Stardate 20020625.1030 (discuss)

(Captain's log): OK, I've slept on it and considered it more, and I believe I understand yesterday's speech better now.

Bush has, for the second time, made his enemies an offer they can't accept. He did this last September, too. After the bombing but before we began operations in Afghanistan, there was clamor internationally to do anything at all to prevent that operation. "Negotiate! Negotiate!" was the call from the bleachers. So Bush laid out a position to the Taliban: give us bin Laden, eject al Qaeda, and we'll leave you alone. Since, as we now know and as I believe Bush had been told then, bin Laden actually had bought the Taliban government and was the shadow power behind the throne, that was something that the Taliban could not do. They tried to find ways out, such as offering to put bin Laden on trial in Afghanistan if the US would provide evidence, but the US demand was unwavering. The result was war.

If you are too wedded to negotiation as the end-all and be-all of international relations, your opponents can use that to create perpetual stalemate through negotiations that accomplish nothing. This kind of offer is the way to end that.

That's what's going on this time, too. This wasn't a speech about peace; it was preparation for war. It wasn't a peace plan, it was a plan to cease efforts at peacemaking. It wasn't engagement by the US, it was a decision by the US to disengage.

Most important of all: it wasn't about Israel and the Palestinians; it was about World War III, the war which began last September.

I have often contended here that in the long run peace in Israel isn't possible until there has been wholesale change in much of the rest of the Arab world. I believe that what we saw yesterday was indications that this is also now this administration's policy.

With the wind-up of the action in Afghanistan, it's been widely speculated that the next military operation in which we'd engage would be an invasion of Iraq. The Arab nations (and Iran) oppose this. Needless to say, Saddam in particular takes a very dim view of this prospect. They've been trying to prevent it, and one of their tactics has been to stir up trouble in Israel in hopes of distracting the US, while trying to push the idea that the US can't attack Iraq until after the situation in Israel has been stabilized.

Yesterday's speech rejected that principle. In my forum, Cali Dan wrote what I think is the most concise summary of the true message of yesterday's speech I've seen anywhere:

I have no idea if Bush knows what he's doing or not, but I do know that the ideas he presented in his speech are the correct ones. For months, people have been saying "What's America going to do about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?" and "America will need to deal with the Palestinian situation before Iraq can be dealt with".

Bush's response -- and therefore, in theory, the United States' response, since the President sets foreign policy -- is "we're not doing a damned thing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict until the Palestinians get their shit together... and if you think this will stop us from going after Iraq you're nuts. Oh, and you other quasi-fascist Arab nations better watch your ass, too."

Except that I would go a little further. Bush and his advisors know full well that the changes he demanded from the Palestinians won't happen, but what yesterday's speech means is that because of that, the US won't have to engage in futile peacemaking because it can blame the Palestinians for failing to satisfy American conditions for such peacemaking.

Yesterday's speech said that any negotiations with the Palestinians as they are now is a waste of time, and the US won't make any further attempts.

So let's try some questions and answers, shall we?

How does this bring pe