Stardate 20020624.1810

(On Screen): In addition to its implications for the Palestinians directly, the Bush speech sends a message to the Arabs, and it is a distinct slap in the face.

It totally rejects any possibility that the US might change sides and take the Arab point of view in the struggle. It clearly states that Israel is more important to the US than Arab friendship. The US would like to have both, but if the Arabs force us to choose, we'll choose Israel.

I think the message got through loud and clear. For instance, representatives of the Palestinian Authority are reacting negatively to it:

"Palestinian leaders don't come from parachutes from Washington or from anywhere else. Palestinian leaders are elected directly by the Palestinian people. President Yasser Arafat was directly elected in a free and fair election," cabinet minister and chief negotiator Saeb Erekat told CNN.

"The world and President Bush must respect the democratic choice of the Palestinian people."

Sorry, that doesn't play. First off, we think that elections need to be held periodically, not once only with the result being permanent. The only election ever held was more than six years ago; it's time for another. And, that election was less-than-clean, to put it politely. (Mugabe was "elected", too.)

Second, Arafat has not been ruling as a constitutional leader. He is a dictator. He rules autocratically; he's refused to implement a real constitution which would give the Palestinian Parliament anything beyond advisory powers, and has refused to actually give the Palestinian courts any binding powers. Arafat can, in principle, issue any order, have anyone killed or locked up, do anything he wants. The only limits on his power are practical, not legal. Arafat is not a "President". Not in the sense that we use the term.

Third, we don't have to respect anything. Respect is earned, and any respect that the Palestinians may have been entitled to has long since been squandered.

There's another group that got its nose pushed in, this time inside the US government. The State Department was pushing for a fixed timetable for establishment of a Palestinian State, and it's clear that Bush came down four-square against that. Far from a timetable, all progress towards a Palestinian State will be conditional on cessation of violence and major reforms, no matter how long that takes. This is, reportedly, yet another defeat for Colin Powell. I don't wish Powell ill, but I'm glad it landed this way, and it lends urgency to the need for a new Secretary of State who will houseclean the State Department. And it is to Bush's credit that he made a firm decision on one side instead of trying to compromise.

There was this comment from an Egyptian in Washington:

"The Arab world will not sleep tonight," said Mohamed el-Sayed Said, Washington bureau chief for the Egyptian daily Al-Ahram, after watching Bush's 20-minute address from the White House Rose Garden.

"He practically demanded the removal of Arafat, the symbol of Palestinian unity," he said. "The Palestinians have elected Arafat and they will elect him again. If the Palestinians re-elect Arafat, are they going to be punished?"

In the election which Bush says that the Palestinians have to hold, they'll be presented with choices. Each choice they make will have consequences, and they will have to accept the consequences of whatever decision they make. That's not punishment, that's life in the real world. That's accepting responsibility for your own fate, that's giving up the cult of victimhood and the cult of entitlement.

If the Palestinians choose Arafat again, then they will have chosen to continue suffering. It's their choice to make, and they will be responsible for the outcome.

On the other hand, I do not understand Arafat's personal response to this. I'm completely mystified by it.

In a statement, Arafat said the Palestinian leadership welcomes Bush's ideas "and finds them to be a serious effort to push the peace process forward."

"The Palestinian leadership and President Arafat hope that the details will be discussed during the direct and bilateral meetings with the American administration" and international mediators, the statement said.

For one thing, it looks like he's trying to pull a fast one by conning the US into starting to negotiate with him again immediately, even though the US says that he's out. But I don't think that's really it.

I can conclude is that he realizes that if he rejects this, then he loses all remaining credibility with everyone, even those who are half-heartedly supporting him now. For instance, this might be enough to convince the EU to stop sending him money.

But I think the real point is that he's reduced to desperation at this point. This announcement today is of a piece with his acceptance of the Clinton proposal last week. The situation is that he feels isolated and sidelined and wants to get back into the game. Somehow. Anyhow. No-one will talk to him anymore, and he can't do anything until they start again. He needs to be treated as a head of state by international powers and these kinds of things are pretty much his only hope of it.

He's trying to avoid becoming irrelevant, even though that was the essence of today's speech by Bush. He's wriggling and squirming; the great survivor is looking for a way to stay in the game. I seriously hope that he fails.

I think we can make some guesses pretty certainly. The Israelis will be very enthusiastic about this proposal. It's going to be viciously condemned in the Arab capitols. There will be a retaliatory suicide bombing in Israel within the next couple of days, just to "send a message" of defiance (about this and also about Israel's new campaign to clean out Gaza).

For me the wildcard is European reaction. I can't predict it. Though this speech was uncharacteristically blunt, and though it was also uncharacteristically non-evenhanded, even so what it says really makes a great deal of sense if you don't have an agenda (as the Arabs have) and it may be that the Europeans will support this. On the other hand, it's possible that their general approach of trying to suck up to the Arabs plus their attempts to try to differentiate their foreign policy from that of the US so as to avoid being seen as a me-too may lead them to find some way of partially condemning it in a fashion which doesn't totally alienate Washington.

Something along the lines of "Pretty good try, cowboy. Not bad for an uneducated amateur. But if you'd consulted we sophisticated Europeans we'd have told you that you need to be a bit more evenhanded and that the Palestinians should be given the run of their homelands first, before being forced to do anything else. See, Arabs? See? We're on your side, so please don't attack us or cut off our oil."

Actually, I think that there isn't going to be any unity in the response out of Europe. It's going to be different in different places. I think it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that the most wholehearted support will come from London and the loudest criticism from Paris and Brussels. Aside from that, I really am not sure.

There's one other country, one other person, which is a recipient of a clear message through this speech, and that's Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. This represents a complete rejection of Abdullah's own proposal for peace, which placed the onus for most initial concessions on Israel. And it's a complete repudiation of his attempts to make the US more sympathetic to the Arab point of view with respect to the struggle in Israel. (And equally to Mubarek's comparable attempts.) It sends a message that the US is probably also not going to be sympathetic on other issues of interest to Saudi Arabia, such as the anticipated attack on Iraq which Abdullah strongly opposes. I believe that in the long run this will be seen as a critical juncture in Saudi-American relations and will lead to a definite cooling and distancing, something I'm all for.