contingent on an
end to terror, there could be positive movement.
But as former Prime Minister Ehud Barak noted
in an interview with CNN immediately after
Monday's speech, Arafat likely will try to exploit
even the smallest gap between the European and
American positions to save his political skin.
European leaders and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi
Annan rejected Bush's call to replace Arafat, stressing
that Arafat had been elected and that the
Palestinians could choose their own leaders.
Most Israeli commentators are not optimistic that
the speech will improve the situation on the ground.
"As far as the White House is concerned, either
Palestine will be America, or the Middle East can
lined by Bush a step in the right direction. "The
current Palestinian leadership is not capable of corn-
ing to a peace agreement with Israel and is Failing
the Palestinian people. But it's going to take more
than that change; it will take also take change on the
Israeli side."
He hasread that the political system in the West
Bank is not set up to provide for democratic elec-
tions, and that the Palestinian Authority is run by
consensus between rival factions.
"Without Arafat there to organize the consensus,
it can lead to anarchy. The groups supporting terror-
ism will not be suppressed," Salinger said.
"I was 95 percent delighted with [the speech],"
said Ann Zousmer, president of the Jewish