Writing in the Washington Post today, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel pulls his head out of his own ass long enough* to announce that negotiating for peace with a bloody, butchering, ratfaced terror monger is in everybody’s best interest:
Young Palestinians need to see their future in a peaceful, fully functioning state with economic opportunities and democratic institutions. If they do not, and instead see violence and destruction as the only way forward, the long-term consequences will be great. We could lose the next generation of Arab and Muslim youth and the future of the Middle East to radical politics and anti-Americanism.
Such a development would destabilize our allies, including Israel, and threaten relationships vital to America’s global interests.
This is all the more reason why we cannot hold the Middle East peace process hostage by making Yasser Arafat the issue. The United States cannot excuse Arafat for his failings as a leader, his complicity in terrorism, and his inability to make the tough choices for peace. The Palestinian people and our friends in the Arab world have paid the price for Arafat’s corruption, intrigues and limitations. They know their future does not lie with Arafat.
But if we are serious about reform in the Palestinian Authority, then we must allow the Palestinians and the Arabs to deal with Arafat. Credible alternative Palestinian leadership will not step forward in response to a perceived American-Israeli demand for Arafat’s removal. Change must come from within [my emphases]
Newsflash, Chuck. We are serious about reform in the Palestinian Authority. And we are allowing the Palestinians and the Arabs to deal with Arafat. We’ve simply said that we won’t. And so the Palestinian people are being given a grown-up’s choice. Option one: you want our help? — ditch the thieving butchering autocrat and we’ll talk. The upshoot will lead to a Palestinian state. Option two: you want to keep the thieving butchering autocrat and continue with your plan to drive Israel into the sea? — that’s your business, but we have every intention of letting Israel defend herself. And we help our allies in their time of need.
Senator Hagel writes:
The United States must lead a diplomatic process to break the endless cycle of violence and get to the end game — an independent Palestinian state and security for Israel. We cannot wait until Palestine is a full-blown Jeffersonian democracy before getting on with a peace process.
Israel must take steps to show its commitment to peace.
Statements like these lead one to wonder where Hagel’s been keeping himself these past 10 years. Although I suppose it’s easy to miss a decade’s worth of US diplomatic work and Israeli concessions if, as I say, you’ve had your head tucked up your own rectum…
*Rumor has it he saw a shadow, but that it was Colin Powell’s and not his own. Which I’m pretty sure means ten more years of Arafat rule…
Punxsutawney Chuck states unsurprisingly,”hey, it’s dark in here.”
The U.S. is free to deal with or not deal with Arafat as it chooses. But the President’s offer that the replacement of Arafat will result in peace, liberty, and security for Palestinians is something that is hard for them to credit.
By demanding a new Palestinian leader, Bush’s message to the Palestinians is that the major obstacle to peace has come from them, and not the other side.
This is a widely held view, sure. But there is a Palestinian narrative to the contrary. Bush, in his speech, and in his policy decisions, has essentially adopted the Israeli narrative. No significant policy out of Washington has acknowledged the just concerns of Palestinians—such as continued building of settlements and bypass roads—and demanded that they be addressed.
The U.S. will engage when the Arafat issue has been addressed, which meets an Israeli concern. But no similar ultimatum has been given to the other side.
If you believe that the settlements etc. are justified, then you won’t mind this. But the Palestinians see this as evidence that the U.S. doesn’t view their concerns as legitimate. They view the U.S.’s apparently uncritical adoption of the Israeli point of view as a sign of bias—and therefore, they don’t credit offers from the President.
If Bush is starting out biased, then what can Palestinians really expect to gain by accommodating him? He will approach every future issue with the same biases.
There may be good reasons for Palestinians to elect a new leader, but the way that Bush has presented his demand makes it clear that the Palestinians will be fighting an uphill battle with the U.S. administration every step of the way, on every issue to come.
That’s one way of reading it, Jim. But another way is that this President won’t put up with the plan to drive Israel into the sea.
In short, it’s time for the Palestinian people to adjust their narrative. The new one should read: 10 years and many suicide bombings later, we’re not getting anywhere with violence and a refusal to recognize Israel. And now, we’re not going to get anywhere with Arafat. He hasn’t delivered, and so the U.S. no longer wants to deal with him.
I thought the Palestinians agreed to recognize Israel years ago.
The fact that we are about 10 years post-Oslo and the Palestinians still don’t have a state may be as much a result of Israel’s failure to meet agreed-upon commitments as it is of anything else.
I expect what it comes down to is that I doubt Israel desires to give the Palestinians a state, and you doubt the Palestinians are willing to suffer Israel’s continued existence.
We could each marshall up evidence to support our viewpoint, but there’s plenty of it on both sides. I’m going to go have a burger before the sun sets.