“Peace finally has a chance,” writes James Robbins in The National Review. “On Monday, President Bush announced a bold initiative for Israeli/Palestinian reconciliation, setting forth conditions that should have been set long ago. In so doing, he implicitly rejected the framework established by the 1993 Oslo Accords, and emphasized one point in particular — Yasser Arafat has got to go.”

Okay. But the question is, does Arafat know this. His reaction to Bush’s speech seems to indicate that he’s not at all bothered by the latest statement of policy emanating from the White House — presumably because he’s convinced that he can win any “democratic” election, and so survive the latest round of U.S. pressures. And let’s face it: Bush didn’t mention Arafat by name — one of the few week points to an otherwise fairly forceful policy statement.

For his part, Robbins is less bothered about the nuanced language than I am:

Examine the president’s proposal in detail: ‘Peace requires a new and different Palestinian leadership … I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror. … If the Palestinian people actively pursue these goals, America and the world will actively support their efforts. … And when the Palestinian people have new leaders, new institutions and new security arrangements with their neighbors, the United States of America will support the creation of a Palestinian state.’ There is nothing ambiguous about this. Even the nuanced language of diplomacy cannot explain away such an unequivocal series of statements. President Bush proceeds with Euclidean precision from premise to conclusion. He could not possibly mean that Arafat could continue in office and still benefit from the support of the United States, because the Palestinian president does not meet the two fundamental requirements. First, if ever a leader was ‘compromised by terror,’ Arafat is it. Furthermore, the President asks for new leaders. How can Arafat’s gang miss that point? New, as in, not the guys who are in office now; as in, not you.

Well. The same way you can miss the “peace” in “peace accords,” I suspect…

The radical Hamas group understood the proposal’s conditions very well. They denounced the speech, and pledged to continue terrorist attacks against civilians — which only proves the president’s point. Currently the IDF is carrying out a deadly counterterrorism operation against Hamas, and the group’s leader, Shaykh Ahmad Yasin, is under house arrest in Gaza — an arrest ordered by Arafat and executed by PA security forces. No doubt it is for Yasin’s protection, but this raises the question, if Arafat could take steps against Hamas now, why didn’t he do it sooner? The answer is, because he did not have to.

Arafat is suddenly finding all kinds of motivation. A few hours before the president’s speech he signed a decision to have elections in the PA by the end of 2002 or by March 2003 at the latest. His aides have stated that the elections themselves will fulfill the conditions of the Bush proposal. If Arafat wins, they argue, he will be the ‘new leader,’ with a ‘new government,’ and thus be eligible for support in working towards statehood. However, even if Arafat manages to rig the race, the conditions of the Bush plan would not be fulfilled. The president’s proposal is concerned not with processes but results. Putting the same old terrorist back in charge is not sufficient, regardless of the mechanism used. ‘Reform must be more than cosmetic change or veiled attempt to preserve the status quo,’ the president said. ‘True reform will require entirely new political and economic institutions based on democracy, market economics and action against terrorism.’ President Bush has redefined the terms of debate in a way that excludes Arafat from the discussion, and has, in one motion, brought him to the brink of irrelevance. He has also returned U.S. policy to its moral center by stating definitively that terrorism will not be rewarded. Clearly this is a president more comfortable making history than simply letting it happen.

Provided the U.S. backs Israel’s right to take whatever measures it deems necessary to prevent terrorist attacks in lieu of Palestinian “reform,” I’m comfortable with this speech. But if Israel is required to withstand another wave of attacks from Hamas while showing “restraint” (in deference to some in-the-works reforms), well, then that’s simply unacceptable at this point.

If the U.S. steadfastly refuses to discuss the idea of a Palestinian state so long as terrorist attacks continue (no matter who by) — and if Bush and Powell can resist the temptation to hamstring IDF countermeasures to such attacks (however severe) — then eventually the Palestinian people themselves (one hopes) will force an end to the culture of the suicide bomber, recognizing as they must its utter failure as a viable strategy. But if the U.S. wobbles, this latest speech — as powerful as it now appears — will be just more hot air.

Let’s just say that my position on this — like Bush’s plan for a Palestinian state — is extraordinarily provisional…

[Related: Den Beste has some thoughts here , here, and finally here. He also provides links to other commentary on the Bush speech; for a less sanguine view of the speech, see Charles Johnson, et al, and Daniel Pipes’ National Post commentary, “Bush is rewarding terrorism.” Here’s a bit:

U.S. President George W. Bush has been adamant since Sept. 11 about stopping terrorism, but he took a firm step in the opposite direction in his speech yesterday.

He should have told the Palestinians clearly and unequivocally that their 21-month campaign of violence against Israel is unacceptable and must conclude before any discussion of rewards can be started. Instead, the President outlined his vision for a ‘provisional’ Palestinian state and demanded an end to what he called ‘Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories.’ Both of these constitute very major benefits to the Palestinians; as such, they represent rewards for suicide bombings, sniper attacks, and the other forms of terrorism.

Admittedly, Bush set the hurdles high. But Pipes is right that any official mention of a Palestinian state might be rightly viewed as a concession to the terror strategies of the Intifadas.]