IN Thoughts

A MON

MIX OF IDEA

George Cantor's Reality Check column will return next week

The Bush Doctrine Lives

Jerusalem

N

ewspapers in Israel were full of
stories about President Bush's
call on July 16 for the creation
of a Palestinian state and an international
peace conference.
While Israeli officials were quoted
expressing satisfaction with the fact that
"there were no changes in Bush's policies:'
commentators questioned whether the
Saudis would participate in such a gather-
ing and whether Israeli Prime Minister
Ehud Olmert, with his single-digit approv-
al ratings, could uproot Israeli settlers
from the West Bank.
But all the focus on the conference
misses the point. Bush has not back-
tracked an inch from his revolutionary
Middle East policy. Never before has any
American president placed the onus of
demonstrating a commitment to peace
so emphatically on Palestinian shoulders.
Though Bush insisted that Israel refrain
from further settlement expansion and
remove unauthorized outposts, the bulk of
his demands were directed at
the Palestinians.
"The Palestinian people
must decide that they want a
future of decency and hope
he said, "not a future of terror
and death. They must match
their words denouncing ter-
ror with action to combat terroe
According to Bush, the Palestinians can
only achieve statehood by first stopping
all attacks against Israel, freeing captured
Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and ridding
the Palestinian Authority of corruption.
They must also detach themselves from
the invidious influence of Syria and Iran:
"Nothing less is acceptable."

states to wage an uncompromising battle
against Islamic extremism and, in the case
of Egypt and Jordan, to open their borders
to Palestinian trade.
If the Israeli media largely overlooked
the diplomatic innovations of Bush's
speech, they completely missed its dynam-
ic territorial and demographic dimen-
sions. The president pledged to create a
"contiguous" Palestinian state — code for
assuring unbroken Palestinian sovereignty
over most of the West Bank and possibly
designating a West Bank-Gaza corridor.
On the other hand, the president commit-
ted to seek a peace agreement based on
mutually agreed borders" and "current
realities:' which is a euphemism for Israel's
retention of West Bank settlement blocks
and no return to the 1967 lines.
Most momentous, however, was Bush's
affirmation that "the United States will
never abandon ... the security of Israel as a
Jewish state and homeland for the Jewish
people." This means nothing less than the
rejection of the Palestinians' immutable
demand for the resettlement of millions of

CC

themselves: "By following this
path, Palestinians can reclaim
their dignity and their future
... [and] answer their people's
desire to live in peace."
Unfortunately, many of
these pioneering components
in Bush's speech were either
implicitly or obliquely stated,
and one might have wished for
a more unequivocal message,
such as that conveyed in his
June 2002 speech on the Middle
East. Still, there can be no underrating the
sea change in America's policy toward the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict brought about
by this administration.
If, under U.N. Resolution 242, Israelis
were expected to relinquish territory and
only then receive peace, now the Arabs
will have to cede many aspects of peace
— non-belligerency and recognition
— well in advance of receiving territory.
Similarly, Bush's commitment to main-
tain Israel's Jewish majority signals the
total rescinding of American support for
Resolution 194, which pro-
vided for refugee return.
Moreover, by insisting that
the Palestinians first con-
struct durable and trans-
parent institutions before
attaining independence,
Bush effectively reversed
the process, set out in the 1993 Oslo
Accords, whereby the Palestinians would
obtain statehood immediately and only
later engage in institution building.
Peace-for-land, preserving the demo-
graphic status quo and building a civil
society prior to achieving statehood
— these are the pillars of Bush's doctrine
on peace.
But will it work? Given the Palestinians'
historical inability to sustain sovereign
structures and their repeated (1938, 1947,
1979, 2000) rejection of offers of a state,
the chances hardly seem sanguine.

"The Palestinian people must de cide
that they want a future of decen cy and
hope, not a future of terror and death."

Tightened Reins
In addition to the prerequisites stipulated
for the Palestinians, Bush set unprec-
edented conditions for Arab participation
in peace efforts. He exhorted Arab leaders
to emulate "peacemakers like Anwar Sadat
and King Hussein of Jordan" by ending
anti-Semitic incitement in their media
and dropping the fiction of Israel's non-
existence. More dramatically, Bush called
on those Arab governments that have yet
to establish relations with Israel to rec-
ognize its right to exist and to authorize
ministerial missions to the Jewish state.
Accordingly, Saudi Arabia, which has
offered such recognition but only in return
for a full withdrawal to the 1967 borders,
will have to accept Israel prior to any ter-
ritorial concessions. Bush also urged Arab

refugees and their descendents in Israel.
America is now officially dedicated to
upholding Israel's Jewish majority and
preventing its transformation into a de
facto Palestinian state.

Forum's Effect
Beyond these elements, the centerpiece of
Bush's vision was the international confer-
ence. The Israeli press hastened to inter-
pret this as a framework for expediting the
advent of Palestinian statehood, yet it is
clear that the conference is not intended to
produce a state but rather to monitor the
Palestinians' progress in building viable
civic and democratic institutions.
The goal, Bush said, will be to "help
the Palestinians establish ... a strong and
lasting society" with "effective governing
structures, a sound financial system and
the rule of law."
Specifically, the conference will assist
in reforming the Palestinian Authority,
strengthening its security forces and
encouraging young Palestinians to partici-
pate in politics. Ultimate responsibility for
laying these sovereign foundations, how-
ever, rests not with the international com-
munity but solely with the Palestinians

Strong Outline
Much of the administration's hope for a
breakthrough rests on the Palestinians'
newly appointed prime minister, Salaam
Fayyad, who is purportedly incorruptible.
Nevertheless, one righteous man is unlike-
ly to succeed in purging the Palestinian
Authority of embezzlement and graft and
uniting its multiple militias.
The Saudis will probably balk at the
notion of recognizing Israel before it
exits the West Bank and Jerusalem, and
Palestinian refugees throughout the region
will certainly resist any attempt to pre-

vent them from regaining their
former homes. Iran and Syria
and their Hamas proxies can
be counted on to undermine
the process at every stage, often
with violence.
Yet, despite the scant likeli-
hood of success, Bush is to be
credited for delineating clear
and equitable criteria for pursu-
ing Palestinian independence
and for drafting a principled
blueprint for peace. This alone
represents a bold response to Hamas and
its backers in Damascus and Teheran. The
Palestinians have been given their dip-
lomatic horizon and the choice between
"chaos, suffering, and the endless perpetu-
ation of grievance" and "security and a
better life."
So, too, the president is to be commend-
ed for not taking the easy route of rail-
roading the Palestinians to self-governance
under a regime that would almost cer-
tainly implode. Now his paramount task
is to stand by the benchmarks his admin-
istration has established, and to hold both
Palestinians and Israelis accountable for
any failure to meet them. 71

Michael Oren is a fellow at the Shalem Center

in Jerusalem and the author of "Power, Faith,

and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776

to the Present" (Norton, 2007). This commen-

tary first appeared in the Wall Street Journal

on July 18.

Answering
Israel's Critics

The Charge
Some pro-Arab voices in the U.S. ques-
tioned whether President Bush's call for
a Mideast peace conference would be
productive, saying U.S. policies are so
biased in favor of Israel that the pros-
pect of a lasting and just settlement is
impossible.

The Answer
On the contrary, it is just that U.S. alli-
ance with Israel, its security and stra-
tegic relationship, and its call for dip-
lomatic fairness for Israel in the U.N.
and other forums that makes America
the only appropriate convener of such a
conference.

— Allan Gale, Jewish Community Relations

Council of Metropolitan Detroit

© Copyright July 26, 2007, Jewish Renaissance Media

July 26 • 2007

25