(Post)Haste makes Waste
Earlier
Ted and
Fred noted Jim Hoagland's recent column, "
Fences and Fairness."
While Hoagland states that he doesn't begrudge Israel's right to defend itself, he argues that President Bush should set limits and not allow PM Sharon to take the self-defense too far.
Bush must establish a new sense of balance in U.S. relations with Israel. Fairness and practicality, as well as Israel's ability to go to Congress and over the head of any president, require Bush not to pretend he can force Sharon to act against Israel's perceived security needs. But Bush should be able to right a tilt gone too far.
This does not mean bashing Israel for protecting itself. The United States was virtually alone, and absolutely right, in voting against a U.N. General Assembly resolution last week that condemned the security "fence" that Israel is building around the West Bank. The one-sided resolution ignored the inhuman terrorist provocations that gave rise to the concept of a protective string of walls, buffer zones, watchtowers, electronic monitors and other devices to combat infiltration by suicide bombers.
That negative U.S. vote now obligates the Bush White House to make sure that the security system is just that and nothing more. So does America's moral compass.
As it has snaked deeper into the West Bank, the fence has increasingly taken on the appearance of an instrument intended to atomize the Palestinians physically and politically, rather than simply to restrict them.
It also would entrench key Israeli settlements so firmly that a peace agreement could not easily dislodge them. The security zone's course is a statement that Sharon is building a wall to foreclose a meaningful territorial compromise, not to facilitate that compromise.
After ten years of Palestinian perfidy and failure to live up to any of the obligations it occurred by signing different treaties, I fail to understand why a Palestinian state in all of Judea, Samaria and Gaza is still held as sacrosanct. The PA's bad faith should be punished. If that means that it has less land to form its government on what is wrong with that? If every terror attack was met with concrete consequences then the PA may have stopped them long ago. (Then again maybe not.) If the cost to the PA for its war against Israel is the entrenchment of Ariel is that so unfair? If it means that civilians near Kalkilya are inconvenienced is that worse than the hundreds of dead that necessitated Israel's building the fence? No and No.
For too long Palestinian terror has been treated as a necessary cost of making peace. Now Israel is starting to treat it as enemy action that contradicts the tenets of peace making. If President Bush is to be consistent with his own beliefs he should be leaving Israel's decisions about how to fight its war on terror up to PM Sharon. America doesn't need to be balanced. It needs to say that one side is right and one side is wrong. And until the latter changes, we will support the former's actions unconditionally.
Hoagland's criticism wasn't the only one in the Post in recent days. There was also Jackson Diehl's predictable "
A Better Road Map"
In it Diehl extolls the Nusseibeh-Ayalon initiative to peacemaking. He also praises the Geneva agreement. (Hmmm did he note that former PM Barak criticized Beilin et al? Nope.)
Diehl starts by telling us that the terms of peace between Israel and the Palestinians are clear:
History, demography and the landscape actually make the available deal obvious to anyone not blinkered by hatred or ideology. Palestine will be created in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, minus a few small pieces of West Bank land adjacent to Israel where the vast majority of Jewish settlers now live. Jerusalem will be divided according to its already segregated neighborhoods, with Arab areas becoming part of Palestine, and each nation will exercise sovereignty over its holiest site. Palestinians will give up the claim of refugees to settle in Israel, while Israel will take back most or all of the Jewish settlers left in Palestine. The Palestinian state will be demilitarized, and Israel will have special security guarantees, such as the ability to maintain early warning stations and, perhaps, an international force to monitor the borders.
That presumes, of course, that the issue is borders and not Israel's existence. If it's Israel's existence then no number of compromises will make the Palestinian accept Israel. It's ideological to assume that Israeli compromise will bring peace. It's the discredited ideology of Peace Now. If such compromises would bring peace there would have been an agreement in July 2000.
Further on Diehl tells us:
So why hasn't the deal happened? The largest reason is bad leadership. Palestinian President Yasser Arafat could have clinched the accord before those 3,000 lives were lost; instead he cynically chose to pose for history as a revolutionary who never compromised. Arafat's abdication opened the way for Palestinian extremists to launch a new wave of violence against Israel, which in turn brought to power Ariel Sharon -- like Arafat, a septuagenarian dead-ender who won't settle for the available settlement.
Bad leadership? Arafat, many would argue, has been a perfect leader. He has represented his constituents' wishes very effectively. Arafat isn't posing as a revolutionary. He is deeply committed to two things: His own position (ie power and money) and the destruction of Israel. The people who saw him as anything else created a creature that never existed. But the blame for that is not on Arafat but the illusion makers who denied evidence that Arafat was an unreconstructed terrorist.
And is Diehl so certain that PM Sharon will never make a deal? Who dismantled Yamit?
Crossposted on
Israpundit and
Soccer Dad.