President
George W. Bush's long-anticipated speech outlining his
Administration's policy on Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations
was a breath of fresh air. The speech injected a degree of common
sense and realism into U.S. policy that was sorely lacking in the
Clinton Administration. Bush set forth a two-state solution for the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict: "My vision is two states, living side
by side in peace and security". But the President firmly stressed
that: "Peace requires a new and different Palestinian leadership,
so that a Palestinian state can be born."
This formulation recognizes that the United States cannot
jump-start the peace negotiations as long as Yasser Arafat, the
principal architect of Palestinian terrorism, continues to dominate
Palestinian politics.
By calling on the Palestinian people "to elect new leaders, not
compromised by terror," Bush identified the chief obstacle to peace
and placed the onus clearly on the Palestinians to take action to
halt terrorism. Bush also placed Israel's struggle against
Palestinian terrorism in the context of the global war against
terrorism. He noted that: "To be counted on the side of peace,
nations must act" and he specifically called on all nations to take
action against Hamas, Palestine Islamic Jihad, and Hezballah -
three terrorist groups who seek to destroy Israel.
Bush also warned Syria that it must "choose the right side in
the war on terror by closing terrorist camps and expelling
terrorist organizations." This is a well-chosen target for American
pressure because Syria is the most important frontline Arab state
that still supports terrorism against Israel. An end to Syrian
support for Palestinian terrorism would help change the balance of
power within the Palestinian camp and make it easier for
Palestinian pragmatists to oust radicals still wedded to terrorism
as a political strategy.
The President also called on Israel to make some hard
sacrifices, notably a return to the military positions that existed
before the outbreak of the intifadah in September 2000, an end to
new settlement activity in the disputed territories, and ultimately
a return to the "land for peace" deal envisioned under U.N.
Resolution 242. But significantly, the Israelis won't be asked to
surrender further land until the Palestinians have demonstrated
that they are capable of delivering peace. This places the
immediate burden on the Palestinians to break with Yasser Arafat's
failed policies and cooperate in building a genuine peace in order
to obtain a state of their own. Such an outcome would be a huge
step in the right direction.
James
Phillips is a Research Fellow at The Heritage
Foundation